Alcyone wrote:
but have it come back to him/her). I'm afraid that intervening directly will come across as pedantic in the narration (but I'm unclear what you mean by "critiquing" so maybe I'm going off on a tangent).
Yes, that's a writer's problem - the challenge of style, I guess.
But if by the end, the author appears to be still okay with Clark Kent as , say a rapist, to use a different example, then I'm less sure. To imply nothing is to condone. Fear of "pedantism" may lead to avoidance of the big issues that were raised earlier in the story.
Yet I still sense that our perceptions would be different if we were talking about the villain's actions. There we don't need to see the bad guy's actions condemned. We know a blood sucking Luthor is evil.
<g>
Which I guess raises a sidebar question:
If Luthor does it, do we automatically read it as bad, evil?
If Clark does the same "it", do we automatically read it as "poor misunderstood baby"?
This of couse leads me back to Lois (staunch defender that I am) I like to think that she stands for truth, justice and all that jazz
So if she caves and winds up with "Evil Clark" then I feel betrayed by the author - I want her to call the guy on his behaviour and walk away. (or drive that stake through his heart to continue the Vampire analogy
)
I guess what I'm saying is I look for some moral and narrative consistency within the context of the story itself.
Sorry for posting so frequently. But these last few threads have touched on some interesting issues.
But I fear I'm raising the whole issue of moral relativism.
c.
