Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Can Superman do the wrong thing? And should he be punished for it? (Re: Terry's fic)

I just found this thread, and I'd like to drop my two cents worth in here, since apparently I've set off yet another firestorm on the boards.

Could Superman kill? This is a touchy subject. Many people have differing views on this (just look above), but I’m going to base my response on the TV series and its episodes, and I plan to present my case by asking and answering a few questions (not unlike a court of inquiry).

Did Clark (as either of his public personalities) ever deliberately take a life?

No. Never happened.

Did Clark (as either himself or as Superman) ever threaten anyone’s life?

Yes.

When Luthor came to Clark to find Lois (who was then singing as Wanda Detroit), Clark told Luthor that if Luthor had hurt Lois, Clark would go through him if necessary to defend her. Luthor asked Clark if that was a threat. Clark didn’t deny it, and in fact sounded like he really meant it.

Here’s the dialogue from the DVD (Double Jeopardy, #16).

CK: I don’t know yet what you’ve done to her, but I will find out. And I WILL bring Lois back. If I have to right through you to do it, I will. I promise you.

LL: My, my, that sounds like a threat, Clark.

You would be correct in protesting that Clark didn’t actually kill Luthor. You might also protest that Clark was speaking in hyperbole, making a threatening statement when he had no intention of following through on it.

I don’t see it that way. Clark didn’t use hyperbole in anything else, whether speaking or writing as himself or as Superman. His character wasn’t given to empty threats or hollow speech. If he said something, you could take it to the bank. I believe that, given the proper circumstances, Superman (or Clark, if you prefer) would be capable of killing Lex Luthor to protect Lois.

This is, of course, my opinion, and that doesn’t mean you have to agree with me. You’re free to disagree with me about this fictional character.

Let’s ask one more question, shall we?

Did Clark (or Superman) ever take a life during the course of the show?

Yes, he did. On two occasions during Season Three.

In the episode “Ordinary People,” Superman redirected a flow of liquid nitrogen onto Spencer Spencer, Dr. Pescado, and Nurse Heidi. Admitedly, they were trying to kill him and probably would have killed Lois soon afterward, so one might conceivably claim self-defense, but his actions directly resulted in the deaths of those three people when the ice that held them shattered under gunfire which he allowed to ricochet off his invulnerable body. We can speculate that he believed that he might revive them after all the action was finished, much as he had recently revived Lois, but the circumstances were different. Being chilled by frigid air is not the same as being frozen by liquid nitrogen. They were not simply encased in ice, they were frozen into ice themselves. These folks were people-cicles (and were quite dead) long before the ice was shattered. And Superman did it.

As much as we might wish to ignore this episode, it’s obvious that Superman killed three people. It was not done with malice aforethought, nor was it done deliberately, but it was done.

The second instance was during the episode “It’s A Small World.” Annette Westman (who had just tried to murder Lois) was pushed into a wall by the couch shoved across the room (which was propelled by a tiny Superman) and was drenched by her own shrinking potion. She shrank out of sight and was never seen or heard from again.

Did Superman deliberately kill her? No. But he did directly cause her death. Even if she survived being shrunk so small, she’d be prey for any small insect with a taste for fresh meat. No court (at least, in the episode) ever looked into her actions in shrinking and kidnapping her former classmates or investigated her disappearance, especially Superman’s participation in it. And neither Clark nor Lois ever expressed regret over her death.

I agree that the incidents I’ve mentioned do not represent murder, but I believe that they seriously damage the notion that Superman couldn’t be Superman if he were ever to cause someone’s death. You may, of course, disagree with me. And that’s the beauty of fan fiction. We can write whatever we please, and nobody has to read it or agree with it.

The only other point I'd like to make is that several respondents have tossed the term "murder" around as if it fit anyone who took a life. It does not, no matter what country you're in. Murder is the deliberate taking of a human life, or the taking of a human life during the commission of another felony (such as shooting a guard who tries to stop you from robbing a bank). I hope that, if you post comments about either this story or its predecessor, you will read them. You don't have to agree with my portrayal of the characters, or like what I've written, but I hope that if you do comment, you do it from a position of knowledge instead of presupposition and prejudice.

interesting post, Terry. I thought about some of those incidents as I was writing my earlier posts but was too lazy to look them up.

I'm less certain about whether Clark's using the words would automatically mean he "would walk the talk" though. Also I think it's significant that he used these threats in a limited way, as you point out, - he wanted to protect someone.

Nevertheless, I do agree that Superman could take a life in order to save someone - but I don't think he would deliberately kill someone if there were some other way to save that life. (at least that *he* could come up with - he wasn't MacGyver )

Clark was never an "executioneer", though. He brought the bad guys to law. Once the Bad Guy had been thwarted, that was it. CK/S was never a revenge killer. He wasn't "wired" for the automatic violent response.

Xcully's HoL example is a good one - Clark knew what Luthor was, and, as well, Luthor had just put people Clark cared about through a private hell, and nearly succeeded in killing him. Yet his physical *instinct* was to try to save Luthor. Even when he could have killed Nor, Clark didn't (couldn't?) do it. The instinct to kill wasn't there.

The *instinct* to save is there in Clark Kent though - think of all the automatic quick saves he makes during the course of the show. that's one of the first things we see him doing with the bus in the pilot.

To clarify, I'm one who used the term 'murder', but not to mean anything other than what would be a willful and deliberate act. As you point out, there's a difference between that type of crime, and self-defence or manslaughter or criminal negligence.

I think that's really hard to do because no one is free of either of the latter two. For example, some posters believe that all people are by instinct revenge killers and so that particular "prejudice" or "bias" shapes how they view this issue.

As well, we all have presuppositions about how the characters might act in an unknown situation because of how we've seen them act in L&C:tNAoS. For example, I mentioned Clark's "instinct" to help.

As well, we look at ourselves and say, hey, it's only natural for me to do this, and so therefore it would be natural for Clark or Lois Lane do that. But I'm not sure that sort of personal projection or "prejudice", if you will, is completely valid, either, as a way to judge Clark Kent or Lois Lane or any of the other characters.

As for knowledge - well, can never have enough of that.

One of the images I can't get out of my head is that of those Amish people who lost their daughters to a vicious murderer. There can be no worse thing than to lose a child. And yet their reaction was never less than truly "human".

c.

Wasn't it? I believe we were told (and shown) the exact opposite. From the "Battleground Earth" script:

Later, the duel, and the script says:

This is, in fact, what we were shown on the show, as well. I think it was established that Clark/Superman can and will kill, under certain circumstances. It's canon. It's not out of character at all for L&C:TNAOS's Clark, because the show established it as in character, thereby deviating from the general assumption and rule that "Superman does not kill, period."

Just something to think about.

P.S. Just to add to the list of people whose death Superman has caused: in WIEAK, he was responsible for Patrick Sullivan's demise.

I'm less certain that part of the script proves the "exact opposite". Here's the next part of the script following that quote.
(The military has started firing K gas at Nor and Clark. Lois is urging Clark to get out of there.

form the script:
So at the end, Clark could not kill Nor.

But, as I said above, I do agree that he could kill to protect someone else.

c.

Not once he realized what he'd done, no. But you specifically said "the instinct to kill wasn't there" and I think what occurred here happened very much instinctively. That's even what Clark describes it as: "Kryptonian instincts like that."

So I think that scene proves that he will kill if he's upset enough and forgets what he's doing. There wasn't even an immediate threat to anyone in that scene, save himself. So it can't even be claimed that he was protecting someone in that instant.

Obviously, this is a difficult issue, but I do think that L&C took a different approach to the idea of Superman killing. He did repeatedly cause the death of others and he did not feel/show remorse afterwards.

I wish we had seen him angst over what happened in BE, but we didn't. The show clearly established for me that our Clark, maybe because he's more human than in previous incarnations, is capable of rage that will overcome him so quickly that he will take someone's life. In that instant, he will not be aware of what he's doing, but he will do it. And he will not necessarily be torn up about it later on, as we also saw on the show.

Just my interpretation of the character, of course, but I think it's a logical assumption to make, given the show's canon.

But that threat to himself is significant - Nor would have killed him, and so Clark was fighting for his own life. As well, if Nor lived he was a huge threat to other people. So even had Clark's last blow been a "kill", at that point it would still not have been murder. I haven't been arguing that Clark would or could not kill but that he was not a murderer.

So the instinct to "kill" is not there - but the instinct for self-preservation and to defend and protect is there.

It depends, though, on what you believe his primary goal was in that scene. Was it to save the Earth from Nor and his army or was it simply to kill Nor? of course, he knew that he might have to kill Nor in order to achieve his primary goal, and we can only guess about how he psyched himself to do that before hand, although we saw some of that as Ching coached him earlier.
But we never saw any indication in the show of a rage that would lead Clark to kill just for the sake of killing.

c.

Oh glorious canon, you baffle me at times. It's so strange: a guy who gets mad at someone for making a joke about a dead guy (I remember that from the Pilot)--but is pretty apathetic about his own involvement in someone's death. Maybe it's just me, but I thought he would be more sensitive than that. Ah well. Guess that was some bias right there.

Stepping outside for a minute--it could also be that it being a family show, showing remorse would make the events somehow more dark than we're being led to take them. In the most extreme example mentioned above-- the lady shrinks. She _shrinks_. Remorse over that would be kind of hard to take seriously...well at least for me.

*shrug*

The nature of the show I think is key in considering why...

Or to parraphrase "a rage that would strip Clark of all rationality."

I *don't* hold this as an absolute either (that he would go murderously crazy if something horrible happened). All I'm saying is that I'm okay with either way, as long as I'm led carefully he'll still be "Clark" to me.

lol - i wrote a fanfic about that theme once.

c.

Carol wrote:
I'd like to clarify my initial statement. What I should have written was that I hoped people would comment from a position of knowledge (specifically about my stories) instead of posting without that knowledge.

Carol also wrote:

For those who may not be as familiar with this aspect of the story, the Amish parents went to the family of the man who murdered their children and offered both physical and spiritual comfort to them. They never behaved any way other than completely loving to that family, and not only did the Amish offer food and forgiveness, they maintained their contact and continued to offer their assistance.

I have to disagree with Carol. This is not a "human" reaction. A truly human reaction would have been to accuse, villify, or otherwise heap abuse on that family. Perhaps the "human" reaction would have included revenge killings carried out either singly or en masse. The "human" reaction would have been violent and sudden and would have continued the cycle of pain for generations. And if you don't believe me, all you have to do is look at Northern Ireland or the Middle East or China or Kentucky (where the Hatfields and McCoys still struggle with the fallout from their famous feud, even though they don't shoot at each other any more) or any number of other places around the globe where people react to insult and injury with greater insult and greater injury.

The reason the Amish did not react as "normal humans" would is because of their Biblically-based faith in God. They themselves would tell you that they aren't special people, but that they are called to behave towards their neighbors in a special way, in order to show others who their Master really is.

Whether one believes that humankind is inherently evil, inherently good, or inherently neutral, one cannot view our world without seeing terrible conflicts all around. Humanity's history is one of warfare and conquest, interspersed with little pockets of peace here and there. Yet we strive on, reaching for something better, something more.

In many ways, Superman embodies this "something better" in our culture. So many of our fellow readers view Superman as an immutable moral standard in and of himself that any tarnishing of that image is rejected out of hand. Yet, despite his great power and greater potential, Clark is still a flawed human. He has the same kinds of weaknesses each of us do, and if we can see him overcome not only a flaw in his character but see him overcome the negative consequences of a serious mistake, we may all be encouraged to do better, to be better, next time temptation comes knocking on our door.

Hope this spreads balm and not cayenne pepper.

I was not arguing that he was capable of murder, either. Just that he was capable of killing.

If what Ching said was correct, then there was no room in Clark's mind for anything but "the kill." That, in my opinion, includes concern for the welfare of others.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of that scene, Carol. I think it revealed a dark side of Clark that we hadn't seen before. Maybe the writers realized that and that's why we weren't shown the emotional aftermath. It would have, as alcyone said, made the scene more significant. In my opinion, it's still a significant scene, even if the writers kind of sidestepped the issue.

Gotta love characterisation and ethics discussions.

Terry wrote with respect to my comment about the Amish:
So elaborating:
What i meant by human is that how they acted was truly "good" and so, imo, at that moment they were embodying the full potential of what it is to be human. They weren't acting in response to animal instincts, but as fully actualized moral beings.

In their place, I couldn't have done that, I don't think.

I see the Hatfields and McCoys et al differently , as well. That's inhumanity at work- animal instincts in the drivers' seat, not humanity.

(And my apologies to animal lovers here - Lassie was a truly fine human being as everyone knows )

Terry also wrote:
"Yet, despite his great power and greater potential, Clark is still a flawed human."

Totally agree and have never suggested otherwise. That's one of the aspects of L & C that I especially liked. In fact, have written fics about 'flawed Clark' ( and flawed Lois, too <g>) as have so many other writers on these boards.

CA wrote:
To some extent I agree, but I don't think that was any darker than a soldier knowing he might have to kill in order to stop an enemy soldier's attack. Not going to argue that those two soldiers represent mankind at his finest , nor that I don't see that violent struggle as dark, but I don't see it as *especially* dark. What I would see as dark is if once a soldier had wounded his enemy and thus stopped the attack, he then slit the man's throat. So I was no more surprised by Clark's going into that battle with Nor, being aware that he would have to kill Nor than a police-officer going to a violent, in -process crime or a soldier on the front lines knowing that he might have to kill someone.

CA - it's interesting how people select different bits of a scene as being *the* significant bit. For example, you see Ching's statement as indicating what Clark was truly about, while I see Clark's very last action with Nor as speaking to what Clark was.

c. (who did read Maysonry of Life and thought Laura was a great villain)