Just as every writer begins with certain preconceptions about the characters of Lois and Clark in his/her story, every writer also begins with certain preconceptions of what is "right," what is "wrong," and what is "acceptable under the circumstances." I believe that this discussion is very enlightening - and extremely well-mannered, too. Kudos to all who've remained calm and eloquent in this thread (and that would be everybody whose comments I've read).
Should Clark suffer for the "bad" things he does? That depends on the context of both the story and the worldview of the author. If the writer's worldview demands immediate and direct retribution for evil deeds, then yes, Clark should have a kryptonite anvil drop on his head whenever he makes Lois cry. But if the writer doesn't buy into an absolute moral code and believes that there is no absolute right and wrong, then the only retribution Clark might suffer is either from society or from his own conscience.
I know, those are pretty much two opposite poles, but I get the feeling that some readers would like for Clark to get zapped instantaneously for everything "bad" he does, irrespective of how we define that "bad" thing. That's okay. If it's delayed a bit, maybe it will make his comeuppance sweeter when it does come around. And for the readers who are willing to excuse Clark for almost anything he does, then maybe no retribution is necessary beyond his loss of sleep over his actions. Hey, everybody's different.
I happen to agree with Ann about the dishonest ending to Superman II. I also agree that it's not something that should be discussed to death here. "Our" Clark probably wouldn't do something like that, anyway. But if he does, we'll keelhaul him!
Or maybe we'll forgive him. It all depends, doesn't it?
