Okay, I'm sticking my neck out again.
First off, let me say that this has
nothing to do with Laura's story. I read through my feedback on part one of Fire and Ice and realized that it was a lot more enthusiastic than the comment I posted in Patrick's thread. I guess that, all things considered, I was delighted by the sheer outlandishness of the Clark-as-a-vampire concept. In general, vampire stories hold no interest to me whatsoever, because the whole idea seems completely unrealistic to me, and moreover I find vampires decidedly unattractive. (So why should I read about critters that I don't like and don't believe in anyway? But then again, why shouldn't others read about vampires that
they believe in them - well, maybe not
really 
- but that they probably find attractive, or at least fascinating?)
Ah, but the reason why I read Laura's fic, in spite of the fact that it is a vampire fic, is of course that it
is a Lois and Clark story! And LnC fics almost always appeal to me, except when they take Lois and Clark where I don't want them to be taken. But my hangups about where Lois and Clark should and should not be taken are
my hangups about them, not sacred laws that must be obeyed by writers posting on these boards. Of course not! (And as for Laura's story, no, it didn't cross any lines for me. I did find it slightly shocking that Clark had killed three people in it, but I could also accept the idea that he wasn't completely responsible for those killings.)
Even so, I want to bring up something that I have a problem with in some of the stories that are posted on these boards. I'm talking about the fact that the Clark Kent of those stories is sometimes seen to behave badly, but I don't always get the impression that the writers disapprove of his bad behaviour. Unlike Patrick, I don't automatically protest if Clark/Superman is portrayed as weak/angry/selfish or morally questionable. I have been disappointed in Superman so many times during my long "career" as a Superman fan that I can easily believe that he is far from perfect. Don't get me wrong. I
love stories where Superman is wonderfully loving and unselfish and good, but I can easily be fascinated by stories where he is a far more questionable character. The problem I sometimes have with such stories is not primarily that Superman behaves badly in them,
but that I sometimes get the feeling that the writer is not criticizing Clark/Superman for his bad behaviour. Let me explain what I mean. Most of you may be aware that I
hate the movie Superman II, because I thought that Superman behaved so nefariously toward Lois in it. He accidentally revealed his double identity to her, and then he quickly shed his superpowers so that he could make love to her. But when he found that he had to have his superpowers back, he erased Lois's memory with a super-kiss, so that she would be clueless about what had transpired between them, and so that she would be as ignorant of his double identity as she had been before.
Ah, but if you add the movie Superman Returns into the mix, there is more to say about morally questionable Superman. In Superman II, our hero promised the President of the United States (or maybe the Secretary General of the United Nations) that he would never let the Earth down again, but instead he would always be there when humanity needed him. But what did he do after that? No more than a couple of months after he had made love to Lois and made the solemn promise to the world leaders he left the Earth altogether, apparently without informing anyone where he was going, and without saying good-bye to Lois. He had also did not ascertain whether or Lois she was pregnant from their lovemaking, which in fact she was. Then he was absent from the Earth for five years, being a total deadbeat Dad the whole time, and when he came back he still didn't tell Lois about his double identity. He also did not offer to help pay for his son's care and upbringing.
Let's return to Superman II and the amnesia kiss. That was an entirely new power on his part, one we had never seen before. And pray tell, how did he do it? Rid Lois's mind of pertinent memory snippets, I mean? He gave her a very erotic kiss and lowered her mental defenses, then he entered her mind, sought out the offending memories about their lovemaking and his secret identity, and erased them. Just like that. When Lois came to, after that supremely erotic kiss, she was her bitchy old self again, as contemptuos of Clark as before. How did he do that? If you watch the movie, you can see that Clark seems to deliberate before he gives Lois that kiss, as if he is asking himself whether or not he should actually do it. But once he has made up his mind, he is perfectly assured and confident. He knows
exactly what he is doing, even though he has
never done anything like that before! How is that possible?
But more importantly, how should that kiss be judged morally? Uninvited and without warning, Clark enters Lois's mind and blots out those of her memories that
he doesn't like. What if such an amnesia-kiss had really been one of Superman's established powers? What if he regularly sneaked kisses on females and removed such memories of theirs that he didn't like? (Maybe even after having sex with them first?) Tampering with the minds of others, anyone?
What pained me most about Superman II was that the movie didn't question or criticize Clark's amnesia-kiss in any way. After Lois's offending memories had been erased and she had staggered off somewhere into the bullpen, she disappeared from the movie altogether. After that, we only saw a happy, smiling Superman, who was completely satisfied with how everything had turned out. The movie gave us no particular reasons to criticize Clark's amnesia kiss
because it didn't show us any negative consequences of that amnesia kiss. And yet those consequences must have been there - for
Lois. Surely she must soon have realized that two days and one night were completely erased from her memory? Please try to imagine what that must have been like for her. Imagine what it would have been like if it had happened to
you. What if the two previous days were just completely gone from your memory? Wouldn't you have panicked?
The movie could have cut between a crying, sobbing, distraught Lois Lane, cowering all alone in her own apartment, and a victorious, smiling Superman, flying triumphantly across the sky, waving the American flag. Such a cross-cutting between a broken Lois and an elated Superman would have constituted a rather harsh indictment of Superman's treatment of Lois. Alternatively, a sorrowful Superman could have been seen hovering above Lois's apartment, listening to Lois's sobs. That would have shown us that Superman was sorry about the hurt he had inflicted on Lois.
But the movie didn't waste time looking at how Lois was affected by her shocking amnesia. The movie effectively told us that Lois didn't matter. All that mattered was that Superman was victorious, and that he could soar above us, now that he had overcome both females and foes. By not acknowledging the pain that Superman inflicted on Lois when he gave himself the right to rob and rape her mind, the movie added insult to injury.
To me, the ugliest and most heartbreaking thing about Superman II is that it doesn't criticize Superman for what he did to Lois. Similarly, I'm often frustrated by LnC stories where Clark behaves badly (at least in my opinion, though others may not agree), but where the writer does not seem to criticize Clark for it.
But when all is said and done, this is just my opinion. And like I said, others may think that Clark was completely justified in doing things that made me fume and swear.
However, you writers, are readers such as myself justified in asking you to criticize someone like Clark more severely when his behaviour is selfish or otherwise bad? I know, I know: you are absolutely not
required to pass judgement on Clark, no matter how he behaves. Do
I have the right to criticize him all the more severely in my FDK, if I think that you haven't blasted him harshly enough for his behaviour in your stories? What do you think?
Ann
