I hope your back is less painful this morning, ML, and that you did manage to get some sleep.
----
ML's example works really well.
[QUOTE] 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. "
_________________________________
-- Also, Clark 'punishes' Lois at the end of that episode by sending her on a wild goosechase to the city dump in search of Superman and when we see her she's a mess, shoe broken, scratching. She then tells him he was right. (huge paraphrase of her dialogue there) But we don't feel badly for her - we knows she deserves it. Nor do we label Clark's action as 'bad' (or 'mean' which is a better word here) because Lois acted (and acted 'badly"' (ie unethically) first. And because their initial 'bad' acts were no so very bad
Now, of course if we were strict moral abosolutists we would slam them both but we don't, we cut them both a bit of slack - Lois because of her contrition and Clark because he's rebalancing the power between them.
Terry raised the point about whether we're moral absolutists or moral relativists. But I don't think most of us are either one or the other all the time. It probably depends on whether the 'bad' action is a misdemeanor or a serious crime, like murder. By the end, I suspect most readers want to feel the consequences have fit the crime, and restitution has been made to innocent victims' and or their families. rather than finishing the story with the sense that the character was given a free pass and actually got rewarded.
I'd better add that that last statement applies only to the main protagonist, the one who the reader is supposed to buy as 'the good guy'.
Otherwise we're left with the Mersault shrug at the act of killing.
which is okay in serious literature but this fanfic we're talking:)
Yes, I know that's a double standard, but there it is.
Sometimes , though, I get the feeling that some readers and writers are moral absolutists when it comes to Lois Lane, but moral relativists when it comes to Clark Kent.
I think ML's point gets at it - we're looking to see some sense of balance or justice by the end of the story or feeling that the author's universe is operating in a fair way - the 'bad' guy doesn't get the 'good' ending.
Although it's interesting to know what an author says outside the story about what his/her intentions in writing the story - eg that Clark is a good guy, what really counts is what the writer has actually written in the story (and also *not* written},
As well it matters how the reader perceives what the characters were doing in the story. Which means , I guess , there are often two stories - the one the writer believes s/he's writing and the one a reader is reading. Every once in a serendipitous while the two are the same.
Think i've segwayed with that last paragraph.
and missed up the quote function pretty badly.
c.
edit (for more than typos, I mean - I'd somehow missed Arawn's post, but just read it now - he's put the dilemma of Clark's character and circumstances so well.
)
