Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Why no "Lois moving on" fics?

Arawn:

I LOVE that statement. I just HAD to say that. <g> And I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's one of the reasons I really like season 4 I think. <shrugs> That and all the waffy love scenes. <g>

Tank,

That is the nature of TV-series, and sure, you can hardly base a verdict on one episode alone. And people seem aware of that. Carol’s point, as I understood, it was that we judge Clark and Lois differently, anomalies or not.

Quite possible, I’m not been a Folc that long, but I’ve noticed that what is considered inconsistent differ very much between different people and sometimes when you get a an “explanation” you can honestly buy it.

For example, many people consider Lois marriage to Luthor out of her character, it never was to me, I found it a quite plausible development given the circumstances, when I explain why, several people seems to agree with me.(probably out of fear ) .

Or take post-contact stories, I found Clark breaking up with Lois for her own good because he couldn’t stand it if Lois got hurt, to be completely nonsensical, yet as premise it is currently en vogue, so apparently it makes sense for others.

Nancy,

There are plenty of moments in S1 where Lois shows kindness, but she does seem to try to hide it, presumably because she believe it makes her look weak.

Gotcha... The ‘Look, there’s an elephant’ fiasco. (That’s what he said to distract the kids while he opened the fire hydrant. It’s not in the script.)


Yes, it is, and we all interpret the characters differently - sometimes VERY differently. Like, for instance, I can’t help but allow my love of all the genres of Superman (LnC is still my favorite) to put a spin on how I see things (much to the chagrin of a few other folks).


I don’t find it out of character either. Lois had given up on love and was willing to ‘settle’ for something less.


Yes, I guess that’s what I getting at.

Aha - thank you. I guess I've tried so hard over the years to block the scene from my memory I did it quite successfully!

LabRat

It's not that it makes sense, it's that it's completely nonsensical -- so people keep trying to fix it

I don't think I've ever read a post-Contact fic which suggested that what Clark did was the right thing to do. (And I can tell ya, when the episode first played, we were all waiting in line to get ourselves kryptonite bats so we could whack some sense into him. )

Is it in character? Sadly, yeah, I think so. He's an idiot on a semi-regular basis, especially when it comes to obsessing and taking too much responsibility and being way too noble for his own good.

But we love him anyway.

PJ

Here, here, Pam!

And this:

So true...


And I totally agree with that, too.

-- DJ

Of course not. Since it doesn’t make any sense. Clark isn’t simply making an error of judgment. He could just a well has said we can’t be together because there are no pink giraffes.
To me it’s a total disconnect.
So when people go after him with kryptonite bats it looks to me like they are hitting a straw man.

There are plenty of reasons I could see Clark breaking up with Lois for disturbing his emotional equlibrium, (several fic have handled this very well) but that ”he couldn’t stand it if she was hurt” isn’t one of them, at least unless he intended to purge her entirely from his life.(Which wasn’t the case)

So what would Clark say if he, as he worried, found her boiled in oil?

–What a tragedy, a good thing I broke up with her otherwise I could never have forgiven myself!?

Whether they are together or not, the risk that Lois ends up in vat of boiling oil would still be there, but of course, as a couple the risk that something like that happened would decrease dramatically.
And when it comes to her being a target for those who wanted to get to Superman that was already a reality.
I can’t see him stop looking after her in either case. And if they became a known couple it should also discourage the notion that Superman is romantically attached to Lois Lane.
Really his concern for Lois saftey is a REASON for WHY they should be together.

Some years ago, my wife and I attended a Trek con in Texas where a panel was discussing upcoming shows and movies. A number of the audience comments had focused on the fans' concern for the "continuity" of the Trek history, and it prompted one man on the panel to stand up and explain something. He said that Paramount (the owner of the Star Trek franchise) wasn't primarily concerned with character development or story continuity or anything else that Trek fans love so much. All they wanted to do was to make money. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If they thought they could make money by making James Kirk a Bolian transvestite with a taste for Rigellian dwarfs, they'd do it.

Some of the comments in this sequence have missed out on this facet of American entertainment. The "powers that be" don't much care about the fans except where it affects TPTB's account balances. If they had believed that a new age Superman, a thin and wimpy Clark, and a lesbian drug addict Lois would grab and hold viewers, that's what we would have seen on the series. That's an extreme example, of course, but it illustrates my point.

We writers and readers of FOLCdom have the opportunity to present our characters in whatever manner we choose. If we decide to write about Lois's strengths and Clark's weaknesses, we can, and the inverse is also true. We should remember that these are fictional characters, not real people, and they'll do whatever we want them too. I seem to recall MLT making some observation about her limited deity in regards to the written word (and I, for one, thought it was funny), and that's a very good description of our function as authors.

There was a Rod Serling episode in the 70's (can't recall the name of the weekly show, after Twilight Zone but along the same lines) that showed a group of people in a diner who slowly realized that their reasons for being there and their own motivations were not only in conflict, they made no sense. They began arguing about the situation, and at that point the writer who was writing about them ending the discussion by pulling the paper from his typewriter, wadding it up, and tossing it into a trash can already full of abandoned story attempts. It was a little scary to realize that these characters on the screen were merely fictional constructs who existed only on paper and not in reality.

Maybe we should write more and gripe less.

Sorry, just one more thought.

LabRat's gripe about Clark opening the hydrant is totally justified, and I agree completely with her reasoning. However, the reason the scene was in the show was two-fold. First, it's a long-standing tradition in cities like New York and Philadelphia for civilians (who should never, NEVER do it!) to open up the hydrants to cool off the kids in the neighborhood due to the lack of air-conditioning in most of the lower-income housing areas. Besides, it gives the kids something to do so they'll be a little less likely to throw rocks through windows.

The second reason was to show Clark's concern about kids and his compassion for their plight. If I'd written the episode, I would have tried to find some other solution for the problem, but the writers apparently thought it would be cute, so there you have it.

Pretty much, yeah

It's not just illogical, it's anti-logical. As a number of people have pointed out, showing that Lois was involved with Clark could only reduce the chances that she'd be used as bait for Superman.

He did that in Tempus Fugitive, too -- talking about not telling her the secret -- "it was partly for your protection." I've heard that argument many times and it's never made sense to me. :rolleyes:

Um... okay, here you've lost me. Is this the "the writers made him do it so it wasn't really his fault" defense?

PJ

I think it's simply a problem of education. I'm sure that most kids (and certainly the adults who do it) just aren't aware that it's a dangerous thing to do. They undoubtedly see it as completely harmless to set off a hydrant to cool off the kids - just bit of fun. How can spraying water around be dangerous?

As an example of that, Stuart and his colleagues are regularly verbally abused and threatened with physical violence by the parents of the kids when they turn up to turn off a spraying hydrant - for 'spoiling the kid's fun'.

Local councils and authorities need to do more to educate people in the areas where this is rife as to just what problems it can cause - to them, perhaps, if their home goes on fire and the water pressure in their area is down. And wouldn't that be ironic?

LabRat

Terry,

Several people have made comments to this effect and I believe that it isn’t news to anyone that Hollywood producers are in it for the money, or that continuity defers to the need of the episode, it certainly isn’t to me. I still doesn’t change that I enjoy discussing my favourite TV-show, and the parts thereof.


What is that supposed to mean? Does this discussion disturb your artistic creativity? I assure you aren’t missing any good stories from me if I stopped wasting bandwith.

Pam,

Pretty much, since it doesn’t make any sense even on a superficial level, why seriously treat it as if it’s a true expression of Clark’s character?
I can understand bashing Clark for errors of judgement, but not when he is a victim of a character assassination by the script writers.
It’s like Lois apartment, sometimes it’s on the first floor sometimes on the fourth, sometimes at the top of a skyscraper, but in MY mind I think of it is a couple of floor up, I chose one mutually exclusive way to imagine how it looks. I do the same thing with the characters or the plot.

But please notice that this is my opinion, If people derive pleasure from writing post contact stories and bash Clark over his “reasoning” or want Lois live at the top of the Empire State building, have a ball. It’s canon after all.

Arwen wrote:

No, this discussion does not disturb my artistic creativity. I was merely commenting on the intensity of the opinions expressed in this thread, not the content nor the fact that many of us have differing opinions. Apparently, I didn't frame my comment clearly enough.

I have written before that if everyone on this board liked exactly the same kind of story and every writer wrote just like every other writer, this would be a boring place to visit. All I wanted to suggest was that maybe some of us are more strident in expressing our opinions than is necessary to make our points.

I was doing just as you were doing, Arwen. I was expressing my opinion. My opinion is not inherently more 'correct' than yours any more than yours is inherently more 'correct' than mine. I find the intense discussion of the minutia of Lois and Clark alternately amusing and slightly disturbing. Some come across as holding 'the right opinion' on certain subjects, and others disagree with those folks more enthusiastically than I like. That doesn't make them wrong, it simply means that I'd rather be uplifting than critical. If I have offended you with this post or with my previous post, I sincerly apologize, because that has NEVER been my intent.

Yes, we do. And we also have to right to interpret Clark and Lois as we see fit. My interpretation of Lois or Clark should not be forced to conform with anyone elses. And your (collectively you) interpretation should not be forced to conform with mine. And along the same idea, just because I like Clark more, doesn’t mean that anyone else should. And just because someone else likes Lois more, doesn’t mean that I should be forced to think about her the same way.


Yes, exactly. But I’ve still seen comments from both readers and writers that take offense when Lois and Clark do something that is not ‘canon’ or is ‘out of character’. In reality, any of us who write are stretching canon (in one way you could say we are all writing an elseworld fic) and those who read it are willing to read any fanfiction are also willing, at least in some way, to tolerate that stretching of canon. And ‘character’ is, as always, a matter of interpretation to each individual.


Well said, Terry. I pretty much thought this is what you meant:
Until you mentioned it, LabRat, I would never have thought of this as anything but cute. I've learned something.


Exactly!! So why do some folks get so upset if someone expresses an opposite viewpoint?


Yeah, maybe some of us do. Guilty.


I’ve found that I can say some little something and think it means nothing and it starts a firestorm.... And that totally wasn’t my intent at all.

My work here is done.

LabRat

Wow, this thread has really wandered away from the question I raised when I started the thread!

But am now realising I asked the wrong question. It should have been:
Why are there no "Superman is arrested for criminal negligence, endangerment of human life, disrespect for civic property, and vandalism in the case of the fire hydrant" fics?

That is the real question!

c.

Yeah, I'd read one of those. Especially if they slapped him really hard in the cells.


LabRat

Really?, I can’t say have noticed this, (which, if I’m one of the strident people is to be expected, if so, I can only say I never had the intention to impose my views on anyone else).

I haven’t asked my father, but I’m sure if I did, he would consider the entire fanfic phenomena disturbing and pathetic and tell us all that we have to much free time and you to get down to the gym. He would also find my discussing the minutiae of a TV show more then slightly disturbing.

The thing is that people find different things important. If people discuss something I find silly or of little value, I just ignore it, if they get something out of it, more power to them.

I never thought it was. I’m just curious why several people feels the need to explain that producers of tv-series are in it for the money, that Lois and Clark aren’t real people, and that continuity is expedient to the episodes need. Even if I’ve seen some of what is known as fanwanking on this thread, no-one seemed disconnected from real life.

Oh certainly, and I hope you don’t feel restrained by others peoples preconceptions. But as I understand it, there are parameters for what is a L&C fic and if you deviate to much from the canon of the show it wont be accepted by the archive.

BTW, it’ s Arawn as in the lord of the underworld in Welsh mythology. Not Arwen as in the character in Tolkien’s legendarium.

I really admired Classicalla, MLT, Labrat and Terry's posts among others. As someone who does not own the DVDs and only rents them every now and then, but enjoys fandom, I am at times put off by the fervent deference to canon. Every time Labrat chimes in with her statement of freedom for authors, it's almost like an angelic choir for me. To say more than this would be repetitive, since I've already made clear that I'm willing to follow writers wherever they might go if the story is solid enough. And even if it isn't, it's not the premise as such that I would critique (only if the writer wanted me to explicitly), but it's execution.

I don't think it's deviation from canon that's concerning, just deviation from the show entirely. And even then, there's wide latitude in what subjects you can tackle. I remember a discussion once about whether to allow a story which was set in the comics universe & featured Superman and WonderWoman. I *think* they did allow it, though I wouldn't bet anything important on it, but it just goes to show you have to go to quite an extreme before they start judging by content.

There are somewhat tougher *rating* limits -- nothing over the American rating PG-13. But that's nothing to do with canon.

PJ
home today 'cause NC just had a whole *inch* of snow and therefore all the schools are closed