My back is bothering me tonight, so it’s five o’clock in the morning, and I haven’t managed to get any sleep and I'm doped up on pain killers. So don’t expect a lot out of my comments here.
Anyway, interesting discussion - and, as Terry said, very civil - so if no one minds, I’ll add my two cents.
Now, this is slightly off topic, since the topic is about how much we will forgive Clark for. But it's more... the writer's perspective (for what it's worth)
I keep away from omiscent narration like the plague
I agree. I don’t use omniscient narration either. Or at least, I don’t use it a lot. But I don’t think it is necessary to have omniscient thought to convey that bad behavior is... well, bad behavior.(And here, I would simply note that making bad behavior seem... well, bad, doesn’t necessarily, at least to me, mean ‘punishment.’) Let me take an example from the show (and although we are talking about Clark here, this is a Lois example - mainly because I think it shows the way to do this particularly well.)
Okay, I suspect most of us would say that Lois was behaving badly when she stole Clark’s story. Now, we were told by the authors and the actors that Lois was behaving badly because of the following:
1. We hear a conversation between Lois and Lucy where they make it obvious that Lois has been up half the night obsessing over what she did.
2. During that conversation, Lois admits that it was wrong and promises Lucy she will never do it again.
Of course, then we see her unable to apologize to Clark for what she did. But look at Lois’ face as Clark turns around and walks away. She knows in that moment that what she did was wrong - and even that her comments to Clark were wrong.
So do you have to use the omniscient voice to convey wrongdoing? No. All you need is to have someone recognize that it was wrong. Now, in writing, we can’t make the best use of facial expressions, but we certainly have something that television doesn’t have - we can make use of internal thoughts. And we still have dialogue.
I also think that sometimes this comes across as not trusting the writer.
I don’t think it’s a matter of trust.
I mean, I’m not a professional writer. Most of us aren’t. So sometimes we miss things. Even if, in our own minds, we had a reason for a character to do something, we might well forget to put it in the story. So if Clark is behaving badly, I think it is fair for someone to point that out and ask: “Why?”
So... In my opinion, don’t assume that the writer (assuming that writer is me) knows what she is doing. I probably didn’t even think about your concern and have to stop and ask myself: “Why is Clark behaving badly?” Or... maybe I have thought about your concern and all will be explained later. In which case, as I say to my beta readers all the time... Keep reading. Or maybe I have thought about it and completely forgot to put it in the story (yes, trust me, that happens a lot, too).
Now the writer also has the right to say: “I don’t have to explain to you why Clark is behaving badly” or “I don’t have to even acknowledge that Clark is behaving badly.” That is certainly their ‘right’. On the other hand, as a reader, I’m probably going to feel as if the story... didn’t quite do it for me. I’m left with just too many loose ends and questions (ie. Why didn’t Clark realize that what he did was wrong? Or why did Lois fall in love with him?).
So the question the writer has to ask themselves is: “What do I want to leave the reader with?” If you want to leave your reader with questions, that is certainly fine. If you want to leave the reader with the feeling that they buy your story, then it’s up to you to sell it.
Anyway, just my thoughts (after a night of no sleep).
ML
