Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Types of love and "L & C: tNaoS"

JoJo wrote:
In the sixties, DC comics (and Marvel did it too) would run "What If" stories which explored alternate timelines for their main characters. What if Clark had revealed his dual identity to Lana as a young man? What if he married Lois and she died? What if he had chosen to marry Lori Lemaris (the mermaid from Atlantis) and moved under the ocean? What if Jimmy were exposed to radiation and became a huge, mutant human-turtle amalgam? (Don't laugh. They actually wrote this story. Jimmy was "Turtle Boy." So now you know the truth, grasshopper.) What if Betty Brandt were bitten by the radioactive spider instead of Peter Parker? And in the late eighties, DC published a mini-series about how Clark might have turned out if his capsule had landed in the Soviet Union.

A lot of these were presented as highly detailed dreams of one sort or another. The vast majority of these stories did not end well, reinforcing the accepted mythos of the Superman universe. I suspect that at least some of them were rejected plotlines that were used because the writers couldn't come up with anything "real" for that month's issue. But, as JoJo points out, the "what if" is perfectly legitimate territory for curious writers. As I've already stated, my preference is for Clark and Lois to be together (and the show was, indeed, named "Lois and Clark," not "Clark and whoever was available to guest star this week, plus Lois if we can figure out how to squeeze her in"). But that doesn't mean that we can't bring in others who might come to mean a great deal to our heroic couple.

In fact, Ann, you have given me a marvelous idea for a story. Thank you.

If you're a Lois and Clark shipper, more power to you! Just remember that your ship isn't the only one on the high seas.

So LR does this mean you might be open to a small section of Other Than LnC Superman based fiction?

I know it has been raised before but if we had such a place it would be a logical place to put stories set against the LnC but where Lois or Clark is a minor player.

And yes I did say Clark because one of the other things that sets LnC apart is that Clark is a staring character, not a background mask.

I should probably leave this thread alone by now, but I can't resist making one more comment (and along the same tired path as before, too).

Terry, you talked about the "Imaginary tales" in the comics from the sixties. I remember them well. I remember the one where Clark married Lois, and she died, leaving him alone with a super-son. (Eh... a death-of-Lois story.... surely we have never heard of something like that before?) I most certainly remember Jimmy the Turtle Boy. I don't remember a specific story where Superman married Lori Lemaris the mermaid, but I certainly remember that Lori was portrayed as a potential love interest for Superman in many comic book stories. (This is why I can't read Nan's Home series, where Clark is married to a woman named Lori who is apparently a reincarnation of Lois. To me, however, the name Lori is inseparably connected with Lori Lemaris the mermaid and Clark's potential unfaithfulness to Lois with Lori, and seeing him married to a woman named Lori after the "real" Lois is dead is more than I can take.) And I vividly remember the Superman Blue/Superman Red story, where Superman was split in two. You could say he was suddenly "twinned". One super "twin" wore red and the other "twin" wore blue, hence the names Superman Blue/Superman Red. What really happened was that Superman could suddenly live two lives and therefore also marry two women. And he did, too: One of him married Lana and the other one married Lois.

But, Terry, there was never an Imaginary story where Lois and Clark got married and Clark died, leaving Lois alone with a super-son. And there was never an Imaginary story where Lois married an exotic lover like Aquaman, King of the sunken city of Atlantis, or a story where Lois was twinned so that she could get to marry two guys herself - never a story where one of her married Superman/Clark Kent and the other one married Batman/Bruce Wayne. Because getting two spouses was something that Superman could do, but it was not the proper thing for Lois Lane.

I recently recounted a true story of how an Afghani man told my friend that he had two wives because he had so much love in his heart that it was enough for two women. Apparently Clark, too, is similarly full of love, because this is what he tells Lois in one of the nfics that are eligible for this year's nKerth awards (Clark has just told Lois that he has had a sexual relationship with another woman):

Hmmmm. I can just imagine Lois telling Clark that she fell in love with Dan Scardino and loved him passionately and had sex with him even though she had already fallen in love with Clark at that time. But why shouldn't she have sex with Dan Scardino in spite of her love for Clark, since love is not a limited commodity?

The thing is - I want love to be a limited commodity for both Lois and Clark, and that is what I'm all about as a Lois and Clark shipper. But just like there were in the comic books from the sixties, there are stories here where Clark, like that Afghani man, has so much love in his heart that he needs to give it to more than one woman. And therefore, like LabRat suggested, I will just have to avoid those stories and read the other ones, where Clark loves only Lois, just like I always wanted him to.

Ann

Okay. I have finally figured it out.

Ann, we're talking about two completely different things.

You wrote:

If Clark were to marry Lois, and then while Lois was still alive, have an affair with Lori Lemaris, I would view that as a betrayal of Lois and her love for him. And I believe that we agree on that point.

But Clark cannot - categorically cannot - be unfaithful to Lois if she has died. And this is where we sharply disagree. Faithfulness to a spouse (or unfaithfulness) is for this life only, Ann, and cannot be applied to either of them if the other is dead. It doesn't matter if there weren't any "dead Clark/Lois with a super-child" stories. It doesn't matter if Nan's Lori reminds either of us of Lori Lemaris. Clark can't be unfaithful to a deceased Lois any more than Lois can be unfaithful to a deceased Clark.

But this isn't the subject under discussion! You want to read only Lois and Clark love story tales. You refuse to admit as possible any tale where Clark marries someone else after Lois dies. You demand that we all write Clark as loving only Lois and never loving or being truly intimate with anyone else without insisting the same requirement be laid on Lois. You insist that even imagining Lois's death is possibly the most horrible thing a FOLC writer can do.

Okay. I get it now. I understand. Honestly, you have a perfect right to read only stories you like. You do not, however, have a right to trash someone's story because it doesn't meet your strict requirements. There are certain stories I don't like, but unless I'm asked to be a beta for that author, I won't give only negative feedback, I won't behave as if my personal Superman fantasies have been deliberately attacked, and I won't flame the writer or the story in the feedback folder. And I don't understand why you keep beating your head against this same stone wall. Just don't read the story.

'Nuff said?

Thank you so much for this Labrat.

I have to argree with the points made thoughtfully and respectfully by Barbara, DJ, Terry and Labrat to name a few.

To add my usual .02. I can't help but feel scared when this discussion comes around because I am in the minority who like stories that are not fairy tales and present less explored areas of our favorite characters. I feel that, in theory, with every harsh review authors get for simply the *premise* of their fics (which cannot be *fixed* without scrapping the whole story), the danger of decreasing that 10% of different fanfics increases (and actually what appears to happen is that just moving the fic in one direction makes people sound the alarm, regardless where the fic might really be going).

Sure this is a Lois and Clark forum, but I don't see why any writer that goes off the beaten path at best gets told flat out that he/she will lose X person's readership, or worse yet that she/he should be labeled as hostile to Lois for X plot. Surely it is possible for people to write to simply pursue an idea without having an anti-Lois agenda. I mean obviously some do, but to read so much about motive in writing if the author hasn't expressed as much is to make alienating assumptions.

Like Labrat mentioned the amount of "mainstream" eternal love LnC fics is quite large. Those who try something different already go against the grain and will probably recieve less reviews. However, must they also deal with flat out criticism of their premise as well? It's like kicking people who are already at a disadvantage.

For the sake of a tolerant, diverse community, if you don't have anything constructive to say it really is better to say nothing at all.

alcyone

have just returned and have read all these posts at once.

Interesting comments but I've somehow been left with the impression that some posters have missed my argument about the uniqueness of the Lois and Clark relationship - that their love for each other was that once in a lifetime love. (as presentred in L & C: T NAoS that is) And also that Lois Lane is as important a character as Clark Kent/Superman.

I don't object, and have never objected to any suggestion that either L or C had "loves" before they met each other. As I've said, all too often , there are so many types of love.

But what has thrown me out of stories has been the suggestion that other loves that each had (oddly, nearly always Clark as it turns out) was "the love of a lifetime". As soon as that premise is set up, it means that I as a reader (all too sadly logical) can't buy that either Lois or Clark will be "that one great love" for the other.

That doesn't mean that other readers won't be interested in reading, of course.

It's the distinction between the different types of love that matters to me as a reader, but I do understand that distinction is either irrelevant to others or that they may not get the distinction in the first place. Please accept that I do understand that.

And yeah, i know RL is totally different - but right now I'd just as soon escape real life.

c.

I may be wrong , but I can't think of any posters who have made this type of criticism without presenting evidence from the story to support their point. Sure it's a matter of interpretation, but there has to be something in the story to have led a reader to make the interpretation Alcyone suggests (or any interpretation, for that matter) in the first place.

Shouldn't a writer strive for some internal logical in a story? Is it wrong for a reader to say, wait a minute not following your logic here? Sort of like pointing out a plot hole.

c.

Carol wrote:

Yes. Absolutely. A story must be self-consistent or the vast majority of readers will stop reading, whether it's fanfic or a published novel by a writer who got a six-figure advance for the collection of dreck I'm holding in my hand.

One of my favorite yell-at-the-author moments comes whenever the hero/heroine is in a sticky situation, takes out an armed opponent, and then leaves the weapon beside the unconscious enemy! Even if the main character is a pacifist who absolutely refuses to kill people, doesn't it make sense to remove the weapon from your enemy's reach so he doesn't wake up, follow you, and shoot you in the back?

So an internal logic is pretty much required for any story, no matter what length, to be believable. But what's the premise here? If Lois is "the great love of Clark's life," as so many want her to be (me included), why can't he find love again after she dies? Why couldn't Lois find love again after Clark dies?

Carol also wrote:

That doesn't make sense to me, Carol. You seem to be saying that if Clark married Jane Doe and Jane died, all before he met Lois, that Lois can never be "the love of a lifetime" for him. If that's logical, then your premise must be that only Lois can make him truly happy and that no other woman can really even tease anything other than a fleeting distraction from him.

The first part of your premise - that only Lois can be Clark's "one great love" - is exactly what L&C is based on. And I agree completely, totally, fully, and innumerably (sorry, had a Jack Sparrow moment). I don't think I could write a story where Clark loved anyone else more than he loved Lois.

But the second part of your premise isn't reasonable. You're taking the position that once he has Lois, no other woman can do anything for him after that, even when she's dead. The New York Yankees had a first baseman named Lou Gehrig who died of what is now called (supposedly in his memory) "Lou Gehrig's disease." He left behind a childless widow who never remarried, saying that once she'd had the best no one else would do.

That's a very romantic notion, and it's one which fits our ideals of "love" very well. I'd like to think that I've ruined my wife for any other man (and so far I'm doing pretty good), but it would be foolish for me to believe that she would "forever remain faithful to my memory" if I were to pass on any time soon (or any time not so soon). Insisting that Clark cannot love any woman after Lois isn't logical, it's an unreasonable requirement.

We aren't the ones who don't get you, Carol. You don't get "us." The story that has Clark choosing someone else over Lois is so rare that I can't think of any at the moment. The ones which come to my mind immediately ("What Might Have Been," "The Butterfly Legacy," Nan's "Home" series) all have a Lois who has either married someone else (usually Luthor) or time has passed and Lois has died. We're not deliberately stomping on your romantic ideals. We're simply exploring other possibilities.

Way back when I was posting "The Road Taken," Carol left the following feedback on the final chapter.

In this story, Clark did love Lana - before he met Lois - but nowhere did I state that Lana was "the love of Clark Kent's life." That's Carol's interpretation, not the author's intent. I get where you're coming from, Carol. I really do. You want stories where Clark cannot possibly love anyone else after he meets Lois, whether he ends up with her or not. And that's your right. You shouldn't change your opinions or preferences based only on anyone else's opinions or preferences.

But it's your opinion, not divinely revealed truth. You have every right to prefer those stories. You do not have the right to trash those stories which do not meet your standards. If a story doesn't meet those standards, that does not disqualify it as an interesting or reasonable or logical story. I will tell you the same thing I told Ann.

If you don't like the story, don't read it. Don't flame us for not adhering to your own personal preferences. Don't accuse us of illogical plotting or destroying the magic. We're different people, and we like different things. I don't care for every story on the archive or on the boards, but I'm not going to whack an author in public for that reason. Plot holes? Yes. Main characters acting out of character? Probably yes, unless that "acting out of character" is part of the central premise of the story.

But I'm not going to attack anyone because "that's not the way it's supposed to be." That's wrong and it's hurtful.

I'm not the only one to say this, nor am I the first, but here it is again: If you don't like it, Carol, just don't read the story.

No, that's not what I said at all. In fact, I did say that I could see other relationships for both (see my above comments, and in fact, the title of the thread.)

But what I have said was that if those relationships were presented as "the love of a lifetime" or "that one great love" then that premise would consequently make it inconsistent for either Clark or Lois to be presented as "the love of a lifetime" at some other point.

I wonder, Terry, if this isn't a matter of how we interpret the term "love of a lifetime". I wonder if perhaps you take the term to mean any type of love and that any individual may well have more than one love in her lifetime? Whereas I see the term "love of a lifetime" as suggesting something unique about that particular love, something extraordinary.

That different perception would account for my reading of your TRT - You wrote powerfully of Clark's love for Lana as the love of his life, and while Lois was present in the story, she was never more than a female "Jimmy Olsen" - the sidekick who helped with the A plot. Clark was not the least interested in Lois as a woman in the story at all, although he respected her as a colleague. That's why I called your story a Clark and Lana fic. A well written one with an excellent A plot, mind you, which is why I kept reading. And, to be honest, I was also expecting to see some indication that while Clark 'loved' Lana she was not *the* great love of his life. (naive, I know )

btw - Nan has always made it clear that Lori is Lois reincarnated so I'm not sure that that example quite works. As well, in BL Lois did not marry Luthor, did not even have sex with him, but came to the same realisation that she did in the TV series - it was Clark she loved.

And to repeat what I said above - sure, if Clark (or Lois) dies I can see Lois moving on, loving someone else - but no, I don't see that New Guy would be "the love of her life". He would be "a" love of her life, however.

But the series was called "Lois And Clark", and that's what I look for in fics. Both the relationship, as well as the affection and equal regard for both characters. (and to repeat, again, I do know that others don't look for those elements)

Terry, I think you're allegation of flaming is both an exaggeration of what I have written and unfair - I get the feeling you're saying that I should not state my opinions nor explain why I hold them.

I don't know what to think about criticism of stories frankly. It's hard to be dishonest but that's what I would be if I were just to say positives when I also had quibbles. Better not to post at all then, regardless of the positives?

I know criticism can be difficult - I've certainly had lots of it for my stories. On the one hand I wanted to know what people thought, and I revised stories to take into account some of those criticisims, trying to achieve an inner logic in plot, characterization, etc. But sometimes the answer was that they thought that what I had written was not worth reading and that was hard to take.

c.

I haven't had a chance to read Laura's story yet, which sparked off this latest round of discussion on this topic. I do know that Clark is grieving Lana deeply. But even so, and even if he does at some point refer to her as "the love of his life", couldn't he just realize later that he was...wrong?

Lana would be his childhood sweetheart, and probably the only woman he had ever loved to that point. He would have shared a true and genuine love with her, but he could easily realize at some future point that in fact this love wasn't the same deep and all-consuming passion that he will develop for Lois. So it could come down to ranking Lois as truly "the love of his life", but it doesn't negate his genuine feelings for Lana. The only other difference then from the show would be that he didn't fall instantly in love with Lois.

Relationships with childhood sweethearts can be tricky things. I married my high school boyfriend, and we are still together over 25 years later. But the complete and utter adoration that I had for the man for the first x number of years isn't there anymore. My love for him is different now, as we've changed as people over the years.

So even if Clark and Lana had been together for as many as 5, 10 years, once he falls in love with Lois, he could come to realize that his love for her was entirely different.

As an example from RL, you can take the apparent situation with Tom Cruise. Everyone recalls the ridiculous spectacle he made of himself when he began dating Katie Holmes. (I'm not a Cruise fan.) And as I recall, he made it quite clear that the feelings he had for Katie were head and shoulders over his feelings for any other woman before her. So at least as far as he's concerned, she is "the love of his life", yet one presumes that at the time he did love at least some of the women he'd been involved with.

I hardly want to compare Clark of this story - or any other story - with Tom Cruise. But it does help illustrate why I am one of those who thinks it is possible that a Clark who has loved once could easily find that all-encompassing magical love that he and Lois will share. I've only seen about 5 episodes of Smallville, but even there one could assume that despite the obsessive love that Clark there has shown for Lana, one day in the future he will realize that that didn't compare to his love for Lois Lane.

Evidence from the story to argue about how an author feels about Lois or Clark in a story based on how they are written dismisses the creative process. It's like a literary argument where everything is ascribed to the author's biography. Such a thing assumes the writing in question is blatantly derivative instead of something purposely arranged and worked on.

But it isn't about internal logic. It's about "canon."

To tackle your comments from a slightly different angle and less skillfully than the other posters...I have no problem with someone saying wait a minute you say X and Y but earlier in the story you had said B. That's what I interpret to be "internal logic." In this case though, I was referring to continuity between the series and fic, which is I think the "evidence" used to argue that certain fics from the get-go are not in the spirit or whatnot of LnC. This view of the "spirit of LnC" boils down to what the author/reader interprets as "canon." But there have been plenty of people disagreeing on that to suggest that the notion of canon is hardly stable, the most recent example I remember being some think Clark is capable of killing and some think he is not *shrug*. There's enough evidence to support both so we can all happily co-exist and it makes fandom richer by opening up story possibilities. That being said, of course I think any story needs internal logic to work--if your story is about a happy Clark you can't just make him depressed and go killing people in chapter two for no good reason. So the "evidence" that counts for me in any critique relating to "internal logic" lies in the fic itself rather than in the series.

Near the end you said:

If you say positives you earn the right, in my view, to mention the quibles. But the point blank criticism of "this premise isn't LnC," as I've said, is just not a useful critique to make and is rather disheartening to a writer and overshadows any other positives because it's akin to telling them they should have scrapped the central idea (which is what the _premise_ is). That there is no way it might work (as LnC) based on internal logic alone. Those are pretty crushing comments after someone has taken the time and effort to write it out, because it indicates that nothing they could have done, short of not writing *that* story, could have worked. The words "doomed from the start" come to mind.

To go back to the issue, while you may have an aspect that defines LnC for you, other people have their own parts of LnC that give it its "essence," or whatever, and these might not be aligned with yours. That doesn't mean that they aren't "Lois and Clark" (clearly there are a minimum set of traits that make it so, otherwise it wouldn't be here). Maybe they aren't to you, which is what this all boils down to. Still, just because you don't see them that way does not mean that they are not within the scope of the grey umbrella of the series. This is the statement I have a problem with:

Like I said before what you look for is your interpretation of Lois and Clark in fics. Should we pretend that there is a clearly marked yardstick of "Lois and Clark" by which we all can judge a fic? Like I said, there are general parameters the board establishes (the use of characters from the series, etc.), but within those I think there's more to gain for encouraging fic you like than discouraging fic you don't.

alcyone

I think that it's more than just the continuity with the series that can be used as evidence. For me, what also matters is evidence from the fic itself. There has to be a consistency within the story itself. I'm not sure we disagree on this point, though.

If some major aspect (notice my avoidance of the word 'canon' ) of the series is to be changed, then I do think the author has to make that change plausible within the context of what we saw in the series. Otherwise it's difficult to call on my "willing suspension of disblelief" - having done that for the super-powers business, it's difficult for me to go further in that regard:) But it may not be for others.

But surely there has to be more to a fic to warrant the label "L & C" fic than just the use of the characters from the show? Were it as wide open as that, then I'm guessing that most Smallville fanfics would also qualify as L & C fic. The only exception would be those stories which focus on Chloe, and even then, it could be argued that such a story would be a crossover.

Clearly, there is much of L & C that is open to interpretation, but surely there is something intrinsic that makes L & C, well, L& C, and not say Smallville or SR or...?

I'm not sure I'm following this argument. How is deconstructing a story dismissing the creative process? Sometimes what and how an author writes is indicative of how the writer subconscioulsy thinks about some issues. For example, is anyone going to argue that Ian Fleming was a feminist? Or that there are not examples of anti-semitism in Dorothy Sayers' novels? I'm not sure that this is ascribing an attitude to the author's biography - the evidence is in the actual text.

At any rate I'm not sure that the "creative process" is always completely independent of a writer's values and attitudes. I don't think it's possible. Probably literature would be pretty boring if it were possible.

I do believe that a writer's values subconsciously shape what they write. I've been accused in private e-mails of writing a Lois who is too independent, not submissive enough to Clark Kent, etc. Now I'd never thought of my interpretation of the character in that way but clearly some people have thought so.

For example, years ago I wrote a story for S6 called "The Last Time I Saw Elvis", a story that hardly anyone ever read except for a few who wrote to tell me that Lois was way too independent, was a lousy mother, and also that I'd written Martha as way too independent. But I really thought I was writing those characters in a way that was consistent with what had been in the series.

Nevertheless, I have claimed to be a feminist and so it wouldn't be surprising to see that reflected in what I've written, whether it be Lois or Clark or Martha. etc as well as how I watched the show itself.

Anyway, I'm not too confident I'm following your argument here, Alycone, and I may have misinterpreted what you were getting at. Are you suggesting that we should never compare or reference what we saw in the series to what we read in fanfics?

Yes, I've never claimed otherwise. I suspect we all do that. As soon as anyone starts a comment with "This is so like Lois and Clark..." that's what is happening.

c.

There are, I think, three ways of looking at Superman. Most non-LnC fans think of him primarily as a movie and cartoon superhero who is known mostly for his super-strength and his ability to fly, and for his constant fights with Lex Luthor. To these people, Lois Lane as well as Clark Kent are rather secondary characters, and love and romance similarly play a very minor role in their take on of Superman.

The fans of LnC are clearly very different, because to them the superhero in spandex is the secondary character, while the civilian lovebirds are what really counts. But I think there are two main groups of LnC fans. One group, possibly the biggest, love the one-of-a-kind soulmate status and love chemistry between Dean Cain's and Teri Hatcher's characters in LnC:TNAoS. These people are going to want fics that reflect this love between Cain's and Hatcher's fictional characters, between Lois and Clark.

But another group of LnC fans, probably almost exclusively female, are interested in LnC only because they love Dean Cain's handsome and romantic Clark Kent. To them it's probably enough that Clark Dean Kent finds romantic love in the fics they read, whether or not his love interest is Lois. In fact, at least some of the Dean fans may actually prefer that their hero falls in love with someone other than Teri Hatcher's Lois Lane.

Now me... I became a die-hard Superman fan only after I had become convinced, back in 1969, that Superman truly loved Lois Lane. And I quickly realized that the one thing that I found absolutely necessary and indispensable about Superman was precisely his love for Lois Lane. If he lost that love, if he fell in love with another woman, if he preferred another woman over Lois, if he wanted to have another woman on the side, or if Lois died... well, if any of those things happened, Superman would be dead to me. He would be dead, useless, hurtful and horrible as a fictional hero to me. I truly couldn't stand him if he rejected Lois. And I couldn't stand him if Lois died.

In 1980, Superman rejected Lois in the movie "Superman II". And I rejected him. He was dead to me for ten years. A friend of mine gave me a book about Superman, and I hid it away in the attic. My best friend gave me a Superman tea mug, and I put it away on the highest shelf in my cupboard. Many years later I broke my favorite tea mug and found myself without the proper means to drink tea, so I looked around in my cupboard and found and retrieved my Superman mug, which I have used for my breakfast tea ever since. But by the time I found this mug (and was willing to use it), Clark had already proposed to Lois in the comics.

To me, no fantasy comes close in importance to my fantasy about Lois and Clark. Teri Hatcher and Dean Cain pale enormously in importance compared with what the fictional characters of Lois and Clark mean to me. I don't mind giving Lois and Clark Teri's and Dean's faces, but as for the show... well... I haven't seen it.

And I realize - believe me, I do - that I have no more "right" to Lois and Clark than anyone else on these boards. If anything, I have even less of a claim to these characters than the rest of you guys on these boards, because my fantasy about Lois and Clark doesn't even have anything to do with the TV show that these boards are dedicated to.

But I feel so enormously strongly about Lois and Clark. I feel so enormously strongly that Clark is dead to me as a fictional hero if he doesn't love Lois, and if he doesn't love her a lot more than any other woman, and if Lois isn't alive and around for him to love.

Please accept that I feel that way.

Ann

Well, I don't deny that I do love the handsome and romantic Clark. It's also fair to say that IF I had to choose one of these two characters and say which one was more important to me, I would choose Clark. Many would. There are also many - including you, Ann, and Tank, for example - who I believe would choose Lois.

This is where I completely disagree. So yes, obviously I'm not part of this group that you speak of. What information have you seen posted that has made you draw this conclusion?? Is the reverse true for you - that you don't care whether or not Lois's love interest is Clark. Would you actually prefer that Lois falls in love with someone other than Clark?

I doubt it. Yes, L&C did turn me into a Dean fan, so I have watched other TV shows and movies that he's been in, even the awful ones. And I have therefore seen the "actor" fall in love with other females. But when I watch L&C I don't see "Dean" playing the role - I see Clark. And because I see Clark, I want to see Lois too.

From the responses I've seen in this recent discussion and in other threads, I've never got the impression that there is this second group of FoLCs such as you describe. On the contrary, I would say that 99.9% - if not 100% - prefer reading stories about Lois and Clark together.

But just because people may prefer L&C together, doesn't mean that people are unwilling to try other premises. Because it is also true that many people believe that, depending on the circumstances, either Lois or Clark could potentially find love with someone else. I know that is one of the issues that disturbs you, and you have every right to feel the way you do, just as everyone has that same right to their own feelings and opinions. But that issue is not the same thing as your latest statement that at least a small smattering of "Clark" fans don't care - or might actually prefer - if Clark ever loves Lois or not.

Kathy

Ooof this is long. And repetitive.

All I’m getting at is to be aware that even what we “saw” in the series is hardly something objective we can use to police what fic premises are “LnC” or not. Of course we should compare and reference because that’s the fun, but I don’t think that it’s productive to use it as a critique, since its likely nothing the writer can change other than not writing the fic. It's just negative. I give an example below.

Yes, but my point is that even that #1 “major aspect” is not something that every fan of the series agrees on. For example, to some people having *Clark* as the protagonist and not Superman is that one important thing—it is that which facilitates there being a “Lois and” in the first place. Some people think it’s both Lois AND Clark as *individual characters* equally. Some people think it’s the characters as *romantically* involved. And even these examples are over-generalizing, but all are valid. I think the fact that we're having this discussion is a good indicator of this.

Usually I would agree, but in certain occasions what “we saw in the series” (which is btw another way of saying “canon”) is hardly the same. To use my previous example, some people “saw” in the series that Clark could kill if pushed beyond certain bounds. Some people “saw” he couldn’t no matter what. And there’s people who are in between. But if you just didn’t “see” that such a thing could happen, the fic is doomed from the start, not because of the premise itself—but because it doesn’t work for you . No “context” will ever justify it or fix it because you didn’t “see” it in the series to begin with. Same thing with if you "saw" Lois as more important or Clark, or if you think them both as fighters as the central attraction, or their romance--the shadings are endless.

I guess at this point I should say that I’m not arguing about sloppy writing or overtly shady characterizations here. If you’re setting the fic immediately post Pilot and have Lois declaring her love for Clark in the first sentence and successively have them getting married without explaining most of us will agree that there’s a problem. But most people here are too skilled in characterization to make huge oversights like that so the issue, I believe, is much more subtle. We wouldn’t be discussing this if it were otherwise.

Obviously not just the characters, I added an etc. and just meant to leave it vague because “LnC” at some point becomes something slippery. What are the basics? I’d offer two. Sure it’s about romance and chemistry between Lois and Clark. Sure it’s about Clark more than Superman. But there might be more that I’m not mentioning. How far to diverge from the series for it to still be acceptable is one of those questions without a clear answer. Ultimately it's up to the mods, and they've been doing a great job in keeping this fandom so open.

I mean just look at genre. Some fics go way off in a different genre than the series. But to some people even the genre is “LnC” and something not keeping with the tv series' family-hour feel automatically does not make it “LnC” and they won’t read it. Didn’t Labrat just mention how some of the fics we consider classics now, were objects of controversy in their time—for being outside the bounds of “Lois and Clark” be it in drama (as opposed to lighthearted comedy) or whatever?

Yes, but even that intrinsic thing that makes it LnC for me is not what makes it LnC for you. Chances are they are related, which is why a community exists in the first place, but they might not be the same. My problem is that slapping that “not LnC” critique on a fic gives no room for the writer to fix anything. What can Terry (I hope he doesn’t mind my using him as an example, it’s just what’s most vivid, because it’s so well done) do against the charge that Rebuilding Superman isn’t “LnC” since person X didn’t “see” Clark be able to kill in the series? What kind of "constructive" feedback would something like this be? What does a reader seek to accomplish with this--because honestly I thought feedback was a gift to authors not a bat to the head.

Clearly what we believe influences what we write BUT it’s a question of degree. And since no one can clear that up, it's safer to begin and end with the _text_ not the writer--which is what I'm arguing for. Accuse the _text_ all day, but leave the writer out of it (unless he/she says something and even then...)

I’m no psychologist or psychic, so if I don’t actually know the person how can I pretend to know the entirety of his/her views on a subject based on one piece of _fanfiction_? It must be quite offensive actually to have someone else claim that what you’ve written shows you think/agree with X, when perhaps your point was something else and it was just a mistake in conveying it/different interpretation.

Your argument also doesn’t take into account that HOW we read influences our interpretation just as much as any authorial intention (maybe even more) because none of us can claim to be unbiased to begin with either.

I've always said it, it's about the execution, not the premise. Never the premise. A good author should be able to carry anything through. If it doesn't work--then it doesn't work because of the writer or the reader, not because it's "not LnC."

alcyone

Acyclone said it quite well, as did many others, but I have to have my go at it. I did want to give a quick thanks to Carol, though, as it’s been quite some time since I’ve been fired up and passionate about something, and certainly longer since I’ve been passionate about L&C. (Even though this horse has been flogged to death and past it. Poor thing.)

First, addressing Framework:

First off, I didn’t see Labrat sign off as a boards admin, so anything she said was surely her own opinion and not that of the collective group who run the boards and are in charge of such decision-making. But that’s beside the point.

The point is that this is a L&C fanfic forum, not a forum for all types of Superman fanfic. I didn’t follow all of what was said in the subject thread regarding the request for an “Other” section on the boards, so I’m not sure what points were hashed out there. But let me requote what the boards FAQ states:

“Any of the characters” means that I could write a completely Perry-centric story, with Lois and Clark as minor players, or even have L&C not in it at all. But my story has to be about L&C Perry with the characteristics that we saw on the show, the history, that sort of thing – a gruff man with a southern drawl who loves Elvis and whose marriage with Alice is on the rocks.

Just because Lois and/or Clark aren’t “major players” in a fanfic, doesn’t mean that it’s not an L&C story. And it certainly doesn't mean that I love them less or don't believe in that "mythic love".

Which brings me to Carol’s question:

Yes, there is. There are a lot of things. It’s the CHARACTERISTICS of said characters that make them solely L&C characters, rather than Superman movie characters or Smallville characters or what have you.

It is as wide open as using any character from the show, and that doesn’t make Smallville fanfic L&C fic. It’s not the names Lois Lane, Clark Kent, or even Lana Lang that make the characters fit into fandom; it’s the characteristics which writers have given them in their various incarnations.

If I write a story about Clark and he happens to be a bit bumbling and a lot nerdy and considers himself to be Superman above Clark, then I’m writing about Clark in the movieverse. If I write a story about a Clark who thinks of himself as Clark Kent, first and foremost, and has a wry sense of humor and got his Superman suit from his mother when he was just shy of thirty (as opposed to from a crystal cavern in the middle of nowhere, a gift from his dead birth father), then I’m writing about L&C.

It’s not just one aspect of L&C that makes it L&C, at least not for most fans.

Sara (who, to be clear, isn't posting as a boards mod, either)

Again, from Carol:

Carol, how do we know that one of those other relationships was "the love of a lifetime?" What's the criteria? Where's the checklist for making that decision? What tips us off? How can we tell? Or do we have to await your judgment?

This sounds like Clark's reaction to his wife's sudden and violent death at the end of "The Road Taken" should have been to sweep Lois into his arms, kiss her senseless, proclaim his eternal love for her, and remark that his love for Lana pales in comparison to his love for Lois. Then she says "Okay, when's the wedding?"

No way. Not gonna happen. Not only does a hokey ending like that cheapen their relationship, it devalues the character of Lana and makes her just a notch on Clark's bedpost. Like we've said, you want to see Clark with Lois and ultimately only with Lois. Hey, I got no problem with that. In fact, I prefer that outcome myself. And if you want to leave feedback saying that this is what you prefer, by all means do so.

The problem, Carol, is that you insist that because this is a Lois and Clark forum, Lois can end up only with Clark and Clark can end up only with Lois - unless, of course, those other relationships really didn't mean anything. You see a story where an author decides to explore something really juicy, something really different, something with some angst and a few WHAMs and an "edge" to it, and because Clark and Lois don't get together right away, you think it's not L&C fanfic. There are tons of romantic stories with the L&C relationship resolution as the central focus. If you like those kinds of stories, fine! Read them! Enjoy them! There are a lot of them on the archive and more being written all the time by highly skilled authors who feel the same about our heroic couple that you do.

The difference is that they don't feel it necessary to dismiss a story that doesn't settle under this umbrella as "too Smallville" or "too movie Superman" or "not really canon," whether you use the word or not. You're trying to force us into your preferences, and that's what is generating all these sparks.

Ann wrote:

Ann has told us that Clark cannot exist for her unless Lois is the dominant love in his life. Gosh, Ann, doesn't that make Clark subservient to Lois? Doesn't that make his existence an adjunct to hers, without substance on its own? Doesn't that make him completely dependent on her for not only his identity but for his life?

This is the kind of thing that, if we reverse the gender of the pronouns, would be denounced (and rightfully so) as anti-female. How can someone who is an ardent feminist, dedicated to the equality of the sexes, express so biased a viewpoint?

To Ann's credit, she clearly states that this is her viewpoint and she's not trying to make anyone else adopt it. Thank you, Ann. You have a right to feel this way, and you have a right to express your feelings. You aren't trying to make the rest of us take on your viewpoint, and I applaud you for your eloquence while I shake my head wonderingly at this highly limited and very sexist view of Clark.

There are a number of similarities and a few differences between Ann's POV and Carol's POV, but the main difference is that Ann recognizes that she's not the ultimate authority on what qualifies as L&C fanfic while Carol feels compelled to point out what is and what is not L&C fanfic by her measure. This is the problem, Carol! If you want to express your opinion, please feel free to do so. If you don't like the same kinds of stories that I do, fine! You don't have to, and in fact there should be some disagreement, otherwise all the stories would sound the same. But don't try to shoehorn us into your narrow view of what's acceptable L&C fanfic. Because your opinions and feelings are perfectly valid, they are perfectly acceptable, but they are not the perfect guides for the rest of us.

I'm done ranting. I will check into this thread again, but I doubt that I'll post anything else. I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here.

Maybe we all need to just go write something.

Don't know if this will mean anything to anyone's argument, but Lois was always considered a central character to the show, not just by her name being first in the title, but by the show's original working title of Lois Lane's Daily Planet. I read the original title in an article in the April 96 issue of SPX.

Here it's talking about Deborah Joy Levine: I mentioned something earlier in this thread asking if fics that stray away from canon shouldn't be labeled as elseworlds or alt-universes since the events in these fics never actually happened to the Lois and Clark of LNC:TNAOS (e.g. marrying Lana before meeting Lois.) If the fics are labelled as such, then probably most anything could be done with the characters.

I need to answer two questions from KathyM:

Kathy, I don't know that there is such a group. Maybe there isn't one at all, at least not on these boards. There could be one over at Zoomway's boards, where the "Dean Cain" folder is the one that has received the largest number of posts. And of course, after I've read what feels like thousands of comic books and seen all the movies, I know how precarious and fleeting Lois's presence can be in the non-LnC Superman world, and how secondary she is in that world to Superman. (The "Lois and Superman" romance is resolved, said Christopher Reeve in an interview after his third or fourth Superman movie. Further Superman movies, he added, should not deal with that aspect of Superman's life.)

So after the Christopher Reeve movies, I have never really dared to believe that Superman's love for Lois is a given. After I returned to the world of Superman again after a ten-year hiatus, I always scrutinized any Superman-related (or Clark-related) stuff I came across for this one vital aspect: Superman's (or Clark's) love for Lois. I became hyper-sensitive to whether or not his love for her was a driving force in the stories I read. And when I read LnC stories where we see a lot of Clark, but where I can't perceive much of his love for Lois, I tend to conclude (perhaps very unfairly) that this is a "Clark-centric" story, written by someone who is more interested in Clark than in Clark and Lois. I guess you could say that I "translate" the strong focus on Superman (and the often dismissive take on Lois) in the non-LnC world of Superman as a strong focus on Clark (and a dismissive take on Lois) in some LnC stories I have read. But once again, I may certainly be very unfair to the writers of those stories. I may certainly misconstrue their intentions with the stories they have written. It's not as if I approach those stories without a ton of "Lois and Superman-related" baggage of hope, joy and horrible frustration. (But for all of that, I may never like their versions of Clark.)

Kathy also asked the following question:
Kathy, have you ever heard me rant and rave at the fact that Lois accepted Lex's proposal in LnC? If you have - or even if you haven't - there is your answer. Nooooo!!! No, no, no, I don't want Lois to fall in love with someone else. But when I grew up and "watched" Lois and Superman, it never seemed remotely possible to me that Lois would find another man to love. I didn't worry about Lois moving on, because it seemed absolutely impossible that something like that could happen. Superman could move on, yes. Lana was always there as a threat in the background. Lori Lemaris was another potential love interest, and then, of course, there was Wonder Woman. And in one comic book story from the sixties, Superman met, fell in love with and proposed to a more-or-less ordinary Earth woman! And she accepted his proposal, and they started to prepare for their wedding... until it was revealed that this woman was suffering from a deadly disease, and she died before they could marry. But there you are. When I grew up it always seemed possible that Superman might move on, but it never seemed possible that Lois would. That is why I myself have always focused so heavily on Clark's faithfulness and constancy, not on Lois's.

But let me tell you that I worry about what the latest Superman movie might do to Lois Lane. Will she be seen as the woman who chose Richard White over Superman? I would totally and completely hate it. In fact, if the image of Lois Lane changes so that she is generally perceived as someone who will not give her love to Superman/Clark Kent, then she, too, will be dead to me as a character.

Terry wrote:

Yes, Terry, that does make Clark subservient to Lois. But because I also can't imagine Lois without Clark, that makes Lois subservient to him.

Terry, my fantasy about Lois and Clark is a fantasy about two people who are destined to be together, and who are doomed to be hollow and incomplete without each other. But as I was trying to explain to Kathy, when I grew up it seemed eminently possible that Superman might stray and abandon Lois, but never that Lois would abandon him. That is why I focus so heavily on Clark's faithfulness and constancy, as I just said... but that doesn't mean that I feel less strongly about Lois's.

Terry, you said something else in a previous post:

Terry, believe me, when it comes to real-life people I don't begrudge anyone the right to remarry (with the possible exceptions of those who maliciously murdered their spouses - you know what I mean). Real life people are real life people with real life problems, desires and pains, but fantasy people are fantasy people, whose problems, desires and pains we are free to bestow on them ourselves. So we can choose to make them larger than life and incredibly romantic, or we can treat them "seriously" and put them in all kinds of realistic situations. Actually, the two approaches don't have to be mutually exclusive, but to me the realistic "Lois dies and Clark moves on" scenario is a no-no, absolutely incompatible with my fantasy about Lois and Clark.

But Terry, I found it interesting that you mentioned Lou Gehrig and his wife, because they were real people. It could well be that I'm over-interpretating what you said about Gehrig's widow, but it seemed to me that you did not wholly approve of her decision to stay single for the rest of her life after her husband died.

This reminds me about a Swedish writer, Per Olov Enquist, whose father died when he himself was just a few months old. His mother never remarried. I recently saw a (to me) hugely interesting interview with Enquist, where it seemed to me that he perhaps disapproved of his mother's decision to never remarry and thus say no to physical love for the rest of her life, just because her husband died young.

The latest, and probably last, book that Enquist has written is called Blanche and Marie. The "Marie" in question is Marie Curie, a very famous woman who most certainly existed in real life. I haven't read that book, but I have heard Enquist talk about it. Basically, although Enquist didn't say it in so many words, Enquist portrays Marie Curie as a sort of counterpoint to his own mother, a woman who made another choice about love than his own mother did. Marie Curie was an extremely famous scientist and physicist, who won the Nobel Prize for physics twice. But after her husband died (or she left him - I don't quite remember) she started an affair, which shocked the people at that time, the early nineteen twenties. Enquist explained in that interview that his book chartered the painful, awful downfall of Marie Curie, who toward the end of her life was sick, shunned, hated and deserted by everyone because of her illicit affair.

What I found most interesting about the whole thing was the answer that Enquist gave, when the reporter asked him if Marie Curie had done the right thing when she had risked everything for love. After all, her affair cost her such awful pain in the end, so was the initial joy and pleasure worth it for Marie? Yes, said Enquist confidently. It was worth it for her. And I thought to myself, how can he know that? How can he know what it was like to be a super-famous female physicist in the early twentieth century, who risked everything to "move on", and who came up against the merciless condemnation of all of Europe? How can he know that it was worth it for Marie? Just because he wishes that his own mother had taken a few more romantic risks?

I think we should be very, very careful when we talk about and judge the romantic choices made by real people. But when it comes to the romantic choices made by fantasy people like Lois and Clark, I know what I think and what I like.

Ann

Terry, I don't think you've really read any of my posts completely. All along, both in this thread and elsewhere, I've said I can see both Lois and Clark in relationships with others before they meet or even after one of them dies that each believed and labelled as "love". Mind you, I don't want to read the latter because they usually are dead-Lois fics and I (although I do understand that this doesn't mean everyone) want to read about Lois Lane as much as I want to read about Clark Kent. (what Ann says about Lois Lane - me too.)
What I've been trying to do, is to distinguish between the different types of love.

OT ramble: (I will add, though, that I'm not so sure that everyone must remarry or hook up or whatever after the loss of a spouse - or even that everyone must be in a relationship at any point. People are different, and remaining alone after the loss of a spouse is just as valid/healthy as moving on. After all, there's a difference between living alone and being lonely. We are, I often think too much a "couples" oriented society when, in fact, coupledom (and 'happy' coupledom) is far from universal. )

With respect, no I don't think it does, at all. In fact, as you imply, that would be "distasteful'. But, and now I'm going to comment on the story, and so I'll add, a disclaimer - this is my opinion, not to be taken as what the whole world should think. In the body of the story itself, were I (and only me, no one else of course) to believe that Lois would one day become the "love of Clark's life", I (and I stress that "I" means one person only and not absolutely everyone else in the universe or even the guy next door) would have to see some indication that the marriage to Lana was not perfect - not that he didn't love her, but there were things that were not quite right for him. As well, it would have been not unsurprising for Clark to have been at least aware of Lois as a woman. Laying the groundwork for what is to come, so to speak. In fact, you did do that for Lois - we saw those few subtle. indicators in Lois that suggests she regards Clark as more than her colleague. Nothing more, just enough to suggest. That those elements were not there for Clark I saw as significant, especially since you, as the writer, had taken the care to include them for Lois.

Where on earth have you got the idea that I believe that?? I do admit to having difficulty with prolonged angst that isn't justified by anything in the story - angst for angst's sake, but that's it.

Also define "something really different" and "edge". Oh, and "juicy" (which I always take to mean a bit of nfic, which can be, uh, interesting But, of course, "juicy" could be Clark's life running an orange grove in Florida or his life as a tabloid reporter/papparazzi or... ).

[QUOTE] You're trying to force us into your preferences, [QUOTE]
No, I'm not - have never indicated that what "I" think should be
what everyone thinks. In fact, throughout this thread I've tried to make it clear that this is my opinion only. I do try to explain why I hold an opinion because I think that should be done, otherwise a reader is left wondering why someone has come to that opinion.

Terry, I do feel with the exaggerations in your last post, you've flamed me. Never thought I'd say that.

Alycone, I'm concerned about your use of the word "police" because I sense you've used it as a pejorative which implies that I have no right to state my opinion. But given what you've written elsewhere, I can't believe that you think that. Nevertheless, I agree with most of what you've said, in fact I think we've both been saying much the same thing, some degrees of difference, but only degrees. And, as you said, we've both been very repetitive.

c.