Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Ultimate Lois Deathfic

Since the Lois deathfic is back again, I just thought I'd give you the ultimate Lois deathfic:



Hamlet-Clark: Oh, poor Lois. Here were the lips that I used to kiss so many times. Where are they now?

Ann

Ann, you're comparing Lois to Ophelia?! That's not on! Ophelia was a prize wuss-face! IMHO, at least.

No, I'm not comparing Lois to Ophelia. I'm comparing her to Yorick, the court jester whose skull Hamlet finds in the churchyard. This is what Hamlet says when he holds Yorick's skull in his hands:

As you can see, Hamlet says that he used to kiss Yorick's lips when he, Hamlet, was a small child.

This is a painting of the small child Hamlet with Yorick:



Hamlet clearly loved Yorick when he was a child. And Clark loves Lois when they are both adults. But if Lois were to die, Clark might contemplate her skull in the same way that Hamlet contemplates Yorick's. The point I was trying to make is that I think that the Lois deathfics rarely consider the full tragedy of Lois's (premature) death. Often I find those deathfics too neat and clean, too sweetly sad in a romantic way, where the focus is on Clark's broken heart:



The true physical horror of death, of decay, of the horrible transformation of the vibrant young Lois into a rotting corpse, is rarely in them. Actually considering Lois's dead body, her fleshless skull, brings home the message of her death in a special way. At least I think so.

Ann

Right. Sorry, got to brush up on my Shakespeare. So what we're trying to say is, if we're writing a deathfic, we should write about the clay that housed our souls being eaten by maggots and earthworms?

Actually, I don't agree. Men die and worms have eaten them, but when I think of death I think of the soul. The essence of the person we love has flown to where we cannot follow, and though they may flourish wherever they are, the tragedy is left to the living. I don't feel sorry for the dead, Ann. I feel sory for what they must have gone through and the fear they must have overcome and the promise their lives must have held yes. But once the well is dry, why would we care if its walls caved in upon itself?

I don't pity the dead, Ann. They are at peace. I pity the living who mourn them.

Difference of opinion, I guess.

Let me try to explain once again what I mean, Hasini. Of course I'm not feeling sorry for dead people because they are being eaten by maggots, I feel sorry for them because they are dead. Or rather, I feel sorry for those who died young, before their time ought to have been up.

About fifteen years ago my sister-in-law's brother-in-law died of cancer at the age of thirty-nine. His wife was devastated at first, and his daughters, six and ten years old, were shell-shocked. But now, fifteen years later, they have all moved on. His wife has found a new man, an extremely nice person, and his daughters, in their twenties, are busy building their own lives and are doing well. I'm sure the daughters still really miss their father, but I honestly believe they are very confident in their ability to build successful and happy lives of their own. As for the wife, if her husband was miraculously brought back and she was given a choice as to which man she would like to spend the rest of her life with, her present partner or her former husband, I'm not absolutely sure she would choose her husband.

So this man's family has moved on. But what about himself? If he hadn't been so cruelly struck down by this insidious disease, he would have been in his mid-fifties now, probably still vigourous and very able to still enjoy life. Every day that goes by is a day that this man should have been able to live through and enjoy! Every new day is a day that has been stolen from him! His family is happy again, his family has moved on, but nothing can compensate him for what he has lost. If his wife visits his grave every day, if she brings fresh flowers and kisses his gravestone and talks to him and does everything she can to prove her love to him, that still isn't going to give him back a single day of all the days he has lost.

A little less than a year ago, my brother's father-in-law died. He was seventy-eight. He was a lovely man, and we all miss him terribly. But I don't feel that his life was stolen from him. He died of a heart attack at seventy-eight, and his mother and father both died of heart disease in their early sixties. I don't feel that my brother's father-in-law was cheated out of anything that he ought to have had. We all miss him terribly, and I feel so sorry for his wife and his daughters and his sons-in-law and his grandchildren. But I don't feel sorry for him.

As for my sister-in-law's brother-in-law, I don't miss him, and I've never really missed him, because I never knew him well. And I don't feel at all sorry for his wife, because she is happy with her new man. I do feel sorry for his daughters, but I honestly believe that they are relatively happy now. But above all, I feel sorry for him.

So if Lois is killed prematurely, I'm going to feel very sorry for her. Nothing is going to compensate her for her death. And a lack of compassion for her in a Lois deathfic is going to hurt me a lot.

Ann

I get what you mean, Ann, and I still prefer to look at it differently. I think it's purely a cultural and religious bias or something. I was always taught that a person dies when his or her time on earth is definitely up, like a lamp runs out of wick, or oil, or air, or all of them. I was taught that although there is a chance to cheat death and your own destiny, karma usually wins out. If you die early due to your bad karma, then you it's likely you've paid for your past misdeeds and will live a longer life in your next birth.

Believing in reincarnation has its perks. You always have another life to live. So dead people are pretty much in clover. But the person you lost will never walk among you again, so its the living who will grieve and feel robbed.

I don't know really. Perceptions of death, as my world cultures professor pointed out last semester, depends purely upon cultural idealogy. In my case I've been raised to view death as merely a stop-gap between lifetimes. When I was younger, I lived in a period of extreme violence in my country, so I found myself contemplating dying a lot. I discovered I wasn't afraid, but I thought it'd be a shame I might not have the same family in my next lifetime, but I'd probably meet up with them all at some point of the cycle of rebirths, so it was all a temporary thing really. In fact, the most disturbing possibility I came up with was that I might die without reading the seventh Harry Potter book, and wondered how I could get a message to my re-incarnated self to read the series at first convenience! What can I say, I was a wierd kid!

Anyway, that's more or less the mindset I still have. I'm not afraid of dying itself, but I AM afraid of the grief it would cause and I AM afraid of losing somebody close to me. Such grief has always been more self-centred, in my experience.

But if I didn't believe in reincarnation, I suppose I might think the same way you do. When it comes to unverifiable theories about life, death and taxes, my philosophy has been that one theory is probably as good the other, and to just pick a theory and run with that. So, this is an entirely new angle for me to wrap my head around and I must ponder this a bit before deciding what I'd feel about it.

You always leave me with food for thought, Ann.

I suppose, if you believe that there is nothing beyond this life, than his death is a tragedy. If there is nothing to gain on the other side, then he truly has lost everything.

But, for those of us who believe that this life is merely a station on the way to something better, death is not the end. Like Hasini, I mourn for those left behind but not for those who have gone on.

Next week will mark eight years since I lost my husband. In those eight years I suppose I have "moved on". You have to - or you'll go insane. Do I miss him? Absolutely and every day. But I honestly believe, no, make that, I know that he is in a better place and that I will see him again someday. When this life is over and we can be together without the worries of mortality, who can say that either of us lost anything?

Before you get upset and tell me that I've misunderstood you, Ann, let me say this. When an author kills off Lois (or any character) it's for literary license. It's an entirely different thing than when God calls us home. I only speak to the latter since you used it as an example in your post. To me, there is a vast difference between fiction and reality.

I read one to escape from the other. And, sometimes, a good cathartic cry is just what I need. So I don't mind if an author "kills" one of the characters. Because in the next story they'll be fine and whole again. It seems a bit overwrought to get really worked up when the memory chip in my head resets with each story. Unlike life, in which there is no way to back up and change a darn thing.

It's all subjective, isn't it? We each bring our own luggage along on every story.

I wish I could reset those memory chips each time, but for some reason I've never been able to do that. It would be so much easier to be able to reset, rewind, erase.

And not to think about what the implications are.

This has been a difficult several months - two deaths in my family and the nervous breakdown of another family member. As hard as this has been, most of all I grieve for their loss, not mine.

So true that we all bring our luggage along. Some of us escape into religion, some of don't, can't. But oh how much I would love to believe what you've written, Sue. It would make it so much easier.

c.

It doesn't make it easier, Carol. It makes it bearable.

My heartfelt condolences for all that you're going through. Sometimes it's all you can do to get through the day. Eventually, though, it feels worth the effort again. <<<hugs>>>

I tend to be like Sue and am usually able to "reset" after reading a story, which is probably why I have no strong aversion to deathfics either (although I respect that a number of members of this board do). This doesn't mean that I haven't felt haunted or deeply saddened after reading one, but for me often a cry over a story helps me release some of my deeply-buried feelings over real-life things that I haven't been able to or wanted to let myself cry over.

Carol, my thoughts are with you too over this trying time in your life. {{{{more hugs}}}}

Now maybe I'm just missing something, but...
Ann began this thread by saying that the Lois deathfic is back again. But where? Has a story just been posted without a warning, so that she read it? I assume that there was a reason to bring this all up again.

Kathy

Kathy, it's called Healing. Very

Ah, thanks. I'm way behind on my reading right now - that one's on my list...

Kathy

Why does a *single* posting of a *warned* deathfic result in yet another thread?

Why can't someone just post a deathfic and it be ignored by those who don't like it?

What?

If you mean in a disagreeable way, yes. Very special. Let's reduce her to a body. That's all she is--flesh and nothing more. So when her heartbeat stops, she's nothing more than dead tissue. It's like she never existed.

Nevermind that she's cherished enough to be mourned, there is nothing positive about that. It's too romantic and clean, it's much better for her to be nothing more than decomposing skin and ashy bones, so she can _truly_ be the object of our pity.

That's way better than the beautiful dead maiden.

alcyone

You are at least partly misunderstanding me, Alcyone. Because I wouldn't have started a thread if the new deathfic had been, for once, a Clark deathfic. It's the insistence of the idea that Lois has to die so that readers can enjoy the catharsis of fictional death through Clark's eyes that gets to me more than anything. What's wrong with having Clark die and watching Lois find peace afterwards? Is it, perhaps, that Clark's death, unlike Lois's death, would be too big a loss to be cathartic?

Ann

It's one thing for topics to come up again and again (to share information and insights with newbies, for example), but for me, quite another to retread the same tired ground over and over when nothing new will be accomplished by it.

When was this discussion last held? A year ago? Ann, why do you think anything has changed, so that we need to do it all over again?

Kathy

Personally, I would find it easier to kill off Lois for the simple reason that she *doesn't* have superpowers. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's female. It has everything to do with the fact that she has no superpowers. It takes a lot more "work" to kill off Clark. I've been toying with a fic that does just that for over a year now and it's darn hard to kill the guy.

I started this thread by referring to Hamlet. Have any of you seen, or better yet, read Hamlet? I read it very carefully when I decided to write a very short, simplified version of this play for my students, a version that would lay bare the essential conflicts and drama of this play. I found that this play is so very, very much about death. Oh, it is about revenge too, of course, and about deceit, and about Hamlet's hatred of his uncle, and about his cowering before his task of having to kill his uncle, the King of Denmark, representative through his lofty office of God on Earth. And it is about Hamlet's hatred of his mother for her betrayal of his father, and about his ensuing revulsion of Ophelia. But most of all, it is about death. It is about the fear and horror and sadness and loss and grief of death. And it is about the complete uncertainty of what comes after death. In his famous "To be or not to be" monologue, Hamlet says:

What happens after death? We don't know. Hamlet tells himself that he would really like to commit suicide, but he dares not for fear of what will happen afterwards. And when Hamlet finally dies - not because he has committed suicide, which was considered a mortal sin during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but because he has been murdered, it is still not certain that he will go to paradise. This is what Hamlet's good friend Horatio says at the moment of Hamlet's death:

This sounds peaceful, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Hamlet is going to enjoy the happiness of Heaven. It could mean only that the sorrows of life is over for him.

Unlike Hamlet, I don't believe that we will be plagued by horrible dreams after death, dreams that we can't wake up from. I believe that there is nothing after death. Of course I may be completely wrong about that, but still, that's what I believe. And because I believe that there is nothing after death, that makes death, particularly premature death, a very big deal for me.

I grew up in a very religious home. I was given all sorts of religious children's books when I was a kid. A sub-genre among the religious books were the stories about good little religious girls who died and went to heaven. Another sub-genre were the stories about good little religious boys who were saved by God so that they could live out their lives here on Earth. Both these stories were supposed to be equally educational and uplifting: the girls who died and went to heaven and the boys who survived and lived out their lives on the Earth. Both these kind of stories were supposed to be equally demonstrative of God's love for humanity and for children. But all I could see was that the little girls died, that their lives were taken from them, that God wouldn't protect their lives here on Earth, and that I wasn't even allowed to feel truly bad that the girls were dead. Oh, I was allowed to cry at their deaths, of course, but afterwards I was supposed to smile through my tears and feel happy and good that the little girls were in heaven. Bottom line, I was told that I shouldn't really grieve when a girl died. I should grieve a little at first, and then I should feel happy.

And on Sundays, I put coins in the collection-box that was shaped like a little African boy, to remind me and everyone else to save the little boys of Africa. Because boys were meant to live.

And if there are significantly more Lois deathfics than Clark deathfics, then that suggests to me that I should smile through my tears at Lois's death, just like I was asked to smile through my tears at the little Christian girls' deaths. But I shouldn't have to imagine Clark's death, just like I wasn't asked to imagine the deaths of little boys in the educational children's stories I was reading.

Ann

This topic has been discussed over and over, and nothing new will come up now. There are people who dislike deathfic, especially Lois deathfic in Ann's case. That's all very understandable and reasonable. But there are also people who do like it and will read and write about it. Each has their own right.

Yet you are suggesting, in my eyes, that I shouldn't have written a Lois deathfic, Ann. I believe I have a right to do so. I wrote and posted my story, but I never asked you to read it. That has been your choice. So I don't get why you are so upset about it, after all the previous discussions. It wasn't like there was no warning at all.

As to why we write more Lois deathfic than Clark deathfic... It's like Sue said, damn hard to kill the guy! Besides, I wrote this story for a reason. It was to let go of some of my emotions and I could only identify with Clark for that. It has helped me, for I am one step closer to being 'normal' again instead of the state I've been in the last few months.

Saskia

Yes, I understand that. And that is precisely why I would never criticize you for writing it.

But I still want to discuss the "death-of-a-woman" story as a genre and as an "established idea" in human culture. With my background, I know that I myself was taught to regard "death-of-girls" stories as cathartic and ultimately uplifting, whereas "death-of-boys" stories were never offered to me as a source of strength or renewed hope. Why else was I served up many stories where girls died and went to heaven, but never any stories where the same thing happened to boys?

At the same time, I'm absolutely sure that my relatives who gave me the stories about dead girls didn't realize what kind of message they were giving me. I'm sure that my relatives hadn't even truly noticed that the dead children in their stories were all girls. In short, my relatives taught me something they weren't even aware that they were teaching me.

In my case, the attempts at educating me backfired. Instead of regarding stories about the deaths of innocent girls as ultimately uplifting, I was horrified and outraged at them. Why was it good that girls died, but not that boys died?

Of course I realized, even then, that there was an enormous difference between stories and real life. Sure I was expected to feel good about the deaths of girls in stories, but I was certainly never expected to be happy about the deaths of girls in real life.

However, since I feel that I was taught something that my "teachers", my relatives, weren't even aware that they were teaching me, I have to wonder what kind of education other people have received. I'm sure that no one here has read all the books and stories that I read as a child. But maybe, maybe you have come across your own stories about girls or women who died, where you were allowed to cry at their deaths and feel relieved afterwards? At the same time, maybe you have never been offered the opportunity to cry "feel-good" tears at the death of a fictional good man?

Back in the seventies, there was a hugely popular move called Love Story. It was about a young man and a young woman who met, fell in love, started having sex together and got married. After a while the young woman got sick, and she was diagnosed with leukemia. Finally she died in the arms of her husband. The End.

Like I said, this movie was enormously popular, especially among young women and girls. I saw it, and was mystified at the popularity of the film. Did the females who loved it identify with the young woman in the movie? If so, were they happy to identify with a character who died? Did they think it was all right to die as long as somebody grieved for them? Did they think that the young husband's utter grief was so incredibly beautiful that they themselves would happily have died if it had made a hunk of a man so heartbroken? Or did they fantasize about comforting the drop-dead gorgeous widower and making him happy again?

And would a remake of "Love Story", where the man dies instead of the woman, be much of a success?

I bring up the question of the Lois deathfics because I think it is deeply troubling if there is an underlying readiness in our "common consciousness" to regard "death-of-women" fics as ultimately uplifting, whereas a corresponding readiness to regard "death-of-(good)-men" as uplifting isn't there. Or, to put it more bluntly: I don't want to be comforted by stories about the death of a woman. And it troubles me - yes, it does - if others are ready to be comforted by stories of the deaths of (good) women, but not by stories of the deaths of (good) men.

Ann

First a lot of people read for catharsis and that's great. But that is one way of reading. Let's not assume everyone who reads has the same reaction and the same intentions for reading. Those kinds of generalizations are seldom productive.

In that vein, enjoying a deathfic that happens to have Lois as the one who passed doesn't necessarily mean that Clark's death would be a bigger loss. That's faulty logic, people have rehashed this a million times.

Ann, you are providing your own biased and culturally-bound reading of what you percieve to be a genre. Your supporting evidence comes from your own experiences, which is fine, except that you put them forth as suggesting some larger political agenda of which _you_ stand as judge and juror. In essence you are saying "Because this happened to me and I understood it that way, I can judge and censure." Further, you seek to be a critic of something you don't even read, often parroting generalizations instead of giving a fic its due for better or worse.

I don't think your comments generate "discussion" at all. I would find them much less repellent if they did. Discussion entails some exchange, but you are clearly more interested in slamming your view into us than in actually attempting to see the different perspectives on it.

We all fall into that at times though. Nevertheless, what does always offend me is that inevitably your comments end up scolding those who dare post something you disagree with.

Why not go brainstorm ways to kill Clark instead?

alcyone

Oh, I don't think it suggests anything of the sort, Ann. What it suggests is simply that authors will always write the stories which occur to them at the moment, which interest them.

As always with this topic, you seem to be pinning a lot of assumptions onto what other member's motivations are. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. No deep motivations to insult your favourite character. No misogynistic desire to devalue women. Just storytelling for the fun of it.

As others have noted - if you've spotted an imbalance in deathfics, then why not take a positive stance on it, rather than a constantly negative one? Write your own Clark deathfic. Issue a challenge in the Challenge Folder for Clark deathfic....

Like others, I have trouble understanding your own motivations for starting up this thread and beginning this topic yet again. You can have no hope that opinions will have changed. Views will be expressed that have been expressed a thousand times already in all the other threads you've begun and the same people will make them.

By this point, you might as well just have begun the thread with a link to the last one you started and let everyone read that instead. Save us all the trouble of repeating ourselves. Because it's beginning to feel like we're all caught in one of those endless time loops from SF shows, doomed to pointlessly repeat the same instant in time.

But...we're not really into closing down threads in this forum, so if you want to revisit this one endlessly and repeatedly...hey, knock yourself out.

LabRat

LabRat, I'm sorry. I have specifically not made assumptions about what other member's motivations are. I agreed with Saskia that she wrote her story because it made her feel better. Apart from that I have not made assumptions about other members' motivations. If you think I have, will you please tell me where in my posts those assumptions are?

And Alcyone, I have no wish to see Clark dead, so why should I ask for Clark deathfics? I wouldn't find them as depressive as yet another Lois deathfic, but should that mean I have to ask for stories about Clark's death?

One more thing. LabRat, you said this:

And Alcyone, I don't really know what to quote from your post, except that you say that I'm not actually discussing anything and that I'm just plain wrong. Okay, let me summarize our arguments as I understand them:

Me: There is an excess of Lois deathfics compared with Clark deathfics, and there should be a reason for that excess. Look, this is what I think may be the reason...

LabRat and Alcyone: There is no reason. End of discussion.

Ann

I'm reading so much intolerance of Ann's views in some of these posts. Surely she has as much right to raise these issues as does a writer to post another deathfic? After all we've seen Lois deathfics before, too.

I haven't read this latest deathfic so I don't know if there was anything new in it - some new insight into the characters that we've never seen before in a deathfic. But if we're going to criticise Ann for posting ideas that we are familiar with (although we haven't seen the Hamlet take on it before which I thought was interesting ) then shouldn't we apply that same criterion to a deathfic? - shouldn't there be some new insight in it to justify it?

But we don't, of course. Nor should we, any more than we should demand that a poster's non-fic comments be always original. (there would go most of the comments in the fdk threads if we did <g>)

Ann posts lengthy fdk which I suspect most writers love to get. :)She likes to write, expand, explain. I'm one of those who enjoy reading her comments, especially when they make me think of some aspect of a story in a way I hadn't perceived it.

As well, all of us have our views and attitudes shaped by the culture in which we've been raised. See, for example, Sue's strong reference to how her religion has helped her cope with death.

There are more Lois-deahfics and dead- Lois fics than Clark dfs.
To say , "well, that's what people want to write" merely restates the observation. Surely it's can't be wrong to probe why a pattern exists? To try to undrstand it?

Sue's having a hard time killing Clark But it's easy - as the writer you can do whatever you want to. This discussion has been had before too, and suggestions have been made on the methods. Also, the show nearly did so a couple of times, and if it hadn't been for Lois's intervention....

Death is painful, mean and brutal. To overlook that aspect, to romanticise it into some sort of 'passing away' with no mention of the horror and the suffering is....

Now that I think of it, I'm not sure we've ever had a Lois death-fic - what we've had is sad-Clark-mourning fics. Although, I'd better qualify that by saying that once I see a warning that a fic is Lois deathfic I don't read it - I do check those warning threads at the top of the fanfic list. Sometimes I peek though - the trainwreck thing.

btw, I don't want to read such a fic, so please don't take this as a challenge to write one

Sue and Kathy, thank-you for yo so much for your sympathy and understanding.

c (who these days is only capable of playing in the shallow end of the pool )

I think that both parties have a point. Your past record of intolerance to deathfics stand against you, Ann, so of course you must expect that people will feel frustrated when you bring what seems to be a similar issue again. Also, I don't agree that a deathfic that focuses more on Clark's loss as opposed to Lois' loss is inferior or hurtful at all. It's simply a part of the author's views on death, as is explained in this thread.

However, you do have a point. Some of the posters may think you're carrying feminism too far when you see misogyny in children's moral fables in this way. However, I don't believe that. The content of folk tales carry the subconcious nuances and thinking patterns of generations of social traditions and cultural sub-texts. If you do see a trend where the matyrdom of girls are seen as more exhalted and positively spun than that of boys, such statistics cannot be brushed off as mere co-incidence.

In Hinduism, there is a certain wedding tradition where the young bride and bridegroom are linked together with a sash and made to walk seven times around the fire. The first six times the bridegroom walks in front of the bride, demostrating his dominance and precedence over his wife. On the seventh round, which represents death, the bride is required to walk in front of her husband, signifying her duty to stand between her husband and death. In other words, to die before her husband. This is a part of the mythos that gave rise to the infamous Sathi Pooja, where it is a matter of honour for a woman to cast herself onto the funeral pyre of her husband and a matter of disgrace to outlive him. Such instances where the woman's life is considered of secondary importance to the man's is fraught in the traditions of ancient civilizations all over the world. Society has promoted women as primarily being vessels and symbols of honour, chastity and outright decoration for men since time out of mind. Today, we pride ourselves in our modernity in thinking and the abolition of anachronistic fallacies from our cultures. However is it quite so impossible that the lingering instincts and subconcious ideas that gave rise to these tradions in the first place are still inherent in us, uninvestigated and undiscovered? And does it really do us credit to dismiss the issue out of hand in such a way?

I for one, am going to do some thinking about this. Although in the others defence, Ann, it honestly wasn't readily apparent what you were trying to tell us until you clarified it to alycone in two sentences. At first, I thought you were just upset about Lois deathfics again. Then I thought it was about how you perceive death. It's only now I understand that you are drawing inferences to apparent misogyny through statistical data.

I'm quite willing and game to give this due consideration and ruminate upon it, but I don't think we should discuss it in terms of writing talent anymore. That simply makes an interesting anthropological disscussion into a personal vendetta that is also a dead horse into the bargain. And I think that if this is to be a profitable discussion, this topic belongs in the OT folder.

On a side note, I don't wish to demean your beliefs at all Ann, but believing that NOTHING happens after death feels like a rather uncomfortable thing to believe. No wonder you don't like deathfics! But in literature Ann, Lois does definitely go on to a better place after death, if the author has anything to say about it. So you can divorce death in fiction and reality with that in mind.

Also, I feel a deathfic plotbunny coming on. Oh, dear.

Why should it stand 'against' her, though? it is her opinion and why not accept it as such?

Wow - the author as God, changing the mind set that a reader brings to a story. Sort of like waving a magic wand

c.

It simply occurred to me to clarify this. I don't believe that the prevalence of Lois deathfics as opposed to Clark deathfics are indicative so much of misapprehensions on our part as the demographics on the boards. We are clearly a majority of women here, and I haven't yet read a Lois deathfic written by a man. (unless it's Tank, but then he's just a naturally evil sort of man and cannot be counted. ) My theory is that as women, we asociate ourselves with Lois' role in the relationship. Not because we relate most to her, but because she is the feminine vessel of this relationship. Why do we want to believe in their love? Because we like to fantasise ourselves being a woman like Lois, who is able to find true and unconditional love for the rest of our lives. She is the wife, the mother, the girl-friend in whose role we cast ourselves. It is through her that we act out our fantasies.

Sometimes our fantasies include thoughts of death. Not death itself, of course, but how we would like our death to affect our partners. We like to fantasise about a man who would go to pieces if we left them, who would never again find true love, perhaps, and remain always faithful to our memory. It's a pure ego-trip for women, that we call 'high romance'. Or we would like to feel good about ourselves by helping him find love again and letting him get on with his life. In all cases, it's not something we would want in real life at all, but something fun to imagine, which is what fiction is, really. We sure as hell don't want to die, no matter how much we love our partners and there is really nothing romantic about being dead for real.

So why don't we kill Clark? Well, why would we want to? To a woman, that's associative of losing our own lovers and husbands. It's fun to wonder how much others would mourn us, but a highly uncomfortable thing to deal with how much we would mourn another. So unless it's a cathartic experience, I honestly don't see that Clark deathfics would hold a great deal of appeal for a woman who's just after a little romance and an ego-trip on the side.

So if I think Lois deathfics aren't that big of a deal, why am I still so interested in your topic? It's because you said that people told you moral stories as a child and expected children, regardless of gender to feel good about girls dying and bad about boys dying. In that case, it moves from a simple case of gender-based preference to an all-encompassing social commentary. It is this aspect of the topic I am intersted in, although I don't think Lois deathfics bear any relation to the said topic at all. Which is why I'm asking we dispense with the Lois deathfic theory to pursue what I feel is a more valid topic.

We do accept as her opinion, Carol. However when she pulls up an argument like this time and again, we feel that she is not taking an objective stance on it. So we are naturally prejudiced as to what we expect her to be saying as opposed to what she is actually saying. It's a predictable pitfall.

Carol, if an author isn't God over her own fictional universe, what is she supposed to be? We are writing about a man who flies . It can happen so because we make the rules of universe which our characters inhabit. Whether you choose to accept it as such or not is your own choice, but it's easier for everybody if you do. Otherwise, just don't read it.

Please don't misunderstand me, Hasini. I know you meant well when your posted your previous reply.

I wasn't objecting at all to an author being "God" in her own universe, but rather to the idea that the reader ought to buy into the author's universe. I'm glad you've clarified that now by saying it is the reader's choice (and often not a conscious one) whether to buy into the author's parameters. And of course, once the author has posted the deathfic warning at the start of a story, no one has a right to complain they weren't warned about the content.

As for the flying man - that falls under the 'willing suspension of disbelief' umbrella - for some of us that's a small umberalla, for others it's a tent.

I've just read your last post (think there was a time cross in posting) and I do think you're onto something with idea that some readers, female anyway, might fantasize about how their lover would react to their death.

btw, loved your term "deathfic plotbunny" - had immediate visions of the 4 Plotbunnies of the Apocalypse.

c

LOL, Carol. Let me introduce you to them.

Here is the Pestinential Suebunny. First name Mary. Brings out readers' hidden homicidal inclinations.

And her brother The Deathfic Wangst Rabbit. Makes readers suicidal.

Close on their heels is the Flaming Bunny of Ship Wars (thankfully not a presence in this fandom, but is reportedly quite busy in the Smallville waters.)

And the Bunny of Punctuation Famines. Devours commas and fullstops, creating lack of coherence in fics.

And together they are the...

*sigh*

Obviously we're not getting anywhere here, but as always I can't resist. Blame my day off. Grr.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that the framework underlying your argument has some big holes in it, which is what I look at when I look at how persuasive an argument is. The biggest hole being that you just don't read what you're talking about and that you have no intention of reading what you suggest in its stead. So what is your point exactly, other than to imply that those who write Lois deathfics do so because they've swallowed an anti-woman agenda that has them valuing the lives of males more? I agree with Hasini, this has little to do with fic.

Besides that, I generally do think your argument reduces women to mere victims of ideological baggage. Obviously an uneven power structure exists in the world at large, but I am a firm believer that every structure creates a position of opposition.

If I were to look at folktales (which ocurrs to me after reading Hasini's post) for instance, I would look not only at the content, but at the fact that a lot of them at base were by women and for women before men actually made them "legit" enough to publish (which is the only way we know them now). They represented a way for women to be creative and to create communities in an otherwise stifling social environment where their expression wasn't valued so much.

We don't have a lot of "original" folktales (and here I'm thinking in the Western frame) because folk tales are oral in origin (which makes even using the word 'original' kind of sketchy). A lot were never recorded and a large amount were also changed to be fit to be printed and disseminated. I don't know much about them, but I find it more interesting to imagine a group of women of all ages scandalizing each other with their lurid interpretations of social mores (folk tales are really freakin' bloody and scary)than brainwashed drones, which is what the content would have them seem if we look at it through the victim frame. There more than that I think.

alcyone

Thank you so much for your very thoughtful posts, Hasini! I think you are definitely right that one reason for the prevalence of Lois deathfics is that many women like to fantasize about how their lovers or husbands would react to their deaths.

And you are right, this topic should probably have been posted in the Off Topic folder.

I absolutely loved you sinister plotbunnies!!! Okay, so here is my own deathbunny. Please note the skull!



And thank you so much too, Carol, for coming out of semi-retirement to defend me. Thanks!!! <tearful smile>

Ann

You're welcome, Ann.

btw, I'm not so sure that one has to read a deathfic to critique that genre's premise - Lois deathfic is Lois deathfic Nothing within the story will change the fact that she is dead. To say you must read the fic to comment on the genre is like saying you must watch kiddie porn before critiquing the genre. (or fill in your own personal "avoided" genre here )

Loved this! - Knew there was some evil force at work there.

Monty Python's Killer Rabbit is now hopping into view, looking around....

c.

Comparing Lois deathfics to kiddie porn is hardly fair, Carol. In fact that's a rather hurtful thing to say! Kiddie porn is a criminal and amoral activity! Rather, liken it to a legitimate genre like slash or sci-fi or action/adventure. People don't like the genre don't read it and therefore, apart from a generalized idea of the appeal of such stories or the kind of content that's in them they don't KNOW much about it. The first rule of true critiquing is that one must familiar and thorough with the subject before you do. Otherwise it just comes across as biased griping.

I seriously don't think that it's possible to 'critique' an entire genre. That is merely criticising. Every story within a certain genre or even a universe is only as valid as the author makes it. Every story is different and unique. Lumping them all together as, well, "Bah! Deathfics" is hardly an opinion we can be expected to take seriously.

We respect your aversion to deathfics, and I do think we should put up some kind of warning for them. But you cannot and will not be able to criticise it constructively unless you know what you're talking about and can take an objective stance on the whole subject. And when I say, "know what you're talking about" I mean that you should have read deathfics extensively in order to be able to compare them with others and realize the attraction of deathfic, even if you don't feel it yourself.

Well, then I should probably give up reading LnC fanfic altogether, because I know what'll happen at the end - Lois and Clark get together. It doesn't matter what vital relationship issues and life truisms the writer manages to explore within the story itself, nor how enjoyable her writing is. The point of such fanfiction is that LnC get together. Save me the mush! Am a Clana shipper anyway. Bah!

Personally, I think you should at least pick a much-recommended deathfic and try it. Sometimes you have to take a chance on something you are positive you will hate. If I hadn't done that I would never have discovered the fascinating sub-genre that is slash fiction nor have enjoyed the obsessive addiction that is Smallville or even Harry Potter.

Oh and btw, Ann, you're welcome! ((((AN))))

On reflection, I think you're right about the example that I used, Hasini.

But I'm not certain that the examples you've provided work as well either because neither gets at the obscene horror of death. Slash is hardly about that I gather, but is a genre that deals with adult sexual orientation. (am I right about that? never having actually read any, I don't know for sure) And adventure or sci-fi is very benign. I'd thought about using 'kiddie fic' which is a much maligned genre by a few posters on these boards however that too is a benigh genre. But that thought lead me into your no-go zone, Hasini - and i went.

But you're right, it's not quite fitting as a parallel of equal weight either. Unlike the other examples, it has the same seriousness, but the moral dimension makes it inappropriate.

Not sure one's reading needs to be all that enclusive. A representative sample is enough.

But as you know from other comments I've posted, I've read some death fic so I assure you my thoughts on the genre are not based on being a death-fic virgin. Even beta'd two for the archive when I was GEing. So your scolding is a bit unfounded.

btw what specific parts of what I wrote earlier in this thread came across as 'biased griping'? I'm not going to say I have no biases though - no one can make such a claim.

oh.

c.

Ah, but how could you identify a representative sample unless you were familiar with the stories? A statistican will first have studied the make-up of the population in order to choose a perfect sample.

Oh, okay. Actually, I was speaking to the whole of none-deathfic-reading people through you. However, I think you may have been biased in your reading if you still insist that the only point in a deathfic is death. How about the artistic expression of bereavement and the effectiveness of its conveyance? How about how the means of Lois' death is differently set so that we can examine Clark's emotional response to each setting? Death itself is a many-nuanced thing, and I simply think it's an oversimplification to lump the whole thing under "Deathfic- Ew!"

That's actually what made think of comparing it to slash. People (in the HP fandom, which is my only other fandom) simply say that they are not intersted in reading fic that contains a male/male pairing. In fact, they thought it was by definition adult and a well, squicky issue which people ought to be warned about before reading. Now most slash fiction I read are either PG or PG-13 and are even more intricately written and well-characterized that het fic because the author is concsious that the evolving of a relationship between two characters who have very little canon foundation for supposed sexual ambiguity. And actually selling it to the reader takes careful work. To be sure, there's a lot of very bad fic, but as we say in slash, "when it's good, it's amazing!"

The same can be said of deathfic. A squicky and hard-to-write subject which meets with a certain amount of prejudice from readers because of it's propensity to turn into an angsty-angst-angst fest. However, I'd rather wade through the bad ones to aappreciate the good ones, which when well done, are rather brilliant.

Umm, that was when you likened deathfic to kiddie porn and earlier, when Ann said that we wrote more Lois deathfic than Clark deathfic because our feminist ideals were overruled by misogynist cultural conditioning. And I didn't say you 'were'griping, I said it just came across that way.

That was a joke. To underine the absuridity of it all. *headdesk*

ME? Clana? I KEEL YOU, MALO!!

I am something of a rather large sort of idiot.

Here I am, assuming that people who don't like deathfic are simply prejudiced against an angst overdose and should be introduced to the concept of "trying it before dissing it". Completely ignoring the fact that death is an extremely sensitive issue especially to people like Carol, who have recently faced loss in real life and adding insult to injury by implying that a reluctance to discuss death is akin to homophobia. Yep, I think I should go do an inventory of how many brain cells I have remaining.

I am truly sorry for becoming so obnoxious in my later posts. I really shouldn't assume about other people's preferences so much. It is perfectly understandable that people who have become sensitized to the whole issue of death in RL will simply not want to deal with it in fiction and call it entertainment.

I think this is where I slouch off into the corner, extract my foot from the recesses of my mouth and eat humble pie instead.

That's a very good point, Hasini. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to stick my nose in once again and defend Carol, for two reasons. One, because she defended me, and two, because I think I understand what she means.

Imagine a TV show that doesn't exist in the real world. We are going to assume that it stars two characters, one white and one black. The show generates quite a lot of fanfics, and a small amount of the stories are deathfics.

Now imagine a black woman who is a fan of this show. She has watched all the episodes and she has read a ton of fanfics. But she has discovered that almost 70% of the deathfics are "black character deathfics" and only a little more than 30% of the deathfics are "white character deathfics". Moreover, there is no obvious reasons for why this should be so. Usually the person who dies in the deathfics does so for completely random reasons. The two characters suddenly find themselves in a rain of bullets, and the black person is killed, while the white one survives. It could just as easily have been the other way round, but it wasn't. Or the two heroes' car flips, and the black man is killed while the white one survives. Or a lunatic sends mailbombs to the heroes, and the black man's bomb explodes while the white man's bomb is a dud. It could just as easily have been the other way round, but it wasn't.

When our black fan has realized that almost 70% of the deathfics in question are "black character deathfics", even though there is no really good reason for why such an imbalace should exist, she feels deeply offended and decides never to read a deathfic inspired by this show again. Is her decision justified? Perhaps not. If she never gives a deathfic a chance again, she is going to miss out on any deathfic that gives us a thoughtful and well-considered reason for why the black character might indeed run a greater risk of being killed than the white character. And even among the deathfics that ask themselves no such questions, there may be some that are very well written and very moving. It is not at all impossible that our fan might have liked some of these stories if she had given them a try.

On the other hand, it is also possible that even the well-written stories would have angered, saddened and depressed her. Does she have a right to those feelings? Does she have a right to stop reading these stories and still brand the popularity of death-of-blacks fics versus the relative non-popularity of death-of-whites fics as deeply troubling? (Does she, at the same time, have a right to dislike all deathfics?)I think she does. Does she have the right to raise this question, maybe again and again, when she talks to other fans of this show? Heh. You know what my answers must be, Hasini. But will the other members of that fandom appreciate her tenacity? It ain't necessarily so.

Ann

P.S. Like the hypothetical fan I have described in my post, I won't read the "death-of-blacks" fics - eh, I mean that, like Carol, I won't read the death-of-Lois fics. However, I'm not implying that 70% of the LnC deathfics are death-of-Lois fics, because I haven't counted.

There's the one flaw to your logic (to my way of thinking, at least). Lois can die for completely random reasons. She's vulnerable in ways that Clark isn't. You have to work at it to kill off Clark. You have to drag in a villain, supply them with Kryptonite, trick Clark into showing up... If the fic is about emotions (which I think most deathfics are - the character dies for a *reason*, which is usually to explore the emotions that arise from that death), then it's sometimes not worth all the other hoops you'd have to jump through.

Plus, like someone else suggested, maybe it's because the majority of the audience here is female and we appreciate seeing the tributes to Lois as woman and her place in Clark's life and heart. She has definite value in the eyes of this group and this is just one of the ways to explore that.

ETA: I can certainly respect your opinion and views. But I marvel at your tenacity.

Chiming in again with another point.

Years and years ago I wrote in the X-Files fandom. And here's the thing I remember most about character death stories - we killed off both main characters about equally. Actually, if I had to bet money on it, I'd say that Mulder was killed off far more often than Scully. And it was definitely Mulder who was tortured more often. It's an entire genre - Mulder!Torture. Yes, Scully saw her share of angst and torture (especially on the show), but in the fanfic they were equals.

So, while I see your point about Western culture as whole valuing women as less than men, I just can't buy into it in specific cases. And especially not in this fandom, where Lois is revered and loved and *essential* to everything we do.

Hell, it's not even "Clark and Lois". Lois is first. Which is exactly the way she'd want it.

Okay... okay... I normally keep my stinking nose to myself...

But I do have to poke one hole in your theoretical TV show, Ann <not picking on you <g> just poking holes in your theory>

See, here, you are dealing with a TV show where both characters can easily die (white & black) by either bullets (as you pointed out), a car accident, falling off a cliff, a bomb, a heart attack... need I go on? But with LnC, it's a little different. Superman CANNOT be killed by any such easy means of death. As Sue pointed out... it's a little more difficult to kill him off... you have to set it up and it's a major undertaking. Whereas, if you were a cruel author (not saying that I would do this) you could very easily just have Lois and Clark enjoying some light, easy banter, sharing an ice cream cone together and Clark bends over to pick up a penny off the sidewalk and Lois steps off the sidewalk, looks back to see what Clark is doing, and gets hit by a truck.

BAM! <to quote John Madden>

Would that be a good fic? I'm not the judge one way or another. I'm simply posting another theoretical set of circumstances... trying to show that it is indeed easier to kill Lois. To have killed Clark in the same manner... he would have had to have just fought with a bad guy and have been severely weakened by Kryptonite first. And then we wouldn't have seen them just enjoying a casual stroll sharing an icecream together, now would we? It changes the circumstances quite drastically when you bring Superman into the picture. Because, let's face it, if you tried to kill Clark off in this manner, and he got "hit by the car", he would just allow himself to bounce off of it or slide under the vehicle, so that he didn't get hurt and he could continue "living" in the eyes of the public.

Now... if you really wanted to put a "fair" challenge out there and see Clark abused in the way that you seem to think Lois gets abused... then have someone write a story where "Lois" is Ultrawoman and Clark doesn't have his powers and gets killed. Because, then, it would be real easy to kill him off, and you'd be leaving behind a grieving super-powered Lois instead... who has to carry on in Superman's place. That would be more the same set of circumstances.

Actually, that could be a very interesting story... hmmm... but I digress...

I actually do not "prefer" deathfics. I will read one occasionally, and even enjoy it. I can "appreciate" the talent it takes to write one and the amount of "heart" and feelings and emotions that goes into one.

So I normally don't say anything because I feel like every author has the right to write what they want... just like we have the right to read it or refuse.

Anyway, I'll shut up now. <g>

-- DJ <signing off>

gosh no - just use a bit of imagination and it's very, very easy to kill off Superman. So it makes sense to ask why it has been so very rarely done in fanfic here.

Although you guys do have a point, of course about Lois being more vulnerable.

However, I don't think it's just a one variable explantion - that we female readers like to fanatasize about how our lover will mourn us (and I want to add here that is not my fantasy when it comes to Clark Kent but i digress into a bit of an nfic moment there )

Seriously though, I think there are several variables at work here - the ones that Ann has suggested are surely as significant as the necrofantasy thing.

Me - I hate to see Lois Lane reduced to a plot device to show us how beautifully Clark can suffer. She's worth more than that. Isn't she?

So be honest about death, people - show us the horror, the pain, the physical and emotional agony of dyeing. Please don't romanticise it, pretty it up by focusing on the romantic suffering of the man. True it's about the mourners, but most of all it's about the dead.

I have several nfics to my credit but not a single deathfic. And yet, even though my imagination doesn't wander into directions that include Clark's grief, I'm not going to get upset when someone else writes about it. I know there are people on the boards who have no interest in reading nfic, but I'm grateful that they don't start a thread questioning my morals when I post one. No offense, Ann! I said that with a heavy dose of irony, I promise. Maybe we need to start a folder solely for deathfics and WHAMs?

I am sitting here at my desk laughing. I think if someone started one, I think I'd have to say that sadly, I don't think many of us have as good as sex as Lois and Clark do. I certainly don't do anything in the conference room at my newspaper other than go to meetings, nor do I do anything in my kitchen but cook (coughs at Sue) or anything that involves the ceiling.

Sue, I think you've maybe attributed my post to Ann, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, my point about nfic was that my fantasies about Clark Kent did not, by a long shot include fantasies about his mourning a dead Lois Lane (the theory advanced being that's why there's so much more Lois deathfic out there). I was trying to say that's the last thing I fantasize about - that visions of the more active nfic variety are , well - better. I'm not sure at all why you felt your morals were being questioned.

very puzzled

As someone who has read nfic (and beta'd it), I'm not about to question the morality of it. keep wriiing the stuff.

Regardless, that nfic crack was not the point of that post but was an aside. My point was that there are several factors at work in explaining why deathfic here takes the shape it does. We can't be reducing such a complex issue to one factor. Nor should we dismiss the diverse suggestions that have been presented.

c.

Oh, Carol, I was directing my remarks more in general that at anyone in particular. In fact, I'm just being flippant and most of what I say should be ignored as such. I knew it was a throwaway remark that you had made, that's why mine was equally tongue-in-cheek. However... I said "morals" because that would be the most likely objection to nfic. But every time someone writes a deathfic, it seems like we're guaranteed a new debate on the subject, which can only make the authors feel attacked and as if their judgment and imagination were being questioned.

it's such a serious subject - more than any other on the boards. More than any other it has the power to distress and upset. And it's so complex. Hopefully, we can accept the validity of all the points of view that have been expressed here and perhaps even accept that there may be more than one factor explaining why deathfic on these mbs takes the shape it does.

c.

Very well put. And unlike the people who initiate commentary in Off Topic and Fanfic Related, I think most didn't write to begin controversy and debate. Otherwise you wouldn't have so many authors being hurt over how their right to pen something has been questioned (be it implicit or not) through these deathfic debates.

Posting a story is hard. Putting yourself out there is hard. I think this too easy to forget. Just because it isn't said outright in the thread, doesn't mean that the writer won't feel maligned when their work is lumped with something that is presented as morally reprehensible. Especially if they worked hard and really invested themselves in the work.

To me its the equivalent of knowing your coworker is gay and telling them outright you disagree with gay lifestyles and that you believe all gay people are going to hell.

Sure you have a right to voice your opinion (just as they have a right to be gay), BUT the important thing to consider is--would that lead to a positive environment?

As usual it is the writer's freedom that concerns me. My main reason for hangin' out here is to read fic, after all. And if WHAMs don't protect writers from discouraging accusations (be they implicit or explicit) it's beginning to look like nothing will.

alcyone

Hmmm, but that's you're *opinion*, Carol -- the fact that that particular subject is more serious than any other on the boards.

Let me explain...

For example... May I point out that to people who have extremely sensitive consciences and religious beliefs and convictions -- like some of the people on this board (I'm not naming any names) -- the subject of nfic could be quite offensive.

Now, that having been said... it is true that we keep it separated. However, we don't keep it separated solely for the reason of "sparing their feelings" but because it is inappropriate for young readers.

Perhaps a better challenge here for you to make would be that deathfics are inappropriate for young readers? Because really they are the only ones who are so emotionally capable of being scarred that they should be protected from certain genres. The rest of us are all "big boys and girls" and can make educated decisions on what we will, or will not, read.

There are several stories even on the PG side that push the limit as far as PG-13 can go - *ahem* I would know. And I know that even those stories slightly offend certain people on the boards. But... we don't see them starting threads to complain about the "moral injustice" that we are foisting upon our heroes. Because, let's face it, our heroes, Lois & Clark, were pretty chaste in the show: Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. Sure, they were tempted a few times not to be chaste, but in the end, they waited until after they were married to make love to one another.

So please don't think that your views on deathfics are any more strong or important than others views on nfic or PG fic that blurs the line of morality. Or anything else, for that matter. "Importance" depends very much on someone's "own point of view".

There can be many different things that a person might take offense to in the stories that are available to read. My point is... that you don't see anyone else starting threads to complain about that particular genre.

If there is one thing that I would like to get across in what I've said <and then I'll completely shut up> it's that there are many things that someone could take offense at, depending on their own personal beliefs and opinions. But we don't see any other threads being started to address those other topics -- people just realize that it is the author's right to write about those topics and they don't read them and just leave them alone and life moves on. This is the only genre that continues to be beaten like the dead horse that it is.

-- DJ <who again apologizes for not being able to keep her lip buttoned and her opinions to herself>

Wow, talk about different cultures. I grew up in Naval housing in San Diego, California, USA during the Vietnam war.

I was a teen ager before I ever learned about funerals that did NOT have a flag on the casket.

I did not know ANY, ANY women who had died until I was an adult.

But during my youth, I knew hundreds of men who had died. Wayne's father, Lee's father, Walter's father, Becky's father, and on and on. As I got older it was also friend's brothers who died. The kids who as teenagers helped us in bowling and baseball, that we tried to tag around after.

These were all people I could put a face to, not people I only heard about but people I had MET, talked with, been yelled at by and all those other things that make a person real, not mere statistics

I don't know what you read besides Lois & Clark but I think perhaps the selection is skewed in some way. I never saw "Love Story" and was not fond of the book or it's sequel (required reading for a class in my youth).

I also managed to give Titanic a pass, being married for decades does get you out of some movies, there in the guy dies. But he dies in the approved manner, dying to save others.

Perhaps the problem is you read books aimed at women. Women who often times in our culture are made to feel like interchangeable parts.

We live in a culture where men get bored with old wife and trade her in for new wife because new wife is younger, sexier and much more eager to please the man.

It has been so since bible times;

Malachi 2:14) “. . .On this account, that Jehovah himself has borne witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you yourself have dealt treacherously. . .”

Proverbs 5:18) “. . .rejoice with the wife of your youth,”

Many of these stories are likely an attempt to explore just how important the wife is to the husband. To prove to their, largely female, readers that she wasn't some replaceable part off an assembly line.

There are entire genre where the men die "good deaths' and the women only die if the man screws up.

DJ wrote:

Wow, DJ! Why do you say I think that? I wonder if maybe you could please flag the quote that gave you that impression? - I'd like to correct it because it would have been (and is) the furthest thing from my mind. No one who puts an opinion out there is assuming that the opinion will be accepted by everyone

As I understand it, Ann's concern with deathfic, as it manifests itself on these boards, is not the subject matter per se but the pattern it takes: mostly it is the female protagonist that is killed. That's a valid question, one with broader social and cultural implications. The purpose of my second post was to defend the right to explore a topic here on these boards and to present diverse points of views on it.
(my first post was a brief response to Sue's comment about how she reads and the importance of her religion in her life which is proably a tad OT - I mean the post, not Sue's religion )

Now, however, I'm concerned that we're moving towards a position on these mbs that tolerates most types of fiction being posted but only a narrow range of 'non-fiction' ideas being discussed and presented.

I'm not quite sure how the morality of nfic got into this thread, but it seems to have. A few years ago there was quite a heated and prolonged debate on these boards about the morality of nfic . I believe the nfic folder was created as a way to calm the waters at that time (I'm not sure, though, on the time sequence here)

Ah, but we have seen them - there have been threads discussing kiddie-fic (with some particularly contemptuous opinions expressed of that genre), alt-stories and crossovers in particular, and of course the Clark-moves-on fic (this one usually usually entangeld with the dead-Lois fic)
As well we've got into discussions of characterization - personality and character traits. Those too have tended to become theme-related.
Plus there have been many, many disdainful comments about stories with lots of A-plot content that have left writers of those types of fics feeling not great. I could continue with the list.

But it's death that is the most powerful theme, the most emotionally involving, the most devastating. I'm guessing that you would disagree with me on this point, though. At any rate I think that's why it keeps coming up. Then, combine that theme with the pattern we usually see in deathfics here. (now I'm repeating myself - oops

Could be worse - could be taxes. (sorry for that old, old joke))

But it really would be nearly as easy to write Clark death-fics as it would Lois dfs. (imo, easier) So, logically, we should expect to see that difference roughly approximated in the stories we see here. But we don't, so surely it's valid to ask why not?

Each time, we discuss this I learn something new - this time, for me, a few things. But in particular Hasini's idea that links the fact that most of us are women and many of us may like to fantasize about how a lover would react to our deaths.

As I've said before I haven't read the story that triggered this discussion - I had seen the story posted and was going to read it, had read the author's intro - noted it was ambiguous but the title sounded promising so was all set to settle in. Got distracted by some mundane task (can't even remember now what!) . It wasn't until the next day that I became aware of the actual content of the story. Any comments I've made about the genre have nothing to do with that specific story as I hope I made clear earlier.

At any rate I do hope that these mbs will be as open to non-fiction L & C discussions as they are to fiction. A writer who posts a lengthy opinion is putting herself out there as much as is a writer of fiction - to continue with Alcyone's comment.
And to mix in Dj's comment - if discussing this genre is a "dead horse" zone, then isn't writing the genre too?
(playing Devil's Advocate there but had to pick up on the 'dead horse' insult. Absolutely couldn't ignore it )

Ugh. I really promised myself I wasn't going to come back. But, since you specifically asked me, Carol. I at least have to come back to answer your request:

By your own comments here, Carol. I quoted them in my post to illustrate the point I was trying to make:

That is what you said - plain as day. Those words say that you believe it is more serious than any other topic on the boards. I disagree. Just because it is the "dead horse" that keeps being beat... does not mean that it is the most serious. It just means that other people have stated their opinions and have fought their own battles on any other topics... and then have left them alone.

You say that kiddiefic and too heavy a-plot stories have been discussed. Well, I'll admit, I'm not all that active on a lot of discussions here. But I can say that in the time I've been here (since early in 2006) the only topic I've seen debated is "deathfic". I haven't seen anyone else debating any other genres <shrug - sorry, I just haven't seen it> And I personally don't believe the reason is that no one feels strongly about any other topics. I feel that the reason is because most people feel that "once" or maybe "twice" is enough to bring up a topic and then leave it alone. Not to continue bringing up a topic again and again throughout the course of a year. All angles have been explored, IMHO. All continuing to repost and rehash can do is emphasize that you believe everyone should feel as you do.

Now, on the topic of "beating a dead horse". Yes, you are entitled to feel that writing more Lois deathfic is "beating a dead horse", but then really... if that's the way you (or anyone else feels) than this board has outlived its usefulness by that definition. Because that's what ALL of our stories do. They are all just rewrites of the same basic things. 95% of the stories posted are about Lois & Clark romance. Stories of how they get together, fall in love -- so isn't that really "beating a dead horse"? We've seen them fall in love over and over again and in a variety of different ways. The difference is, that most people are not going to complain about reading yet another revelation story, or yet another story about how they could possibly fall in love.

And that same principle can be applied to just about any type of story. I'm currently writing another HoL rewrite. There have been tons of them done - so am I not "beating a dead horse"? What about the TOGOM rewrites - that could be beating a dead horse.

And I'm not saying that "Ann's" beating a dead horse isn't her "right". Obviously it is, or the admins would just shut the thread down. I'm just saying that she's one of the few people who "choose" to do that. Other people have strong views on many other subjects, but they don't continue to try to force people to see their POV. You say they may have in the past, and they may. But that's the point... it's in the past... not every 6 months.

And just so everyone understands. I love Ann to pieces. Her fdk is always so insightful thoughtful and inspiring.

But...

I have been at the receiving end before of some of her harshest criticism and let me tell you, it doesn't feel good. It hurts, to put it bluntly. And you know what? When I received it, I didn't even deserve it. Because I hadn't even written a deathfic. I had only explored in an in-between scene, something that had happened in the series. But Ann hadn't watched the series, so she didn't realize that. But still I got chastised and put through the wringer for what I had written. And that's just not fair, not to me, and not to any other writer. And that's the only reason I allowed myself to be goaded into this discussion... like someone else said... It can be extremely difficult to write something and put it out there for people to read. It makes it even worse if you're crucified for what you write. Makes you not want to write anything else and just slink off into a dark hole somewhere (especially depending on how sensitive you are) and I just don't think that's a healthy thing for these boards. Because these boards are about writing... about fanfiction.

But please, don't feel like I'm trying to persecute anyone here, Carol. I love you and Ann to pieces. I've gotten a lot of private fdk from you in emails, and I always take what you say to heart (even if it is constructive criticism - and I really appreciate those) and Ann is a doll for all the detailed fdk that she leaves for people. I just wish people could see how discouraging it can be for people's creative juices to be disparaged repeatedly, that's all. And I felt I could give an objective opinion because I rarely read deathfic and I even more rarely write it (the two "deathfics" I have written, I don't classify as deathfic. A - because Lois didn't stay dead; or B - because I was working off something from the show as simply an inbetween scene). So the opinion I was expressing wasn't defensive - trying to take up for something I wrote.

Anyway, I really am done now. If anyone wants to ask me to clarify anything that I've written further, feel free to PM me, but I won't post anything further in this thread... and if any such thread gets brought up yet again, I'll make sure to try to keep my own opinions to myself in that thread as well. But thanks for hearing me out.

-- DJ

just to clarify:

Yes, that's true - *I* do, but that doesn't automatically mean that I think *others* ought to, too, or that I think my views are more important than those of others, which is what you said here:
I flagged this statement because I interpreted that as your saying that I think everyone ought to have the same views as I do which honestly I've never ever, said or thought. I've tried to make that clear in so many places.

At any rate, it was that that I was hoping you'd point out to me where I've said that I think my views are more important than those of others. I'm clarifying that here rather than in a PM because I'm a bit concerned about this.

I guess it all comes down to which words we decide are the most important in giving meaning.

As for all the genres of fic that have been discussed in the past - oh yeah, and they were interesting discussions. Perhaps they aren't as prevalent now because people regard those themes as less important? <shrug> (couldn't reisist, abject apology for succombing to temptation. Know I will burn in hell, etc.)

Oh, and btw, I have sent DJ lots of private feedback - constructive criticism as she says - nearly all of it has been very positive. Don't want anyway to think I've been bombarding poor DJ with evil stuff.

So true what DJ said about the redundancy of L & C fanfic, btw, but of course we must remain in denial about that. I certainly intend to (of course that doesn't mean everyone ought to be in denial....

c.

Leaving the main topic alone <g> because I said I would.

But...

That's not true... *ALL* of it has been positive. <g> And very well intended. And I appreciated every word... just as I appreciate Ann's fdk dearly, and hope that she doesn't think that my views on this subject were meant to flame her in any sense of the word. I would miss both of you dearly as readers if I offended you and you left me...

Thanks.

-- DJ

This thread is just like fanfic, Superman and soap opera villains - it just refuses to stay dead. And this time, I'm going to be the reason why. Never did do well at slouching in corners.

Observing all the posts so far, I have to say that the topic at issue and the topic that ended up being discussed were two different things. Ann opened this thread intending to analyze whether the prevalence of Lois deathfic had sinister misogynistic undertones to it. A lot of people thought this was yet another attack on deathfic writers. Though it appeared that way, it was established that it really wasn't. However, several people continued to take offence at this perceived attack and THEN it became a dead horse topic - do deathfic writers deserve the right to post their views unmolested? I am going to channel my inner teeny-bopper and condense about ten posts into the analytical and incisive summary of: "Like, duh! you guys!" :rolleyes: Post-mortem aquinine creatures have rarely received such attention as they have in this thread, I'm sure.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, Ann brought up a very valid and interesting angle in the exploration of deathfic. Discussing the kinds of angles that deathfic should explore is no more a 'dead horse' than deathfic itself is. (I shall always wonder how in the world that came up. Ah, I see it. Carol made an ill-advised similie. Shall not even go there.)

So if there are no actual dead animals in the vicinity, what's that smell coming from? It is coming from that non-existent issue which I shall refer to henceforth as the "like, duh!" issue. *points up*

Anyway, what I mean to say is this: people, please don't automatically assume the usual suspects are about to begin a bashing session the moment somebody mentions deathfic in a disgruntled sort of way. The members of these boards have way more maturity and tact than that. (Most of them, at least. I think. I believe. I hope. ) So give them some credit. Discussion of deathfic is not a...I would say 'dead horse' again, but I feel like I am severely maligning the aquinine family at this point. Suffice to say that we should be able to explore a myriad of different themes on it, as long as everybody plays nice. A few people didn't do so in this thread.

And Ann, people would have been a lot more open to your topic if you hadn't started out on a rather negative and judgemental note. I love your posts, as they are always so thought-provoking, but that legendary zeal that makes you so dear to us can also unwittingly cause hurt and discord. And I think people should choose their similies a little more diplomatically.

Now if someone hands me a ladder, I can get off this goshdarn soap-box. *looks down consideringly*

ETA: This thread got fifty three posts so far?! *frantically tries to think of ways to incorporate dead horses into the next fic I post.*

On the flip side, another reason for the abundance of Lois death fics that ties in with what Hasini mentioned could be that women don't kill off Clark (leaving behind a grief-stricken Lois) because we'd rather not think of our own husbands/significant others dying. Personally, writing about a grieving woman who is left behind by her husband is a disturbing thought, at least, it is to me.

As for this "dead horse" that everyone talks about, I really don't have a stand on the issue. Reading death fic doesn't really bother me anymore than people discussing it does. But when looking for reasons as to why there is a seemingly larger number of Lois death fics, this idea occurred to me, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

the kiddie-porn thing - no kidding But I did apologise for that one.

the dead-horse ain't mine though <g>

Very nice summary, Hasini. (imo, that is )

Symbolicangel, I hadn't thought about about how difficult it would be to write about the death of your spouse angle. Another piece of the puzzle.

c.

I have - and I think symbolicangel is right. I can't get past Clark's funeral to write the rest of the story.

My apologies, Carol, if you felt my lighthearted remarks were out-of-line. I deal with dark subjects by using dark humor. It's my go-to coping mechanism. I realize belatedly that we're not all wired the same way. Sorry.

Just popping in to say... Ann has anyone explained to you about the Brutal Youth episode as well? I know you haven't seen the show Ann so this may be something you didn't know. Forgive me if I am pointing out something you were aware of.

In the show it is basically stated that Dr. Klein believes that "Superman" is going to live for a very long time.

From the script:

LOIS: Superman won't... age?

DR. KLEIN: Oh, of course he will. He's not immortal.

LOIS: So he _will_ age... but just not like you or... me?

DR. KLEIN: It's all speculation, you understand, but I think it's safe to say that long after you and I are dead and gone, Superman will still be in his prime, fighting for truth, justice --

LOIS: -- and The American Way

A lot of the fics explore this. Obviously even if Clark keeps Lois safe until she is 100 she is going to die from old age if nothing else. You see a lot of fics exploring this and seeing him cope with it. It is obviously something he and Lois have spoken about and worked out together... but still such a hard burden to bear to know that unless something happens to you that you will have a much higher chance of outliving your spouse... and then to actually see it.

It isn't an easy subject to explore but as with every aspect of the show it something that the authors here are going to do. I think the reason Lois may be shown as the one dying so much is just because the show set it up that way. Not to say I don't think we should also explore it the other way around. How will Lois react when she expected to be the one to go first? Only to lose him and not be prepared for that?

It is an interesting concept indeed. I know for you it isn't something you desire to read... but for a few of us it is somewhat comforting and healing to read a story where the characters are trying to work through the death of a love one and to see them come out of it okay. It's somewhat like a light at the end of the tunnel for some of us. To know that if our favorite characters can live through it... we can too. To know that even our favorite heroes (and by this I mean Lois as well) have cracks as well and not everything is perfect.

I don't but I'm rambling now... but I felt I should give you a reason why I personally read them. It isn't often that I will sit down with one... but when I do, it isn't so much as I'm doing it to get some sort of joy out of it but that I'm looking for a comrade who understands my pain.

about the Brutal Youth thing - and now this is OT i think - but at the end Clark trades away part of his life force to Jimmy and so we're left with a very open-ended scenario. Clark, may have in fact traded away so much of his life force that he could have a shorter life span than Lois.

As well, Klein's theory was just that - a hypothesis, not fact.

Tim Minnear, who wrote the script, was on line at some point wih Zoomway or it may have been LAFF , and I gather the question was put to him as to how he saw it. It's my understanding that he saw the transfer at the end as restoring the balance between Lois and Clark. But this is my recollection of what I read on those mbs about a year ago and so it would be better to check it out directly as to what he actually said.

At any rate, Clark's longevity is not carved in stone:)

Apologies for wandering a bit OT here.

And thanks, Sue:) I understand what you mean about writing that funeral.

c.

Ahh crap Carol. I had that in there... but I moved the quote around and erased that bit. and you are absolutely right. It is a very open ended. I had this bit that was supposed to be in there:

"While he does sacrifice some of his life force for Jimmy in that episode... we still don't know how much longer he is going to live than a normal human if he is going to live longer at all. But the doubt is still there."

Oops! Thanks for clearing it up Carol.

Carol, that's the way I remember hearing about Tim's thoughts as well.

But...that's not the way it came across in the episode. Clark keeps dodging Lois' question, and finally admits that he doesn't know how many years he gave up. Since the episode left it open-ended, it's not surprising that authors, as Jojo said, would explore the angle of his living an inordinately long lifespan. Even with Clark's aura protecting Lois and increasing her longevity, it's not an impossible thought that he will outlive her.

Like you and others have said in earlier posts, we can often learn new things even when rehashing old ground. I've appreciated reading the different theories that people have suggested as to why Lois deathfic is more common than Clark deathfic.

I still hold true to my belief that it is not the dire problem - and an ever-increasing one at that - that Ann seems to believe it is. But of course she is every bit as entitled to her belief as I am, just as every time that she starts or contributes to a thread stating these concerns, I or anyone else are entitled to express our concerns on the entire issue.

Have women historically been undervalued in society? Yes, I don't think anyone can deny it. Are things better now? Absolutely. Are they perfectly balanced? No, probably not. Improvements can continue to be made. But are L&C authors who choose to write a deathfic where Lois has died doing so because they believe - either consciously or subconsciously - that Lois is inferior to Clark simply because she is a woman? I'm not privy to their thoughts, but I truly doubt it, and I fear that Ann is insulting them by trying to attribute this as a possible motive.

Kathy

Concerning the preponderance of Lois deathfics? - A lot of interesting and valid points have been brought up in this thread. But how about the fact that in TOGOM, we've already experienced Lois's grieving. But we don't explore Clark's grief, not even in DToDC. And as the Wedding Destroyer indicated when choosing Lois as her victim, Clark's grief will be the deeper, the more profound. Just a thought. :rolleyes:

I thought I was done posting in this thread. But, Dandello, I must point out that the reason why I started this thread at all was that I wanted to call attention (for the umpteenth time, I know) to the difference between one person actually dying and one person grieving for his or her loved one.

In all the variations of TOGOM, Lois grieves for Clark. In all the Lois deathfics, Clark grieves for Lois. In that respect, these stories are perfect mirror images of each other.

In the TOGOMs, however, Clark always survives, but in the Lois deathfics, Lois always dies.

If we think that a deathfic is only about watching the grief of the bereaved party, then the TOGOMs and the Lois deathfics are just the same. But if we think that it matters at all whether the supposedly dead person actually dies or not, then the TOGOMs and the Lois deathfics couldn't be more different.

The educational stories that I read as a child told me that it was the same thing when little girls died and went to heaven as it was when little boys were saved by God so that they could live out their lives on Earth. I didn't believe for a moment that these two alternatives were equally good.

Dandello, I believe that you are married. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that you are. Would it be the same to you to believe that your husband was dead but find out later that he was alive and well and on his way back to you, as it would be to believe that your husband was dead and find out that he actually was, too?

And would it be the same to him?

I probably crossed a line here. I'm sorry, Dandello. It's just that it frustrates me beyond belief when people seem to think that the TOGOMs and the Lois deathfics are the same. The only way that anyone could believe that, in my opinion, is if this person thinks that the question of whether a person actually dies or not ultimately means nothing. Or at least, you would have to believe that the question of whether a fictional character lives or dies has no impact on the story where this character plays a major part.

Ann

I only have one kid.

What I was trying to point out was that, to me, the point of the deathfics, whether or not the 'dead' person is or is not actually dead, is to explore the grief of the survivors. In TOGOM Lois grieves although Clark really isn't dead but she doesn't know this. Her grief is palpable - it's a key to the episode. The number of TOGOM rewrites testifies to the power of that scenario. As a writer, if I kill a character, it is to explore that grief and the aftermath of that loss.

I don't think the number of Lois deathfics is a reflection of any anti-female bias. Lois's personality is such that she is more likely to get in over her head. And Clark's grief (compounded with probable feelings of failure) makes for an interesting study.

As a writer, I have covered the death of a child, the suicide of a major character, insanity, and many other topics I have never experienced and never hope to.

I'm less certain that writers are uninfluenced subconsciously by that belief. But perhaps that's because I think that the cultures in which we've been raised and live have quite an impact on shaping our perceptions of reality. But that doesn't mean that all L & C fanfic writers are influenced in the specific way under discussion, nor that that bias about gender roles is the top influence shaping what gets written.

As Kathy says, "we are not privy to their thoughts".
Not to mention, it's difficult to asses subconscious influences.

it's complicated - think there are probably several factors involved in trying to understand it.

At any rate, I don't see that Ann is insulting anyone with her suggestion. I doubt there's a writer out there who isn't influenced in some way by her subconscious. (I guess this statement shows I've bought into the world as seen by Freud and all his heirs.) Now this doesn't mean I don't also believe in Free Will - we are not all zombies, Borg, whatever all of the time, controlled by those who conditioned us.

last rambling , early morning thought: Just as writers are motivated. both consciously and subconsciously by a variety of factors, so too are readers as they process what the author has written.

- Socrates

c.

On second thought, I deleted this entire post. It added nothing new or constructive to the deathfic debate.

Ann

ditto what Kathy said.

As Ann has deleted her post, that eliminates a reason for mine, which was in direct response.

Kathy

Ann, I have a question for you. The topic of deathfic and Lois-deathfic has been discussed over and over. Usually because, in my opinion, you wanted to make a point of women dying and questioning the author's intent. As you have stated (twice now), you are very aware of my intent and purpose. So why are we discussing this all again when nothing new has come of it?

I was very aware when I posted my story that this discussion could come up again. By stating in the author's word what my reasoning was, I had hoped to avoid this. To no avail. I didn't want to bring this all up again, as it will only unneccesarily hurt people. Hurt may be the wrong word, but many are emotionally involved, even if it's just annoyance.

I believe strongly that every individual has their own believes and a right to voice them. But to do so time and again? To me, it feels like preaching. And I usually do exactly the opposite thing then. That's just my nature. Don't get me wrong, I do understand your point of view. I just don't share it, like others here. So to each their own, that's what makes our world so interesting.

That's what you keep saying, Ann. Less than 10 deathfics have been written in the last year, far as I'm aware. (I could be way off, since I don't read much fic lately, but I'm catching up slowly.) How many stories are written on a yearly basis? I'm going to take a nice round number. Let's say 300. That's about 3% then. That may be more than years ago, but seems to be true for the last few years. So what trend do you see?

And even if it were a trend, what is wrong with that? Just because you have objections against it (and some others too, but all for their own reasoning), does that mean we can't write about it? That's like saying a few people don't like to read angsty stories, so we just don't write them anymore. That's hardly fair to the people who do enjoy them. So angsty stories are still being written, as will deathfics.

So to sum up my point: We know how you feel about the subject, you know how we feel. Why do you keep bringing it up when you know nothing will change?

This has nothing to do with me being the author who posted a deathfic this time, by the way. I've been wondering about it for some time now.

Saskia

Ah Saskia. This isn't about your story in particular, so take heart.
I suspect , too, that when you say 'we' you don't intend to imply each and every poster or member of these boards other than Ann.

But does no one ever change? Are we never able to say, "Hey. there's something I never thought of before." ?

Hasini did a good job summarizing what's gone in this thread a few posts back. We've all got a little carried away at some point or other during this.

You said that "nothing new has come up", but I think a few points have come up that haven't before as well as perhaps more of a knowledge of where individual posters are coming from. So hopefully we've each gained a little understanding we didn't have before.

I have, anyway.

carol

If I hadn't posted my story, Carol, would this discussion be here now? I believe that because there was another deathfic, Ann made her post. It just so happens the story is mine.

I agree that new points have been made and that some of it has been very educational (hey, I learned new words here, too ). So there may be better understanding all around, the result is still the same. Deathfics will still be written and posted. And everyone has a choice to read it or not. I don't see that changing unless the majority of the fandom is against deathfics.

Does that make more sense? I know I can think faster than I can put into words, so at times I express myself rather poorly.

Saskia

I've just caught up with this thread and am dropping in as an admin to correct a couple of misapprehensions that I wouldn't want to see accepted as true. Carol said:

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here, Carol, but the admins of these boards have always taken a very open approach to discussion, whether on or off the topic of L&C (as long as topics are posted in the correct folders). There are a tiny number of topics not permitted on the boards, and these are well-advertised in the FAQ: gossip about the actors and Real Person Fiction (so-called George and Lynn stories) being the main ones. We don't close down topics or discussion; on the very, very few occasions threads have been locked it's been because the discussion has degenerated into nastiness.

If you're referring to board members suggesting unhappiness at the discussion of particular topics, then of course everyone does have a right to express her/his opinion - and, as long as it's done without flaming, the admins will not interfere. And saying 'we've been over this before several times' isn't discouraging discussion - I've seen that pointed out in other threads, though often the poster will also give links to the earlier threads so that the original poster will be able to read them.


Also this:
Of course there've been many debates through the years on the morality of nfic, though I think most of those predated the forming of these boards. When these boards were established, some of the present admins (myself included) discussed what forums we would have, and there was never any doubt that nfic would be one of them. It was there right from the start, and of course member-only, with membership based on statement of age.

I believe, though can't remember exactly, that when Zoomway first moved to UBB format for her MBs nfic was also a separate, password-protected folder right from the start. In this fandom, unlike many others, nfic has always been kept separately, difficult to get without signing up for passwords or giving statements of age.

So, not suggesting at all that nfic isn't or hasn't been controversial; I just didn't want any newer members to think that there was ever a time when we didn't put it in a protected folder and that people actually had to ask us to.

I now return you all to your well-mannered debate


Wendy
Boards Admin Team.

I'm sitting here absorbing the irony of this comment, Carol, on a topic thread that's now reached in excess of 70 posts. I'd call that tolerating a rather large discussion.

LabRat

Hmm. Having been on the receiving end of some pointed comments about the one deathfic that I wrote, may I put in what I hope are two cents worth of gentle comments?

Not everybody likes deathfic. Of course, that's a painfully obvious statment, but some dislike it more than others. Me, personally, I wouldn't want to write or read deathfic exclusively. And I really don't care for deathfics where the death of the victim is meaningless.

But I asked in a post in another thread, "What makes a story a deathfic?" and never got a direct response. But I think, after reading all the responses from others in this and in other threads, I've come up with a definition. It's subjective, not definitive, but it seems to encompass the viewpoints I've seen posted.

Deathfic is where someone you don't want to die dies.

In the majority of the deathfics on this board, Lois is the one whose death is most vehemently protested. Case in point: "Gone the Rainbow" by Catharine Bruce, posted on June 26 of this year, elicited some feedback with tears on it (mine included), but no posts containing accusations of anti-Clark bias, no biting comments about her being anti-male, no sarcasm or personal critisism, nothing but praise. So I must conclude that stories where Clark dies are okay, but stories where Lois dies are somehow very, very bad.

(Not at all incidentally, I consider Catharine's story superior to anything I've written for FOLCdom. My personal opinion, not to be taken as fact, and no one is urged to consider this as a suggestion to convert to my viewpoint.)

Death is a tragedy. Death is quite final (unless you're a popular soap opera star). Death is noble only if that death produces some lasting positive effect for other people, as in "Gone the Rainbow," where Clark stopped Zod from becoming a tyrant over all of Earth at the cost of his own life. Protests against Lois dying but not against Clark dying are inherently unequal, because when the passion spent defending Lois against death isn't matched by equal passion defending Clark against death, it betrays that person's bias.

But we can only know this if person A clobbers the latest Lois deathfic and praises the latest Clark deathfic. Even then, because Clark is inherently harder to kill than Lois, believable plots where Clark dies are going to be fewer and farther between, so unless person A makes it clear that he or she is attacking the Lois deathfic simply because it's a Lois deathfic, we can't really know what's going on in person A's mind.

In my humble opinion, it all boils down to this: if you don't like deathfic, don't read it.

There are stories in the archive towards which I do not gravitate for various reasons. I am confident that everyone reading these words must confess to the same thing: a personal bias either towards or away from a particular genre or even a specific style of writing. There shouldn't be a problem with this, people. We're all different, and we don't all like the same things. And that's the way it should be, because we're all different people.

The only problem I have is when someone clobbers a writer for writing about a specific subject. If someone were to write about Lois having had an abortion when she was twenty, for example, that would elicit different reactions from different readers. And if the story is constructed in a believeable and reasonable fashion, it could stimulate a reasoned discussion about the practice of abortion, both pro and con.

But if someone gives feedback blasting the author simply for bringing up the subject, there are a number of negative results possible. One, that particular author might be discouraged from writing anything more at all. Two, other authors might be discouraged from writing stories with similar themes. Three, we all lose out because we've censored a theme or a subject or even a writer.

As a writer, I can handle someone telling me "I don't like the way you handled that subject." I hope I don't get that kind of response, but at least it's a response. And it's perfectly valid, because I cannot possibly dictate any other person's response. But if someone tells me "You shouldn't write about this theme," that's not valid. That borders on censorship, and that's not what we're here for.

As long as the story and the content are within the stated boundaries of the boards, then what's the problem? If you don't like the story or the manner of the telling or the subject or the writer, just don't read the story. I consider that to be a perfectly valid response, too. Don't attack the writer. Don't attack the genre. Don't attack others who disagree with you. Just don't read the story if you can't refrain from attacking, or at least don't attack the author publicly. (A personal message or e-mail would be appropriate, I think, as long as it's not a personal attack. Who knows? It might generate a reasoned discussion.)

Can't we all just get along? I know I'd like to.

Thanks for reminding us of this, Wendy. That was my understanding of what Admin's position is.
I was fearful that the unofficial censure of the right to discuss/ deconstruct/ critique, state an opinion about genres which was expressed in a few of the posts in this thread was leading towards a change in that policy. I'd thought, however, near the end of the thread we'd passed by that possibility and had regained our tolerance.
I made that statement because I was afraid we were about to go back to square one with respect to the tolerance of other's opinions. (this feels clumsily worded to me)

Thanks for clarifying the sequence of the nfic debate - I do remember how heated it was but I couldn't remember the time line on it. I wasn't involved in that debate - but it was a bit of an eye-opener for me to read. Up until that point I'd had no idea people felt so strongly about the genre one way or another.

Lab, I think perhaps the reason the deathfic analysis topic gets so much more 'traffic' so to speak is simply because the topic is "death", and perhaps also because, as Terry points out, most of us love both characters and so it is distressing when either is killed off. And so we ask the age old question "Why?".

Hope both of you found something in one of my many previous posts in the thread that you liked or agreed with or thought was a reasonable point

Terry's suggestion of anti-male bias in the Clark deathfics rasied an interesting question. We'd have to find the number of Cdf and the number of Ldfs. What actually is the size of discrepancy? Is it greater than we would expect , considering that Clark is nearly invulnerable? If it is not, then I wouldn't think you could claim a particular bias, but if it's larger then we could. I'm just playing with this idea here, and I know it would be a tricky thing to do. First we;d have to agree on how much more likely it is to kill Lois than Clark and I think such agreement might be difficult. Still it would give us the numbers. Sounds tedious to do though.
(although maybe stats types would not find it so?)

Terry's advice to just not read the story makes sense but before you can make that decision you have to know that the story *is* either a Lois or Clark DF.

btw, at no point in this thread has anyone "blasted" the author. In fact the specific story itself was not the topic of discussion, (nor should it have been).

c.

My previous post added nothing to the deathfic debate, so I deleted it. The reply I'm going to post now does add something, or at least I think so.

I decided to check out what pictures I would find if I googled "mourning widower". Could I find any pictures that could illustrate the concept of a grieving Clark Kent?

Google immediately responded to my request for widowers by asking me if I didn't prefer pictures of widows instead. To Google, it was apparently more natural to ask for pictures of women grieving for their husbands rather than for husbands grieving for their wives!

I decided to google "mourning widow" too, to see if Google would ask me if I wanted to know about mourning widowers instead. But no. Google was fine with me asking for pictures of widows and showed no particular wish to display pictures of widowers instead.

When I checked out the pictures I could see when I googled "mourning widower", it turned out that most of the pictures that had anything to do with a bereaved spouse at all showed me widows instead of widowers! Even though I had specifically asked for widowers! This, for example, is a cartoon of a widow who has gone to a "spiritist" (or whatever they are called) to get into contact with her dead husband:



This is a cartoon of a dead man and a woman who is unhappy about his death, even though she may not be his widow:



Here's another widow:



One of the comparatively few pictures of widowers I found when I googled "mourning widowers" was this one:

He looks sad, no?

The only picture I found of a widower that looked heartbreakingly sad was this one:



To me, this man looks like he wasn't part of our Western culture at all.

Another man who mourned his wife was the Indian mogul Shah Jahan who built the superb mausoleum Taj Mahal for his favorite wife Mumtaz Mahal:



(You have to wonder how much he mourned his other wives.)

And there is quite a poignant story about the English King Edward I and his wife Eleanor. Their marriage had been arranged as a 'marriage of conveniance' in 1254, when Eleanor was ten and Edward was fifteen. When they started living together about eight years later they fell in love and had fifteen children. When Eleanor died in northern England in 1290, Edward I decreed that wherever her body had been put down to rest on its way home to Westminster there would be erected an Eleanor Cross. The most famous of the Eleanor Crosses is the one at Charing Cross, London.



The Eleanor Cross at Charing Cross.

So there have certainly been widowers who have mourned their wives. Still, judging from Google's tight-fisted response when I asked for pictures of widowers, our culture doesn't take a great interest in widowers and doesn't expect them to do a lot of public grieving. Again judging by the willingness of Google to provide pictures of widows, our culture expects more public grief from widows than from widowers.

Could it be that precisely because our culture may not expect widowers to grieve much, it becomes that much more tempting to imagine Clark's grief if Lois was to die? Because he would surely grieve a lot, and that would be so unusual and wonderful to see. Maybe Lois would grieve as much for Clark as Clark would grieve for Lois, but perhaps our culture expects more grief from widows than from widowers, so that Lois's grief would be less unusual and wonderful than Clark's, and therefore less tempting to write about?

Ann

The fact that google doesn't provide pictures of a grieving widower seems rather to me because (1) the larger part of the people connected to the Internet are from the US and/or other Western countries. And (2) particularly in the US (and perhaps to a lesser degree in other Western countries), the construction of masculinity encourages men to keep a tight lid on their feelings and not show them publically (which incidentally can be an argument for why women write about men who show an excess of "feeling", because it's not something frequently seen. I believe, you're saying something along these lines, but your reasoning has holes in it).

So yes, Western culture does expect more public grief from widows, but the issue is not as simple as that. "Public" is a keyword here and it is necessary to look at how "male" and "female" are constructed in this public space--what behaviors are societally sanctioned.

Thus, I wouldn't jump the gun and say that "society doesn't expect widowers to grieve much." That's a big jump from "society expects more public grief from widows." That ends up oversimplifying things again.

We also must keep in mind that grieving too is a loaded term (and another keyword). We all grieve in different ways which are also influenced by gender among a plethora of other factors.

alcyone

Or it could simply be that, in North America at least, I believe that the use of the word "widow" is more common than using the word "widower".

For example, you'll see a newspaper article with a sentence like Cassandra, Jackson's widow, talked about.... But the phrase Jackson, Cassandra's widower, talked about... would be less common. Often it would be phrased Jackson, whose wife Cassandra passed away in 2000, talked about... or Jackson, whose late wife Cassandra founded.... I personally have seen sentence constructions similar to my suggestions more frequently than the use of the word "widower". Obviously I have no statistics to back that up, though.

And this is hardly a statistic that I can hang my hat on with any authority, but...
I googled the word "widower", without any descriptor, and was told that there were about 1.3 million instances in the database. I googled the word "widow", and was told of about 16 million. Certainly as far as Google is concerned, the word "widow" is much more common.

Kathy

So you are saying, Kathy, that the word 'widow' can refer to both men and women. All right. The word 'widower', however, can refer only to men. However, when I googled 'widow' (which can refer to both men and women) I almost exclusively got pictures of women. But when I googled 'widower', which can only refer to men, I got more pictures of women than of men. Go figure.

Kathy, you also said:

There are two possible interpretations of this. Either the word 'widow' refers almost equally to men and women, and the reason why 'widow' gets many more hits than 'widower' is simply because widowed men are usually described as widows. But another explanation is also possible. While I am in no way denying that 'widow' can refer to a man, it could still be that most of the hits you get when you google 'widow' may refer to female widows. To women. And if that is the case, then the reason why 'widow' gets so many more hits than 'widower' could be mostly because widowed women are considered more interesting than widowed men. It could be that our society (or at least Google) assumes that a woman is harder hit by losing her husband than a man is hit by losing his wife. And because of that, there will be more articles and references to bereaved women than to bereaved men. Again, this supports my hypothesis that it might be particularly interesting to write about widowed Clark, because he can be assumed to take the loss of his wife much more seriously than "the average guy" would do.

Ann

This can be problematic. It's important to keep in mind that the existence of something versus another on the internet does not becessarily map cleanly to a larger interest in society as a whole. We need to consider that the audience of the internet might not be the same as the larger society. That said, I do think there is more interest in widows, but not for the reasons you pose.

This is not adequately supported. In fact I see no connection between presence of "widows" (however that gets marked by google--an image of a crying woman, text mentioning "widow"--I think its the latter and if so this brings up other problems regarding writing, etc) and a woman harder hit by the loss of a husband. It could have to do that women are more likely to write about bereavement than men. That also does not prove that they are harder hit than men.

Or perhaps it is because it's more societally sanctioned to discuss female grief as opposed to male grief--at least in a lot of Western societies.

As I see it, there are too many fraught assumptions about the "average guy" in place to make such a claim (at this point, I add). Google can hardly provide the initial (unquestionable) basis for adequate support.

alcyone

Actually, no, I wasn't saying that at all, but I guess I didn't explain myself very well.

The terms widow and widower are as you believe, Ann. A woman whose husband has died is a widow, a man whose wife has died is a widower. A widow is always female, a widower is always male. That's using those words as nouns. If you want to use widow as an adjective - e.g. the widowed Lois - you would also use the same word for Clark - the widowed Clark. Never the "widowered Clark". English is such a straight-forward language, don't you think?

But what I was getting at is that it seems that while the word "widow" is very commonplace, far fewer people will use the word widower - when talking about a man the sentence is often phrased differently so that the word widower is NOT used. So that it would be much more common for me to see a reference to Clark's widow, Lois than to see Lois' widower, Clark, even though both phrases are grammatically correct. I think this is a fair statement for North American usage of the words - I can't speak for other parts of the world.

Obviously that doesn't mean that there aren't widowers out there, but that they will generally not be referred to as such. Is that clearer?

I suppose this is a possible interpretation, but I personally think it's just that the word "widower" is not as commonly used. Maybe you won't feel that this helps prove my point, but I asked my son what a woman was called whose husband had died, and he immediately answered "widow". When I asked him the reverse, he thought for a moment and then answered "widower?" with some hesitation. Maybe he thought it was a trick question on my part , but he obviously did not feel as confident in his response as he had with my first question.

Kathy

All this surprised me - I would have expected that there wouldn't be much difference in google results for either terms. Kathy's son's reactions got me to thinking , though. Why did he react that way?

So could it be other factors as well as those that have been raised in the previous posts?

Historically woman tended to be known in their communities by their marital status - widow, wife of , spinster - whereas men tended to be known by their occupation.

Today that's less so (although not entirely ). But women have a life-span of about 7 years longer than men, so , simply put, there are more widows around.

As well, our culture is okay with men marrying younger but less so with women marrying younger - hence a widower is more likely to remarry than a widow.

probably totally off base with these observations.

c.

I'm going to try and keep this free from my own personal thoughts on the topic - very recently, I've watched a man mourn for his wife after 60-odd years of marriage. That anybody has the audacity to question this strikes me as ridiculous. Instead, I'm just going to throw this in for consideration:

Most women outlive their partners. In Australia, at least, the average age that men are expected to reach is 78.5 years. For females, it's 83.3 years. Also of particular interest in this discussion:

[Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics ]

I'm sure you'd find similar statistics in other western countries.

Maybe the reason you're finding more about grieving widows is that there simply are more of them.

Dave

Dave, you are absolutely right. More women are widowed than men. Certainly in the parts of the world that we describe as Western civilisation. I'm not so sure about the rest of the world. About twenty years ago I saw some life expectancy figures from Bangladesh, where men lived 1-2 years longer than women. And this summer New York Times published life expectancy figures from Zimbabwe, where men lived almost three years longer than women, although neither men nor women on average lived to be forty!

But in the western parts of the world, yes, there are certainly more widows than widowers. And that is undoubtedly part of the reason why our societies have given widows a certain role to play and certain codes of conduct to observe, whereas I don't think that this is generally the case for widowers. Admittedly the social mores are changing for women, too. But when I was a kid, I remember that you could see that a woman was widowed, because she would wear black. I particularly remember that she would wear black stockings. In extreme cases she would hang a small black veil from her hat to cover her face. She could be dressed like that for a long time, for months or even for years. But you could never spot a widower from his clothes, unless he wore a black mourning-band. (Yes, he would wear black during the funeral, of course, but afterwards he would dress "normally".)

I still think that our societies "expect a little more" from widows than from widowers, and that that fact might make it tempting to show Clark's grief if he was to become widowed. Because he would grieve out of the the true love and grief of his heart, not first and foremost because society expected it from him.

And Dave: the fact(?) that our societies may still expect a little more from widows than from widowers has nothing to do with how much the individual widow or widower will grieve. My grandfather was two years younger than his wife. When she died at 86, he was absolutely heartbroken. He lived ten more years without her, but he talked about her all the time, and he cried a lot.

Still, people who haven't watched the grief of a widower up close may be "subconsciously aware" of "the lesser expectations" placed on a widower compared with the expectation placed on a widow. It's fun to write and read about unusual things. What would you rather read about, "Dog Bit Man" or "Man Bit Dog"?

Ann

Carol, you said this:

Indeed our culture is okay with men marrying younger women, but less so with women marrying younger men! I assume that most members of these boards are aware of the fact that Dean Cain is a year or so younger than Teri Hatcher. In LnC fanfics, Clark Kent has been given Dean Cain's birthday (in February 1966, I think). But Lois Lane has not been given Teri Hatcher's birthday, because that would make Lois older than Clark Kent, and that would not be appropriate! (Would it?) I'm pretty sure I have seen that Lois Lane was supposedly born in 1967, so that she would be about a year younger than Clark Kent.

As the case of Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher's ages versus Clark Kent and Lois Lanes's ages show, most of us "know" very well what is appropriate when it comes to men and women.

Ann

This is incorrect. Clark's birthdate on the show was given as February 28 (in the episode Never on Sunday) and his ship landed in Smallville on May 17, 1966. Hence the conclusion that he was born on February 28, 1966. Lois' exact birthdate was never given but the episode Tempus, Anyone? established that she was born in 1967 and in the Pilot (set in 1993) she gives her age as twenty-six. She was a Libra so that means she was born between September 24 and October 23, 1967. So the ages of the characters are canon.

P.S. Dean Cain was born on July 31, 1966.

I stand corrected. Still, Dean Cain is younger than Teri Hatcher, but Clark Kent was made to be older than Lois Lane.

Ann