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

Lately there's been a bit of discussion about 'moving on'.

But, with one exception, I can think of no fics that are exclusively about Lois moving on - where Clark is either dead or Lois gives up hope for a life with him and, by the end, has moved on to be with someone else while Clark remains alone.

I'm really curious why this double standard exists. { I'd like to leave discussion of "immortal Clark" out of this because that's been discussed before. Besides it gets us into the 'soulmates' discussion which is not what I'm getting at. I mean the 'normal age' Lois and Clark fics.)

So why the dearth of "Lois moving on" fics?

In another thread, Nancy wrote:
[QUOTE] I am glad that she finally got a dose of her won [own] medicine! ( much later edit: it wasn't Nancy who said this but Sheila) /QUOTE]
So, is it this "Lois must be punished" idea?
But why?

Is it because she wanted to be the best at her job? (but that "uppity female" argument doesn't apply in 2007, does it?)

Or because she loved Superman, rather than Clark, in most of Season 1? (although on her wedding day, it was Clark she loved and so said no to Luthor)

Because she didn't figure out that Clark was Superman in S1?

the Mary Sue thing?

Or because we believe Clark can do no wrong? He is always lovable, regardless of what he does. (what my psych text calls the 'halo' affect) ?

Other reasons?

And why such a harsh punishment?

Now perhaps Sue's "Platonic" will become a Lois moves on fic (although I hope not ) since it deals with the aftermath of Clark's dumping Lois at the end of ... you all know the ep the title which I've forgotten ) In that circumstance, Lois could fall into a passionate love affaire (after all, Sue is posting this in nfic ) with some amazing new character and then marry him at the end?

Maybe I've just missed the "Lois moves on fics"? And there's not this double standard in fics at all?

c.

Would "Ad Aspera per Aspera" be the exception by chance? It's a magnificent example of what you're describing, I think.

And this may not qualify, since L&C do end up together in this fic, but I think Demi's "Heaven's Prisoners" does a lovely job of showing Lois moving on. It's been a while since I read it, but my sense was that had Clark not come back into her life, Lois would have moved on and could have been happy with someone else. It might not have been the exact same happiness she had with Clark, but it wouldn't have been meaningless either. She gives Clark another chance because she loved him first and because they were married and that means something to her, but not because her life was totally empty and worthless without him.

In the end, however, I think the dearth of "Lois moving on" fics can probably be attributed to the fact that so many of us are hopeless L&C shippers. I know I wouldn't write it, just because I'm here because I love to see Lois and Clark together, even if I torture them a little along the way. There may be a slightly greater number of "Clark moving on" fics, probably because of the likelihood that he'll outlive her, but they're still in the minority.

Caroline

Interesting, Caroline. But neither of the fics you've cited fit - In Ad Astra, Clark moves on as well as Lois. So no double standard.

And in Demi's amazing Heaven's Prisoners, L & C are together at the end. In that story, Clark, too, was on the verge of a relationship with someone else, but like Lois with her boyfriend, he couldn't bring himself to take it to the next level. The title says it all

As well, I wanted to exclude the 'elsewhere' super long-lived Clark because that raises a whole different set of issues and has been discussed here and elsewhere.

No, it's the 'normal age" Lois and Clark fics I'm asking about. Yep, they're a minority of fics - but the double standard does exist, both with readers and writers, and I'm curious abut why it does.

Me too.

c

I think it's mostly the hopeless shipper thing I don't want to see either of them "moving on." As long as they're both alive, I'm not going to want to see either of them happy with anybody else.

But then I'm famous for demanding happily-ever-afters

PJ

Oops. My eye skipped right over the part where Clark had to be completely alone. Probably because my poor heart can't take it

Well, you're right. I can't think of one like that!

C.

Ditto. I'm 100% with you, Pam. Lois & Clark forever.

Perhaps there is a unconscious thought that if *we* had Clark (we being the women FoLCs), *we* would never treat him in such an abominable manner. Lois did, and therefore she should be punished by remaining alone for life. I think if we were to take a survey, not many would admit to this feeling, but it may be underlying nonetheless.

Come to think of it, I can't offhand think of any fics where Lois is indeed alone for life. All the separation fics I can recall (before 9am ) have Clark coming back in the end. Looks like I need to catch up on my archive reading!

But Clark treated Lois pretty badly, too, at times. So why no "punish" Clark fics? And there really are none. Is it as simple as the gender thing - we still are harder on own sex than on men?

or is it like the line from the book -"She'll forgive a man for anything if he's good-looking enough". (I think it might have been Anne of Green Gables, believe it or not )

Btw, I was asking about not just the "Lois left alone" fics, but also fics in which Lois dies prematurely. There aren't many, as Caroline, says, but unlike the Lois parallel there's more than one of them.

c.

Hey ccmalo!

I think part of why there are maybe no "moving on" fics is because as authors, we tend to write what we think will be enjoyed by the readers. For the most part, I don't think any of us want to see Lois or Clark "move on". We want desperately for them to end up together - one way or the other.

I'm positive that's why I haven't written a "moving on" fic.

However, I'm not above writing a "torture Clark" fic. <g> I'm always up for those. I'm attempting to do a little bit of torture on him in 50 First (with Sue's help).

But this is definitely an interesting topic. I think I'd be afraid of being run out of town on a rail if I wrote a fic in which Lois dumps Clark (or vice versa) in a permanent fashion and gets together with someone else. But I'm a little insecure that way. <g>

-- DJ

Interesting... Hey how about the super-evil story..

Marry In Haste

Ah, yes, but everyone knows that Tank is hugely preferable to Clark Kent. I mean, no contest!

btw, I'm not asking for "Lois moves on fic"- far from it !

c.

Because I won't stand for it. They have to be together! *stomps foot and pouts*



Seriously, I think most of the readers and writers are incurable romantics, and we want to see our favorite couple end up together. Some rocky parts are fine along the way, but we don't want to see a big Dead End sign at the end.

Because a fic that focused on Lois wouldn't really interest me, either to write or read. Same with fics focusing on Jimmy, Perry, Cat Grant, Martha, Jonathan, etc, etc. I like reading about Clark - which I know is pretty narrow-minded of me, but there you go. I am what I am.

Yvonne

I like reading fics about them moving on after each other, but it depends on the premise and I like reading about how they would deal with seeing each other again after X amount of years. Which is why I love Demi's 'Heaven's Prisoners. They both have moved on, but the moment they see each other agin the old feelings are back and suddenly how do they deal with it? Does she marry the man she is currently seeing or go back to the man who although broke her heart she is still in love with. Clark probably wouldn't really be able to move on even if Lois did. It would kill him to see her with another man, but he loves her too much to hold her back and so he would let her go.

I think it's a matter of Lois' attitude from the beginning and the fact that she was always the one who had the choice in the relationship. Clark knew what he wanted, but he could only have it if Lois wanted it, too. If she didn't -- and let's face it, most of the time, she not only didn't know whether she did or not, she did her damnedest to fight it, hide her feelings and demonstrate her appalling taste in human men.

We don't need "punish Clark" fics; even if, as I do not think, Clark deserves equal "punishment", most of the first two years of their relationship is "punish Clark", coming to a head after the Sardine appears and is not immediately shot for lowering the human average IQ.

As for "Lois moving on" fics... well, why bother? On the simplest level, the name of the series is "Lois and Clark", and it's the pair of them together -- the idea that Superman is more than just Clark Kent in a pair of tights and a cape -- that makes the series concept work. Without Clark, Lois has no reason to exist. There can be strong female characters like her, but Lois Lane has been part of the Superman mythos right from the start, for nearly 70 years now, and without him, she may as well be... oh, I dunno, Wanda Detroit -- and I, for one, am not particularly interested in reading "The Adventures of Wanda Detroit." I can just about cope with "Clark moves on after Lois' death" fics because I'm a long-time Superman fan (though not of late), but there's still something wrong about them -- which is why I like the "soul mates" idea; it allows decades-hence tales of "Lois" and Clark to be told. (Hi, Nan! )

I could go on, but won't; it's late, and the prospect of opening more worm-cans holds no attraction. And besides, I'm with Caroline and Pam (as you might have guessed ); I don't like that sort of story and will not read it -- not even so-called "amazing" stories like Heaven's Prisoners, which, FWIW, I thought was horrible.

Phil

CC, I understand what you are asking but you make it sound like there are this great quantity of Clark moves on fics, and not many of the Lois moves on type. Actually, if you exclude the fact that Clark will inevitibly outlive Lois, there aren't too many of the Clark moves on type of fics either. Granted, Lois, being mortal, is a little more suseptible to being killed than Clark and that can give him a slight advantage.

But,let's face a couple of L&C fanfic facts. First, there are more women than men on these boards and they tend to gravitate toward Clark as the focus of their stories. The other (which was mentioned) is that folc don't particularly want to read stories where either Lois or Clark wind up without the other. That being the case, the desire to write such stories in not all that great either.

The truth is; Lois is probably better equipted emotionally to 'move on' without Clark, than Clark is without Lois.

Since I am a Lois fanatic, I tend to care more about Lois in stories than Clark, and have made her the focal point in my stories more often than I have Clark (which is why Yvonne hates my fics ).

I've written at least two fics(that I can recall) where Lois is without Clark as her significant other. The first was 'The Choice' which places Lois in the situation where she loses Clark and has to make a choice as to how to spend the rest of her life. The other one (which I have to say I got quite a bit of flak for) was 'Sometimes Love isn't Enough'. That one presented Lois as the one who had decided to end her marriage with Clark and strike off on a life of her own, though she remained friends with Clark.

Even though I'm not all that enamored with Clark Kent I usually have Lois end up with him because she's shown that she's rather fond of him.

Tank (who figures that this thread will probably ignite a spate of Lois goes it alone fics)

Just wanted to say that I'm not advocating "punish Clark" fics anymore than I like the idea of "punish Lois" fics. I think both approaches miss the point of what each character was about - they miss the nuances that were there.

But, Phil, how can you forget about Mayson Drake who served the same purpose in the series as Scardino? Both Lois and Clark/Superman each did their share of "punishing" the other in the first couple of years of the series. At times, neither was at their best. But more often they were wonderful.

Tank, with respect, I'm not sure your two stories quite fit because Lois doesn't move on to a new relationship in them, although 'The Choice' is a Clark deathfic. Btw, I always thought that "Sometimes' ended on a note of hope that they would re-unite. But you mean .... oh no!

Phil said:
Couldn't agree more.

c.

I saw a couple of interesting things here.

Interesting, but speaking as the Sassy Town Cynic here, I could have easily acted the same way as Lois did. Maybe not quite to the degree she did, but I wouldn't punish her for it. I'd say 'she's only human', but she's a fictional character. <g>


That flashed like a control tower to me. I could easily see Lois berating herself for not being able to have more time with Clark once she finally realized what a catch he was. I think she'd have to break through that before she could move on.

But then again, I'm not really into the soulmates thing, fictionally speaking or not. I don't think there's just-one-and-only-one right person for everybody.

JD

I quite agree. I was just postulating a theory. But I myself have screwed up a few times in the relationship department myself, so I can't see myself writing that type of fic just to punish Lois. But others might, and it may even be subconscious.

Snazzy avatar, Jen.

Maybe it's not about punishment. My theory is that Lois comes across as a normal human woman, albeit very strong and willful compared to average perhaps. Clark is the romantic, who we swoon over partly because of his rare, unshakable monogomy.

In other words, it's obvious that Lois could move on just as well as any other woman. Superman may be a tough act to follow, but Lois can endure. We know she can, so we don't need to "watch over her", so to speak.

Clark, on the other hand, is clearly lost without Lois. So in the mind, his personality and behavior actually *beg* the question "Could he move on? Is he capable of it?"

Thus, that gets explored more often.

My 2 cents.

I am also of the "they should be together" school, but, even so, here are some additional thoughts in the other direction.

Possible scenarios for Lois to lose Clark and move on:

1 - Clark dies. However, he is difficult to kill and death by natural causes isn't likely until he's an old man.

2 - Lois decides that she doesn't love Clark, marries someone else *and* (because "moving on" implies contentment) lives happily ever after. Not likely because we tend to believe that she would eventually come to regret letting Clark get away, which doesn't equal contentment.

3 - Clark leaves Lois. Not something we can really conceive of, with the exception of the NK arc. The entire basis of this fandom is that Clark loves Lois. We can take out the Planet, mess with the superpowers, pretend the Kents didn't exist, or prevent Krypton from blowing up, but a L&C fanfic in which Clark meets Lois (the one from his own universe) and doesn't eventually love her (or in the case of a bad Clark, have a cruel fascination with her) is very, very rare.* So the idea of him leaving her is a very hard concept for a FoLC to swallow.

(*Although one example was pointed out to me: "The Road Taken" - very good story - but even in that one there was an attraction and the future was left open ended. I have hopes that Terry will write a sequel to this one eventually, even if it involves L&C *not* getting together.)

Possible scenarios for Clark to lose Lois and move on:

1 - Lois' death. Much more likely than Clark's death because she is human and has a knack for trouble to boot.

2 - Lois' leaves/rejects Clark and possibly marries someone else, either happily or unhappily. Obviously there is precedent for this.

The two "Clark moves on" scenarios are more plausible in my opinion than the three "Lois moves on" scenarios. So, assuming there are indeed more "Clark moves on" stories, maybe that's why.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QofC, I like your thoughts. I agree with you (and Tank) that Clark would have a harder time moving on, so I guess there is more to explore there.

I'm of the belief that I wouldnt really be interested in reading a fic where either one of them moves on. I'm one of the hopeless romantics, thats why I fell in love with L&C in the first place. I love the romance, comedy and the action all mixed together. I typically dont read moving on fics, I've galanced over Ad Astra, but I like the happy endings so I wasnt interested. I'm also that way with movies I typically dont watch sad movies because I watch movies and read to escape from reality.

Well, I can't resist.

Lisa wrote:
Unless he's killed on NK.
Also all sorts of ways that Clark could logically be killed - he's saved so often from Kryptonite wounds you have to wonder what the long term damage to his system would be. Or what about K shrapnel that couldn't be removed from his body? Long- term toxic impact of Earth's alien environment? (Yvonne played with this is idea in her excellent Heliophobia, but didn't go the distance and kill him off )
Clark gets rescued 'just in time' from a K encounter so often that you have to wonder whether sooner or later the cavalry's going to be too late. I bet you can get odds in Las Vegas on that.

(Now this doesn't mean I like dead-Clark fics anymore than I like dead-Lois fics. Just that I think writers could kill Clark pretty easily )

Maybe, and yet, if we have this idea in our head that Clark will always be saved from K, then isn't there also a similar thought that Lois will always be rescued? Or does the double standard apply here too - Clark gets to be rescued, Lois doesn't? And if Bernie Klein's always going to come through with the miracle cure for Clark, shouldn't he be doing the same for Lois?

But not on the show. Lois wasn't able to move on with Lex after Superman rejected her - she couldn't even have sex with Luthor, and couldn't marry him because of her love for Clark Kent.

So - what Daisymay said. And QoC, yes about Clark's difficulty with moving on. But, i think, in the series, Lois was presented as emotionally vulnerable as Clark. So many examples, perhaps more than of Clark - but lots for both.

c.

Interesting thread.

I guess I have problems understanding why either one need to be 'punished'. After all, the heart wants what the heart wants.

Take Lois. It was only a few episodes in before Lois seemed to recognize that Clark was a great guy. But there is a huge leap between recognizing that someone is a great guy and wanting to spend the rest of your life with him. I mean, if there wasn't, then why didn't Clark just marry Mayson Drake? After all, she was a great girl. But Clark's heart wanted Lois. Lois' heart, on the other hand, wanted Superman. Why should she be punished for that?

I guess I just don't get the whole 'punish anyone' idea? Seems odd to me.

Besides, I love both characters too much to want to see them 'punished' - especially for the rest of their lives. Not that I don't want to smack both of them upside the head on occasion and not that I'm not willing to put them through a little angst along the way, but I still want that 'happily ever after' for both of them and I want them to find it with each other.

ML

Like MLT, I find this to be an interesting thread. The thoughts and opinions expressed on these screens are quite revealing and make for excellent consideration for future stories. I, for one, will think hard about all this. Maybe one of my other ideas, currently languishing on my flash drive, will blossom into a finished story before long.

Mrs. Mosley wrote:
Thank you for the quick review! And there is a sequel in the works, one which (in true FOLC tradition) has already spawned another sequel where the story will really be wrapped up. [/end shameless self-plug]

As in this Nancy? As in me? It sounds very familiar, but I can’t find the quote.

I don’t think Lois should be punished, but she was incredibly mean to him in the first season. She didn’t even give Clark the courtesy of treating him like a co-worker should be treated. She treated him like a doormat. She treated him like dirt under her feet. That’s why she should get a dose of her own medicine so she knows how it feels. I had a really hard time coming to terms with the way Lois treated Clark in the first season. And I know I’m not the only one that feels that way because I’ve seen it mentioned in other threads.

I think a quote from a recent fic I read says it well:
Now, mind you, she eventually changed, but it took her a long time, and Clark put up with a lot from her.


No.

No.

No.


Don’t know what you mean.

No. Clark can be pretty stupid at times. (Like the thing he did in Contact where he said he couldn’t be with her because it was dangerous.) But with that and one other exception (when he told Lois not to bother with the robe because he could see through it), he wasn’t mean to her. He didn’t treat her like a doormat. He didn’t treat her like dirt under his feet. It seems to me that I rather more see the idea that Lois can do no wrong, and she gets rewarded regardless of her very bad behavior.

~~
For me, Clark / Superman is the main character. (Don’t hit me, Ann.) As much as some people might want to deny that, that’s evidently what other people believe, too, or we might see more of those Lois moves on fics.

Yvonne evidently agrees:
Perfectly said, Yvonne. I like reading about Clark, too.
~~


Exactly, Lisa. I don’t think she should be punished by remaining alone the rest of her life, but she did treat him horribly, so why should she always get the man of her dreams when she acted that way? (I’m speaking about elseworld fics.)


And sometimes we do lose the love of our lives because of stupidity, but does that mean we can’t go on to find some kind of happiness and love with another?


There’s one that has just been posted to the archive where Clark has moved on with his life and is quite happy. Lois marries Luthor and later finds out he is scum. It leaves Lois with the knowledge that she will never have Clark / Superman because of the way she treated him. (It does leave it open as to whether she will find her own love.) Here it is: It Might Have Been... The author has told me he has no intention of writing another fic where Lois and Clark get together. I rather like to see some elseworld fics that explore these things, but I know I’m in the minority.

It could be that we are harder on our own sex, but when you compare it, Lois was far worse to Clark (at least in my opinion). The only two things I can think of where he treated her really badly was the, ‘Don’t bother, I can see through your gown thing’, and the ‘I can’t be with you because you might be hurt thing’.

I like to see the occasional moving on fics. I know a lot of folks might not admit the same, but there are fics that have been written about both of them moving on and there are fics where both Lois or Clark dies prematurely, so there are folks who want to both read and write them. True, there aren’t as many about Clark dying prematurely, but there are a few. But yes, authors are driven by what their readers want. I found out very quickly that very few folks want to read a story where Lois is dead.

No, I don’t think you would, DJ. The author of It Might Have Been told me that he has gotten a lot of positive feedback.


I’ve never thought that. I think he could move on. He might never again have exactly the same type of instant love that he did with Lois, but I think he could still find love. (Obviously or I wouldn't have written such a fic.)


Yes, she did.


Great way of putting it. The first two years was ‘punish Clark’.


What’s FWIW mean?


I think that’s true, Tank.


Yes, I think just about everybody knows that I agree with this.


Again, I think he’s quite capable of moving on although not easily. I think it would be pretty hard for him.


Yes, I find the idea of leaving him a difficult concept, but I don’t find the idea difficult that he could move on if Lois was out of his life.




Yes, I find these the more likely scenarios, too.

Well, as I said, I’m pretty sure it’s my quote that CC used, and that’s not what I meant.

Hmm... Very interesting thread.

Well, considering Lois' taste in men - How could she ever fall for Luthor? Or Claude? Scardino certainly would have been the best of the lot! - I don't have any trouble at all seeing her chosing someone else - at least before she knows Clark's secret. And that's not what I'd call 'moving on'.

I don't really know whether she'd move on easily, but the stress is on 'easily' here. I'm sure she'd be able to move on eventually.

The issue is different for Clark. He has eyes only for Lois, so every other relationship would fall under the category 'moving on'. Besides, Clark proves to be a hopeless romantic, and that certainly doesn't make things easier for him. But I'm sure even he could - and would - move on, unless the author gives a very good reason for him not doing so. (As in "She's" and "Time Doesn't Heal", for example.)

My apology here, Nancy. I rechecked and see that it was Sheila who wanted to give Lois "a dose of her own medicine". She didn't sign her post but ended with a quote from you with your name attached, and so... what can I say, very sloppy on my part.

Ah, but i see that you do agree with the quote. You really are hard on first season Lois! Yeah, she was far from perfect - but then neither was Clark. He gave as good as he got. That's what made the first season interesting. And remember too, that there were more times when she made it clear that she respected and cared for Clark in S1 than there were times when she was dismissive of him .

i think we have to take the whole package, the context so to speak, when we interpret Lois. She's not a one-note character.

Which brings me back to one of my initial arguments in this thread - why do some people see only the good in Clark and only the bad in Lois - the "halo effect" thing?

For example, Lois does something despicable - unethical: she steals Clark's story. That's the memory that lingers. At least, that's one example that's often mentioned in mbs discussions. But the rest of the story doesn't get mentioned - she acknowledges that what she's done is wrong, she's dismayed that she's done it (her confession to Lucy).
Then Clark gets his revenge (and notice it's *revenge* he wants here, not to forgive or understand her) - he knows she's Superman crazy, so he contrives to send her to the city dump on a wild goose chase. He sucks her in; she goes, she returns, dishevelled and storyless. So how does she react? She acknowledges his point and we see her respect for him.

or how about when he tossed her in the dumpster?
If Lois at times treated him "like dirt", he treated her like garbage. (not to mention the fact that he'd horned in on her story and had just succeeded in taking it from her, not to mention his use of physical violence...)

Now, we know from day 1 that he's Superman and that he loves her. But *she* knows neither of these things. He's just a new co-worker in a highly competitive industry. But we watch, smitten by the look in Clark Kent's eyes. Not to mention the memory of him in that towel [now enshrined in the nfic Hall of Fame ] How dare she not love him?
But what we forget is all her small gestures - how often she touches him casually, something we don't see her doing with other co-workers.

lots of other examples, too.

But she did know how it felt - she told Superman she was in love with him, and he rejected her.

As well, Clark Kent, not unlike some folcs(?) perhaps, never had much respect, let alone sympathy for Lois's love for Superman. But that love was real to her, and it was there from the beginning. Why do we imagine that she was hurt any less over Superman's blowing hot (well luke warm ) and cold with her than was Clark Kent over her treatment of him? Is it again because we know what Lois did not - that Superman was not a "real" person? So therefore Lois's feelings for him couldn't be real? But they were to her.

Ah, but he did treat her feelings for Superman like that.

For me, there are two main characters - Lois Lane and Clark Kent. Think that was one of the main premises of LCtNAoS. I enjoyed the nuances which the show brought to both characters. I like reading about *both* Lois and Clark. For me, Lois Lane is not expendable, nor is she just a sidekick or another babe on his list. She is as integral to Clark Kent/Superman as he is to her.

Wow, Nancy, I'm exhausted. But I get that you really do dislike Lois Lane. Wow!

c.

You really got me thinking with that comment, Caroline - which others have repeated after you - pondering, as it were, the mysteries of life . And here is the way I see it.

I don't think Lois is more likely to die than Clark is or visa versa and here's why. Lois and Clark are fictional characters. So when I write about them, I become God to them. As 'God', I make the decision about who will live and who will die. And as 'God', I can kill off one just as easily as I can kill off the other.

So will Clark outlive Lois... As 'God', it's completely in my hands. So the next time someone knocks off Lois, keep in mind that I can come back and knock off Clark

Hmm... after reading this thread, maybe it is time for me to write a Lois moves on story. Then again, it would break my heart to hurt either of these characters, so probably not.

ML (who is going to go off and contemplate her omnipotence some more )

Whew! I feel so relieved knowing it's all in your capable hands, ML

Of course, you're right - we the writers are in charge, and we could kill either of them any time we wanted, assuming we wanted to make ourselves and our readers miserable. (And sometimes we do ) But we're in Lois's boat - aware of our own mortality. We know that we have, at best, about a hundred years to live, and in most cases less than that. We know that we can be hurt. We can be killed. We can get sick. We know what it's like to be Lois Lane, at least in that regard.

But what Clark has is something different from that. Invulnerability. Enormously increased life span - though just how much we don't really know since canon was rather vague on that point. But it's something we won't ever experience first hand, and I think that makes it something that holds some appeal to writers as an avenue of exploration. What would it be like to outlive everyone you love? What would it be like to stay young and healthy while the woman you love ages? What would it be like to have to move on, even when you might not really want to? (I'm reading Tuck Everlasting to my kids right now, incidentally, which may be why my thoughts are rambling down this road). So if there are more Clark moving on fics, I kind of think it's because we find the idea of an invulnerable man being forced to move on somewhat more interesting than if it were someone just like us. And as you say, we're the writers and we're in charge, so if we find something interesting, we're free to pursue it

Sorry if this veered off-topic, Carol! I know that Clark's potentially long life-span wasn't really what you had in mind when you phrased your original question, but I *do* think it's relevant when considering Clark-moving-on fics.

Interesting topic all the way around.

Caroline

, ML. That cuts to the chase.

Perhaps not L & C canon, though. Time Minear, the writer of Brutal Youth, is on record as stating that he intended that episode to imply that the longevity scale was more or less balanced as a result of Clark having given up some of his 'life force'.

Perhaps, but since that topic has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere i didn't want to address it again. As well, it's quite a separate issue, really, from the question I asked.

Tough book for kids, imo. Not that they shouldn't be exposed to 'tough'
But, you raised some interesting points with respect to exploring the issue of longevity,, Caroline. It's really a very dark concept when you think about it. If you're interested in it, you might like Timothy Findley's novel, Pilgrim, which deals with that theme. He's one of Canada's top writers and it's a very well-written and thoughtful book. That makes it sound boring , but it's definitely not!

c.

Just popping in to say that Minear saying that doesn't make it canon for me. Now, if it had been stated on the show that would be an entirely different matter, but since it wasn't and we got a very vague, wishy-washy "Nobody knows how long they've got" instead , I think Clark's lifespan is open to interpretation.

P.S. I love Lois, warts and all, and don't want to see her punished. To me, she's a more interesting character than Clark and I think of her as just as important as him. So there you go .

Carol said, re: Nancy:

I don't think that conclusion's warranted at all. Nancy may not like Lois Lane as passionately as you do, Carol, but that doesn't mean she *dis*likes her. You can dislike specific behaviors without disliking the whole person.

As for Tim Minear, he also said that the "Family Hour" baby was going to grow up to be a bratty teenager within a few weeks, and I don't think any of us treat *that* as canon (Has anyone ever tried that story, btw, or have we all rolled our eyes and declared it too stupid to bother with?)

PJ

Wasn't there a story from one of the Fifth Season series that explored this, or a similar theme? There was a kid, I seem to remember, that grew up very quickly *and* had superpowers...

Yvonne

Um, perhaps - but Nancy didn't state anything positive at all about Lois but only negatives so it's not an illogical conclusion to have reached. Of course, my interpretation may be wrong - only Nancy can say for sure.

"Passionately"? I'd hoped I was logical, Pam My apologies for sounding passionate. Not my intention. btw, I am as much a fan of Clark Kent as I am of Lois Lane. But Clark has lots of defenders here.

No, of course not. But I think on this particular issue, there is no canon answer.
Still, it wasn't my intention, as I stated when I started this thread to include that particular issue. I was interested in why there were more 'Clark moving on and dead-Lois fics' than the reverse, set when the two were still *young*. I'd hoped to exclude the longevity issue because it's quite different and wanders away from the issue I raised.

c.

Yvonne - I believe you are thinking of "Hypergirl" written by Crystal Wimmer and part of the Season 6 fanfiction. It's the one where Mxytsptlk (did I spell that right? Even close?) uses magic on Lois & Clark's daughter Laura to speed up her growth rate. She grows up and turns into a super-powered rebellious teenager within a few days.

Mxyztplk is spelled the usual way

And yeah, there was Hypergirl -- you'll note, however, that was just for one episode! And technically, it was Laura, not the Family Hour baby; we'd gotten rid of it very early in S5. Any other examples?

Carol, I just thought you'd jumped to a conclusion on inconclusive grounds. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, you know -- and I thought Nancy might take exception to you putting words in her mouth.

PJ

lol - very true, Pam.

So only Nancy can say for sure.

c.

I should probably keep my nose out of this, but...

Man of the year



Suppose we were to line up all the men of the world on one side, and all the women of the world on the other side, and then we asked the men and the women to fight each other. Which side would win?

Stupid question. We all know the answer. If the men just stick together, if they stay loyal to each other, they are going to beat the "women's team" every time. Because no matter how much the women are willing to support each other and sacrifice for each other, their collective strength isn't going to be enough to defeat all the men in the world.

Conclusion? Men have something to gain from sticking up for each other. By doing so, men as a group can "defeat" women as a group and force the women to service them. This doesn't mean that each and every man will force his wife, daughters etcetera to service him - but it does mean that men as a group can decree that it's natural that women should support men, and men can pass laws that declare that it is right and natural for women to attend to the needs of men.

So whether or not we are aware of it, our own society as well as all other societies all over the world teach boys to stick up for other boys and men and to side with other men against women. (Not evey individual boy is taught this, and not evey individual boy and man will do this, but most probably will, perhaps without even being fully aware of it.)

Women have so much less to gain from supporting the members of their own gender. Instead, women learn to seek protection from the dangerous world they live in by trying to gain favors from one individual man, the man they fall in love with, the man whose love they try to win for themselves, the man they want to marry, the man they ask to be their protector. This means that women often see other women as rivals. Women know that other women also fight for the love of the limited number of strong men whose ability to protect "their own woman" is so desirable. So, while men tend to stick up for other men in the battle of the sexes, women often side with men in the hopes of gaining the approval of the individual man whose favors they seek.

Conclusion? Well, when it comes to Lois and Clark, it could mean that at least some men identify with Clark's needs because they subconsciously know that a man's needs are more important than a woman's. It could also mean that some women disapprove of Lois because she seems insuffciently grateful for the attentions and favours that Clark Kent, the best potential protector in the world - not to mention the most good-looking one - so graciously bestows on her.

And that could indeed create a situation where both men and women are critical of Lois and supportive of Clark. This could make it tempting to write stories where Lois is punished for dismissing Clark, while Clark is allowed to move on and find happiness with another woman who appreciates him more than Lois did.

Ann

Pam, I don't know why I found this so amusing, but I laughed my head off. It sounds so "underhanded". <g>

That’s okay. I really thought it was mine since it rather reflects some of my feelings about the first season Lois.


Yes, I do.


Yeah, but after this episode, he turned into Lois’ doormat.


Forgot about that one. Good get, Clark.


I don’t remember that part. Weren’t they both working on the story? Independently?


No, I don’t think that.


Oh, I do have respect of Lois’ love of Superman. And yes it was real to her. I never doubted that. I like the fics that explore Superman breaking down and giving in to Lois’ love for Superman. So I wonder why when you see those few fics where Superman gives in to her and starts a relationship with her (as Superman) that folks say he is being dishonest with her because he is not telling her he is Clark Kent? Is that any more dishonest than Clark keeping the fact from her that he is Superman? (And I’ve been writing one… shameless plug. It’s on the nfic side.)


Yes, I suppose you are right - at least when he rejected her. He was hurting, but he shouldn’t have hurt her in return. He could have told Lois that he knew she would not love him the same if he was just a normal man instead of saying.. “Under the circumstances…”


I never meant to insinuate that.


No, I don’t dislike Lois. Really, I don’t. I disliked the first season Lois. And while I know a lot of the Folcs here are strictly LnC fans, I’m not. I like all the genres of Superman, so that’s why I say that for me, Clark is the main character. And hey, I’m not the only one that feels that way (even among the LnC fans).


I thought the same thing. I’m seeing you on the boards more now, ML, so I hope that means you are feeling better and able to sit better.


Yes, I agree that it’s a great avenue of exploration.


That’s true, but it was still actually left up in the air what would have happened. Remember he also went on record to say they would have a kid that suddenly grew into a teenager as happened on Angel. (And god forbid that should have happened….)


Exactly.


I don’t want to see her punished either. But I do enjoy elseworld fics where something totally different happens - be it with Clark or Lois.


No, I don’t dislike Lois. I disliked things that she did. I also disliked things Clark did, but not as much as I disliked the things that Lois did.

I mentioned this before I read this part of your feedback. Well… I’d think it would be pretty stupid. Have you watched how cheesy it was on Angel? But there was a fic that I recently read that sort of dealt with this. It’s a short fic called Superman’s Pajamas and is available on the archive.


Well, in this particular thread I was expounding on ‘Lois getting some of her own medicine’. I’m not a Lois basher really. But when I watched the first season sometimes I just wanted to reach into the screen and strangle her. She was just so different that any Lois I had ever come across. It bugged me. It still does. Man, if I’d ever treated one of my male co-workers the way Lois treated hers, I bet I would have gotten in trouble. She did change and soften, and I would have loved to see that continue in a fifth season. I really like the Lois in the fourth season. She still had her edge, but she was kind and thoughtful and didn’t have the overpowering urge to be always be cruel. But I’ve read threads where people say that they don’t like this softer, nicer Lois. To me, that sweet Lois was the real Lois. And I thought she was more in line with Loises from other genres.


If I write one, will you read it? Will anyone?


Mxyzptlk


Well, I seem to be good for doing that myself…. So, no I don’t mind, but I will defend myself in again saying that I was expounding on ‘Lois getting some of her own medicine’.


Why the women, of course.


Okay, Ann, what you said sounds remotely like something you said in another thread that you started and I don’t believe many folks agreed with you. Now please don’t think I’m being harsh. I don’t even know what the outcome was in that thread because quite frankly I stopped reading it.


And as you well know, Ann, we agreed to disagree on the subject of Lois (and Clark) a long time ago.


I disagree with this. I’ve found far more acceptance and ‘protection’ from the women (both wonderful friends and family) in my life than from the men (including friends and family).

Hmmm... still an interesting thread.

Yes...that was when I lost interest in Angel for a long time and although I went back to it eventually, I never quite enjoyed it as much as before the awful Connor.

You'll have noted, of course, that Tim Minear was responsible for Connor. I guess having been cheated out of writing this story arc for LNC, he resurrected it when he went on to work on Angel. So he got his way in the end.

It's this plan that sometimes makes me glad we never got a fifth season. I don't think I could have taken this plot on my favourite show. I kind of feel LNC escaped poor Angel's fate.

LabRat

Thanks, Nancy, for taking the time to expand your thoughts.

Honestly... no. As I've said before, I'm no more interested in dead-Clark, Lois moves on fics than the reverse. But I would expect all those readers who like the dead-Lois, Clark moves on fics would read it - think it's a genre preference thing.

re Ann's theory about men and women - historically, on a very broad scale, it's born out by the repressive laws in effect in most ancient, and pre-modern civilizations (so-called ) For example, the UK- married women weren't legally permitted to own property until 1872, couldn't divorce their husbands for adultery (or any reason) although a man could divorce his wife for adultery. Custody of the kids, in the very unlikely case of a divorce went automatically to the husband. A woman's evidence was not accepted in a court or law, a man could legally beat his wife, etc., etc. This, of course, had a significant impact on shaping woman's behaviour over the centuries.

Since everyone's eyes are now glazing over at the history stuff...

c.

Yes but she doesn’t acknowledge it to Clark and (presumable) to any others of her co-workers. Could you blame them for thinking her false and disrespectful?

That wasn’t as I saw it, Lois congratulated him on out manuvering her for the story, essentially being a greater bitch then herself, But Clark of course didn’t care about the story, he just tried to show her that was goes around comes around. But that went above her head, due to her self absorption.

The thing is that Lois is a seriously flawed character, She is pleasant enough when everyone adores her and things goes her way, but she has several traits that would make her rather unpopular in the lunch room I imagine. Clark OTOH seems like the perfect son in law, handsome, pleasant, kind, committed I don’t find it strange that women would take his part(several fics have worked with this too, everyone at the Daily planet automatically assume that any discord is Lois fault.)

We know that Lois bitchiness stems from insecurity not malice, she constantly has to prove that she is the best due to bad self-confidence, if someone else gets praise she takes it as criticism of her own work. That kind of people don’t get many friends. I think part of the reason Lois treats Clark so harshly is that she is taken by his looks and charm, but don’t care to fall for him.

This is how I see it too. That they have such a different outlook is what creates the dynamism between them. Lois is a very complex character, which I imagine is the reason she gets Clark’s attention. And Lois does mellow when she understand that someone loves her for who she is, not what she can do. And I agree with Nancy, Lois in the later episode was the woman she wanted to be.
At the same time Clark IS singularly unique, he is a god, she is human, to other people it’s not her own traits but superman s attention that makes her special. I’ve even see this realisation in some fic’s like in Wendy’s “Second thoughts” where she notice this herself.

You're Superman - the world needs you! Nobody needs me!" She saw him flinch, as if her words hurt him. "*I* need you," he told her, his voice husky. "*I* need you, Lois.."

a bit of a contradiction here, in your argument - she either acknowledges it, or not. Also I'm not sure viewers needed to see a literal newsroom pronouncement: "Clark I was wrong". Lois's body language at the end said it all.

All I'm suggesting is that we apply the same 'rules' so to speak to Lois as we do to Clark. Nothing more. If we find reasons to rationalize Clark's bad behaviour, then let's do the same for Lois. Let's be fair.

One of the things I enjoyed about the show was that neither character was portrayed as perfect. That was one of the great things about the show. That, and the humour. Notice, too, that Lois is the butt of that humour, from Perry, Jimmy, and Clark, a lot more than is Clark. Were they being cruel to her? I don't think so, but if we're to be consistent in condemning a person's snarky comments, then we have to say yes.

I'm going to disagree with you there. Were he a god, he would be very boring, and I'd have stopped watching.

Lois and Clark's character flaws may have be different but they both had them. Let's not put Clark Kent on a pedestal.

c.

For if knowledge is power, then a GOD AM *I*!

... Sorry, wrong city.

Well, he can be a god and still be flawed. After all, look at the Greek and Roman gods with all of their flaws and petty jealousies. And heavens know that Clark is built like one. *fans self*

What was the topic again?

Good God , Karen, I never meant to suggest he wasn't a god, physically. Oh no, no. Blasphemy, heresy.

Fanning self, too. (recalling the towel scene....

but thinking Arwn didn't have that in mind

c.

Lois acknowledge Clark’s ruthlessness in going after the story, as she put it he “won” . Which is high praise indeed. But, Clark wanted to show her how it felt to be the victim of that behaviour, something she just doesn't get. Lois still thinks that it’s OK exploit other people to get what she want.

I’m all for that , I just wanted the point out that Lois personality is abrasive and just like in real life that means she will seldom get the benefit of the doubt.

As a Karen said, Nordic or Greek mythology, shows that gods doesn’t have to be boring or perfect. My point is that Clark holds all the power, he doesn’t have to accept anything that he doesn’t like, that he use that power with utmost restraint is simply a choice of his. He could do whatever he pleases with Lois, or anyone else.

for example? And what was Clark doing when he came on to Toni Taylor?

c.

He was UNDER COVER. His cover was a sailor who had just lost his job--the coming on to Toni Taylor bit was PART OF HIS COVER.

As for the part where he threw her into a dumpster, and the part leading up to it . . .

He didn't really have much of a chance to think of what to say before Toni came into the room there. True, what he did say (blowing Lois's cover) was a major faux pas, but we all know how much trouble Clark has with thinking of excuses/cover-ups under pressure (Cheese of the Month Club, anyone?).

As for the dumpster, the bouncer was WATCHING him. He had to do something difinitive, or be suspected himself.

From what I can tell, it looks like he was perplexed by Lois's treatment of him up to that point--they were partners, after all, and she was keeping things from him.

That whole episode was a case of crossed signals.

Lois thought Clark wanted to horn in on her story and take all the credit, but Clark was confused by everything she said along those lines because that WASN'T his intention.

He wanted to work WITH her on it, even AFTER he'd screwed up and blown her cover, but she wouldn't listen and kept berating him for the mistake he'd already admitted he'd made.

Good to know. Somehow I had the idea that you wanted to see one of these.


And yes, I understood Ann’s perspective from a historical standpoint, but it’s not like that so much anymore. (At least in the so called industrialized countries.)


Thank you!


Well, I’d have to say that’s true. It took guts for the woman to come back to the newsroom looking like she did. Most of us would have stopped by home and cleaned up…


Some folks have mentioned that Lois thought it was okay to steal others’ stories. And that does seem to be the case. But yet she was crushed because Claude did the same to her. Shouldn’t she have learned something there?


Yes, that seems fair. But Arawn is right (fair or not) - those with an abrasive personality will seldom get the benefit of the doubt.


Hmm... I'm not sure that coming on to Toni Taylor would be exploiting her. He didn't make her any false promises.

My point is that our current Western industrialized society has been around for just a short time, while humanity has been around for a long time. Honestly, I don't think the more primitive and subconscious parts of our brains really believe that we now live in a world where women don't have to cling to one strong male for their own protection. I think these parts of our brains keep telling us that it's dangerous for women to generally side with women against men, and that it is best for a woman's own safety to like and believe in the strongest of guys. And I believe that these parts of our brains read LnC fanfics too, and when they do they tell us that Clark can easily be forgiven for perhaps treating Lois dismissively, but Lois can't easily be forgiven for being dismissive of Clark.

But let me say for the record, too, that some aspects of first season Lois turn me off. Particularly her acceptance of Lex's proposal. "My" Lois simply wouldn't do that, which is why I don't like stories where a woman with "my" Lois's name is being punished for marrying Lex. I like it even less if a man with "my" Clark's name ends up happily married to someone else.

Ann

Coming back to my plea to "judge Lois" by the same standards we use for Clark.

Darcy's take on IGaCOY rationalizes everything that Clark did - it was all either reasonable or someone else's false. Thus he did very little wrong.

So to be fair to Lois:
Darcy wrote:
True he was undercover - but it was Lois who had *been* undercover up to that point - Clark shows up later, without having told her what he was planning, let alone consulting with her about it back at the Planet. If he genuinely respected her as a colleague, he would not have acted so unilaterally.

So what is going on here when he decides to go undercover? How to interpret it? That's when our biases kick in - is Clark arrogant here? Is he horning in on Lois's story? or is it that he doubts her ability to get the story? Or does he want to protect her ? A patriarchal notion, but let's face it, Lois is trouble-prone.

True. His flirting with Tony, kissing her later was all part of that- it was false and so, by definition, it was exploitative.
So what matters here -how do we look at it? It was exploitive but was it 'okay'? He suspects Toni is part of the Toasters and, also he wants the bartender job. So okay to use Toni because his motivation, to bust a criminal gang, is good? Did he need to cross the line into flirtation to accomplish his goals?

(Lois, btw, was also prepared to use her "sexual wiles" as Clark once accused her of doing (or was that "teased"? )

'Faux pas' is a very gentle term. So adorable that Clark Kent, with his difficulty coming up with excuses. We could also say it was stupid and thoughtless. He screwed up, but then used his mistake to remove his so-called partner from the front lines of the story. Maybe very clever on his part after all.

Anyway, i could rewrite Darcy's post , "spinning" it all from Lois's point of view .

Which has been my point all along. Let's try not to be so one-sided. Clark wasn't a saint.

Yes, it was. I enjoyed it. Although not the Toni taylor bit . (nor Clark's goatee!!) and throwing Lois in the dumpster was more force than was necessary. It was one of those moments of disconnect for me - he seemed to enjoy tossing her. (the other disconnect was the stalker stuff that he occasionally did)
But there was a lot of fun in the ep plus some good L & C banter - old movie, battle of the sexes, screwball comedy.

Nancy wrote:
lol - It's the reasons for the imbalance that interested me.
But death-fic and moving on fic are not for me, regardless of whether it's Lois or Clark. I stated this a couple of times earlier in the thread.

When? Aside from the incident I mentioned above and about which Lois was very upset afterwards, I can't think of any. So she had learned from Claude. (or perhaps it was something she knew all along?)

I'll repeat something else I've said before in the thread - I don't think Lois was perfect, either in S1 or in any other season. Nor was Clark. And it was that imperfection that made the show interesting. S1 Lois did a couple of things in S1 that appalled me; but so did Clark, although Clark's most appalling moments would come after S1

And what do words mean? One person's "assertiveness" is another person's "abrasive" and another's "feisty".

Yes, I think you have a point there, Ann. For example, we beat up on Lois for her insensitivity in asking Clark, after he's confessed his love for her, to find Superman. Yet, we don't beat up on Clark for dismissing Lois's love for Superman, something he's known for some time. Why the difference in treatment? ( Imo, neither were at their finest in these examples:) )

Looking back over this thread, I see that a lot of posters are Lois fans as well as Clark, but they're not the majority. Most posts in this thread reflect either an indifference or a hostility to the character of Lois Lane, and aren't prepared to cut her any slack at all. I wonder if that's true for most of the people on these boards? Anyway, I fold. it's been interesting reading people's posts.

c.

Boy, this reminds me of all those old 'True Defender' debates of yesteryear. Any other 'old timers' remember the various splinter groups of the past? I can remember we had TDOLL (True Defenders Of Lois Lane) and TDOCK (True Defenders of Clark Kent), but there were others that my memory is hazy on.

I've never been a fan of St. Lois or St. Clark. It's the very fact that we're dealing with two flawed human beings who make mistakes which makes the characters so attractive to me.

And I've always been very fond of S1 Lois. Like Clark, I think, I see her abrasiveness and almost manic hunger for success as a wall of armour concealing a vulnerable and desperately lonely soul. So I've always been willing to cut her a lot of slack.

As for Clark, it's the fact that he's striving so hard to be 'normal' and human, despite his powers and his alien origins, that endear him to me, so the mistakes he makes I'm willing to cut him some slack on, too, for the most part. *

I don't require my heroes to be perfect. It's their mistakes and flaws which make them interesting to me.

Which is just my perspective, of course. The above isn't in response to any particular previous post or pov or because I think anyone is trying to make Lois and/or Clark perfect.


LabRat

* Except for the fire hydrant. There are some mistakes I can't let slip past and I still think he deserved a good slapping for that one.

It seems I owe Lois an apology.

You got the story, _and_ you took me down a peg in the process. I guess I deserved that. You worked hard an earned your success.

She does seem to admit that stealing his story was wrong, even if she doesn’t gets right out and apologize, and the “you worked hard” might not have been for him successfully pulling her legs.

CC,
Breaking and entering, bribing, sabotaging other reporters work. How about, her eagerness to get a story out of the robbery of Clarks apartment?

Oh I don’t blame Lois for flirting with the bad guys. But too me it seem rather systematic, like say Dr Winniger, or Clark for that matter, if it’s something in it for her. Clark also seemed to be genuinely disappointed that Taylor turned out to be a rotten egg, as if he actually cared for her, to Lois the scuzballs are just that.

Lois didn’t want him there, he went there because he feared for her safety. That was how I interpreted blowing her cover too, by doing so she wouldn’t be exposed. So you might say that he didn’t respect her choices and judgment OTOH he does have some good reasons for that.

I saw it like that too, I think he was becoming rather exasperated, Lois simply didn’t care to cooperate with him, (not that I say she was obliged to).

If you had Lois Lane with her primadonna airs working in your office, do you think you would like her? Do you think your co-workers would like her?

I see nothing similar here. I never thought Clark dismissed Lois love for superman, there are several times he gives her input on how superman might see her. And he is certainly ready to bask in her adoration when he is feeling low. It’s just that he don’t believe she cares for Clark Kent and he can’t give her Superman because it’s a role he plays.

OTOH asking a guy that just confessed his love to you to go and fetch the man of your dreams is…cruel in the extreme, I even thought it OCC, even if Lois is self absorbed she shouldn’t be that insensitive.


Nancy,

But we know that she was distraught, that she says she had never done it before and blamed her obsession with Superman for it.

Labrat,
Exactly my interpretation, but most of the people around would just see her surface, It’s also why I find the gentler Lois of the last seasons a natural progression, she wasn’t lonely anymore.

I will admit that I haven't been fully following this thread but I think that the what has to be remembered is that everyone is basing their observations on what they saw on the television series. A series we all enjoyed, but have to reallize was written by writers who often exhibited a less than perfect record in writing our main characters with a consistant personality.

The needs of the storyline often overruled what would seem logical for the character.

Over the years it appears that part of the fun of this folcdom had been coming up with 'reasonable' explainations for the inconsistant behaviors that were written into scripts for the sake of plot.

Tank (who says that, at least, this varied behavoir gives fic writers a basis in 'canon' to allow actions to fit their own stories)

Absolutely. And, of course, it's not just LNC that suffered from that. It's a feature of almost every TV show out there.

It's that aspect from fans - of all my TV favourites, not just LNC - that I enjoy most, I have to say. Fun, indeed!

LabRat

Yes, which is why it's always seemed to me something of a fool's errand to draw conclusions from specific events or even entire episodes. Rather, draw back from the fine detail and take the long view - the broad impression the series leaves us with of the main characters.

Yvonne

Hmm... I believe I’m going to have to pull out IGaCOY and watch it again.


Well, it was mentioned that she tried to steal Clark’s story, and that’s why he sent her on the wild goose chase at the dump (or sewer plant).


The fire hydrant? You mean as in, “Look, there’s an elephant?”


Most people wouldn’t. Only those that had gotten under the surface.


I agree.


Yes, it is. I didn’t particularly think it was out of character for her though (but yeah, she shouldn’t have been that insensitive. - heck, she could have yelled for Superman from a rooftop.)


Yes, I can see that, too - at times. But did we really know that about her during strictly the first season? There were few glimpses into her softer side during that season (or at least few that I remember.)


That’s true, Tank.


Well, said, Yvonne.

I mean Superman interfering with city workers and setting off a fire hydrant just so the local kids can cool off in the heat in MoSB.

Stuart is a firefighter and each summer local kids setting off fire hydrants to cool themselves off are the bane of his and his colleagues' existance. It's not only anti-social, it's dangerous and puts lives at risk. It can cause water pressure to drop sharply in the immediate area, making it difficult for firefighters to do their job if there's a fire in the vicinity.

So every time I see Superman do it I want to slap him hard. Or throw something through the TV. It sets my teeth on edge every time. Fire hydrants are there for firefighters to put out fires, Superman! They ARE. NOT. SHOWERS! <g>

I've been known to complain about it a time or two on this forum.

LabRat (trying hard now to remember the elephant <g>)

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

This is a very true statement - I know it first hand. <DJ bows and scrapes to the keepers of the archive and boards )

Yes, but you can always get around that (if you so desire) by going to the dark side... err... I mean, nfic side. <g>

Hah! Lucky you, Pam. We got ice last weekend and snow is on its way this weekend. Eeep!

-- DJ

Arawn, what the heck is fanwanking?

My impression has pretty much been that if you call it Elseworld, don't give Lois a kid named Jason, and don't blatantly come out and say that it is based on a different Superman, then you can write whatever you want as long as the basic characters and relationships are there. And I am so glad for that. I am here for L&C's love and their struggle to find their place in the world and with each other, no matter where they live, where they work or in some cases what planet they live on.

Wikipedia. It\'s a beautiful thing.

Yup, that's pretty much it.

Yes, you're right, we did.

IIRC, it was a short story about Superman grieving for the death of Lois and Wonder Woman coming over to comfort him.

My feeling was that while the Superman character didn't have any characteristics that would especially mark him out as the Superman of LNC, he didn't have any characteristics that marked him as not being the Superman of LNC either. The author claimed it was the Superman of LNC and there was nothing to contradict him.

The presence of Wonder Woman didn't especially mark it out as a non-LNC story because, of course, it had been established on the show that Gotham City and Batman existed in LNC's world. So, if they did, why not Wonder Woman? <g>

Also, IIRC it was quite short and was focused on the two characters, so there were no background details that would tell you you were in world of the comics. Or LNC's world either.

So, I figured so long as the readers could imagine him as their Superman and there was nothing to jar them out of that, it was good to go. You're right that it was probably the most borderline story we've hosted.

Lisa more or less has it right, too. Most deviations in characterisations we'd probably put down to Elseworld.

Authors should remember that the Archive hosts stories about the characters from LOIS AND CLARK only and not just stories about any Superman and Lois and try to fit within those parameters. If, for instance, the characters were clearly those of Superman Returns or the comics with no LNC content whatsoever the story would be rejected. Using the characters of other Superman versions, in conjunction with the characters of LNC (crossover)is, of course, fine. But we would like to see a significant LNC content.

But if you're setting out to write about our Lois and our Clark, intending to write a LNC story, then you'd probably have to go off at a very large tangent to not be accepted.

Oh, and just to add - we got snow today, too! Homer is ecstatic. <g> You just have to mention the word snow to him and he grabs for his nearest toy and goes ape. We had to laugh though - our garden is under several inches of snow and we sat there listening to the weatherman tell us there was snow in our area "but it's not settling". Oh yeah?

LabRat

Yes but what is the show in terms of fanfic? I’d say a number of canonical elements, ignore or twist enough of them and sooner or later depending on the reader, he/she wont consider it L&C fanfic anymore.

If someone writes a story about Harry Potter, reuses the plot element of the L&C pilot and wan’ts call it a L&C fanfic, it’s no skin of my nose, but I assume that that such a expression of creativity would be a hard sale to the archive administration.

Yes, speaking as a reader now, I certainly agree that it's a question of degree. We are never all going to see the characters in exactly the same way, so some varation on characterisation is a given and generally accepted.

But there will undoubtedly come a point - unless the story is quite clearly an Elseworld - when I will lose interest if the author's idea of the characters deviates too far from my own. The point at which I deem them to be acting OOC. This, I am sure, holds true for most readers.

However, it's also a given that the point of OCC will vary just as much with readers as it does with authors. Although I do think that there is a majority of general concensus on what the characters should be that generally underpins things and most stories don't deviate too far from that majority concensus.

Having said that, if you're posting a story and 99% of your readers tell you that your characters are OOC for them - maybe they're on to something. Although, it is of course always up to the author as to whether they agree, pay attention or go their own sweet way on it.

I think the Archive benefits from the fact that most of the submitted stories are posted here first. Generally speaking, if your story is acceptable for posting on the mbs (in gfic) then it'll be acceptable to the Archive. So any stories in the past which may have been borderline have probably been changed by their authors in reponse to this forum's fdk responses long before they get submitted.

At any rate, all I can say as EIC of the Archive is that in all the years that the Archive has been in operation, rejections on the grounds of non-LNC content have been very, very rare. Far less than even 1%, I'd calculate. Happens once in a blue moon. I think, generally speaking, that the majority concensus on characterisation is more usually the norm than any gross deviation. We're more together on how we see the characters than apart.

LabRat

But, actually L&C fanfic breaks - or at least tweaks - canon a lot. I'm not sure why you refer to a fervent deference to canon - our writers deviate from canon all the time. How many hundred variations do we have on their first kiss, the big revelation for Lois, first declarations of love, etc. All of those are altering canon from what we saw in the show, but almost everyone loves these variations.

And because the show was so kind as to present us with an alt-Clark, that gives people a whole other universe to play in that a lot of shows don't provide.

I think this is the key. Not so much that people aren't willing to deviate from canon, but that they're less willing to embrace deviation from their vision of the particular characters. Certainly there have been stories posted where I thought Clark was acting OOC, for example, yet many disagreed with me and cited examples from the show to back them up. I was not necessarily convinced, and just have to accept the fact that we each view circumstances a bit differently.

However, you can have stories - here or in any other fandom - where the main characters appear to bear so little resemblance to the show where the writer could attach just about any name to those main characters, because to most people it's no longer Lois and Clark.

Kathy