Like I said in my post, I haven't read the prequel so I don't know the specifics of the murder. So if that's what you're specifically referring to, feel free to ignore my reply.
I'm not so sure, simply because it's murder we're talking about rather than a 'there was no other choice' killing. And a vicious murder at that. So what I'm thinking is that a character capable of that act would not be beating himself up psychologically after the fact.
So wait, what you're saying is that if Superman were to lose his cool and kill someone he wouldn't regret it (regardless of the viciousness)? He wouldn't feel horrible about it after all was said and done?
Unless it was premeditated and I don't see how regret can be avoided there either... I'm parting from the premise that he avoids going too far at all cost and something like this brings into question who he thought he was among other things (his upbringing, etc). I mean fundamentally Superman is moral (the natural conflict when he acts immorally), so something like this would always be a huge deal.
To have the character do so would be inconsistent with the new personality developed for the character in that particular story.
Again if this is Terry's fic (and I suspect it is), then I don't have the background to comment. If it isn't I'd like to point out that you're assuming that simply by adding murder to the mix you're changing the character to create a new one. This to me sounds like a variation of the "Superman would never kill" camp.
I don't see it that way. Murder does not necessarily equal a complete personality change where an otherwise moral person would not regret the event. Even in "self defense" situations, I see regret as fundamental to being someone with any sort of feeling (and not psychologically disturbed which is another can of worms). You might not regret protecting yourself, but you might regret having to go that far. The same holds even more in crimes of passion, where afterwards the weight of the events would presumably be heavier because it was "temporary insanity." Don't crimes of passion or whatever tend to be much more gruesome than other crimes? If pushed too far people can do really horrible things. That doesn't mean that they don't regret it once they realize what has happened.
So the edginess, if you will, comes not from creating a Clark Kent who is capable of a vicious murder, etc, but from staying within the logic of that new character.
That's not my definition of edginess. There's a fine line between "new character" (which is I guess another word for OOC) and pushing existing characterizations to the limit. It depends on how conservative a reader about a given event. Obviously if a reader can't ever concieve of X event in the character no matter what then it follows that a new personality be needed in order for him/her to be all right with it.
But that's not how I see it. The creation of new character is not so exciting to me. I love it more than anything when a writer takes us through the steps and shows what can make a canon character make a huge decision and later on what that means to the character as the consequences unfold. Keeping the character recognizable throughout something like this takes a lot of delicacy and skill, not to mention bravery because not everyone will be convinced. I am aware however that this can go either way and that it's kind of ridiculous to pretend that there is an objective division between OCC/new character and edgy characterizations-- it largely the depends on how a person reads.
