I woke up this morning and had a fuzzy yet apprehensive recollection that I posted some things on the MBs at two o’clock in the morning. Usually, nothing I have to say at two o’clock in the morning that bodes well for my future, so I decided to check and see what kind of possibly offensive and embarrassing inane ramblings I had indulged myself in. It wasn’t bad actually, I sound quite rational for the most part, but this one hit my squirm-alarm:
So it’s one thing to enjoy this kind of unrealistic farcical comedy. It’s a whole other thing to diss Lois’ character because of it. How can you blame a puppet for being puppeteered? It’s irrational!
________________________________________
Hm. Here's where I'm going to have to disagree to save my own reputation. I think it was Ben Jonson that wrote that books and such should be natural in such a way that it catches the essence of human beings and how they would react in certain situations, and that every character should be able to have some reason for what they're doing (even if it's irrational--because heaven knows that people are often plenty irrational). [/QUOTE]
You’re absolutely right to disagree, Smirky! Sheesh, I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that! If I ever argued like that in a school debate, I’d be laughed off the stage!
The actions of every character are driven by their allotted traits and qualities, and those actions in turn shape the character. You can’t really separate the two, no matter how irrational they are, any more than you can in real life. It’s ridiculous to write off the discrepancies between the established traits of a character and their path of action as being solely the fault of the writer which should not have any bearing on our perception of the character itself.
So yes, Lois does have an explanation for her actions. It is their rationality that is under scrutiny. However, the point I was trying to make before my sleep-riddled mind carried me off on a ridiculous tangent, was that in a fictional, fantastic world that operates only on a given value of rationality, can we really measure the events and actions of that world by our own uncomprehending yardstick and come to a definite conclusion about anything? Can we judge the validity of such a fantastically fictional character’s motivations by contrasting them with our ideals in the real world? It’s like a cross cultural divide, of sorts. The culture of the fantastic and inexplicable against the culture of the logical and realistic. With no way of fully comprehending how such a world is supposed to work, how can we either condemn Lois’ character for her blindness or cast it as a reflection of her stupidity? We can only judge the realism of such a plot device and find it wanting.
*reads through the above paragraph and realizes it makes even less sense than before. *
I agree with Ann, all right?! *headdesk*
Anyway, none of this is applicable to DD. One of the reasons that this story is so completely lovable and unique is that you’ve taken the whole of the Superman mythos as a whole and instead of changing it to suit our tastes, you’ve created a setting that infuses the character’s actions with a degree of heretofore unprecedented believability and understanding. In
this story, it’s perfectly understandable why Clark comes across as a bumbling idiot, how Lois could overlook him and love his alter-ego without it casting a negative reflection upon her character. And for the first time, Clark’s deception doesn’t automatically garner a barrage of rotten tomatoes from the audience. We don’t like it, but we do understand it, as we haven’t really done since that plot point was first introduced. I think you should head over to DC Comics and give them a few pointers.
Like Hasini, I think that your take on the Clark/Lois/Superman love triangle is unique. I've long thought that it resembles the classic "Clark-loves-Lois-who-loves-Superman-who-isn't-interested-in-Lois-who-despises-Clark" frustrating love triangle for two. But this chapter showed us something that I can't remember seeing ever before. Not in any of those innumerable comics I have read. Not in any of the movies. Not in the LnC TV show, even though I've really seen so little of it. Rachel, I'm talking about the sweet, intimate, all-defenses-down togetherness between Lois and Superman. I'm talking about Lois and Superman breaking down in a fit of giggles as they are sharing some lovely cheesecake. I'm talking about Lois and Superman snuggling on couch and falling asleep together as they are watching a romantic movie. Really, that has never happened before.
I had initially started off with a spiel about how your Superman was as unique to you as Seigel and Schuster’s, Lester’s, Singer’s and Deborah Joy Levine’s was unique to them. But then I thought I’d scare you by sounding too effusive and cut that part out. But since Ann seems to agree with me, I thought I might as well let you know I thought that.
Right. Nuff procrastinating! I have a history assignment due tomorrow.
Btw, my fic is Woman In The Mirror and the prologue is up. A simple yea or a nay from my favourite writer
would make my day. You are the one who gave me the final push, you know!
Hasini.
