Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related How much slack should bad Clark be cut?

Okay, I'm sticking my neck out again.

First off, let me say that this has nothing to do with Laura's story. I read through my feedback on part one of Fire and Ice and realized that it was a lot more enthusiastic than the comment I posted in Patrick's thread. I guess that, all things considered, I was delighted by the sheer outlandishness of the Clark-as-a-vampire concept. In general, vampire stories hold no interest to me whatsoever, because the whole idea seems completely unrealistic to me, and moreover I find vampires decidedly unattractive. (So why should I read about critters that I don't like and don't believe in anyway? But then again, why shouldn't others read about vampires that they believe in them - well, maybe not really - but that they probably find attractive, or at least fascinating?)

Ah, but the reason why I read Laura's fic, in spite of the fact that it is a vampire fic, is of course that it is a Lois and Clark story! And LnC fics almost always appeal to me, except when they take Lois and Clark where I don't want them to be taken. But my hangups about where Lois and Clark should and should not be taken are my hangups about them, not sacred laws that must be obeyed by writers posting on these boards. Of course not! (And as for Laura's story, no, it didn't cross any lines for me. I did find it slightly shocking that Clark had killed three people in it, but I could also accept the idea that he wasn't completely responsible for those killings.)

Even so, I want to bring up something that I have a problem with in some of the stories that are posted on these boards. I'm talking about the fact that the Clark Kent of those stories is sometimes seen to behave badly, but I don't always get the impression that the writers disapprove of his bad behaviour. Unlike Patrick, I don't automatically protest if Clark/Superman is portrayed as weak/angry/selfish or morally questionable. I have been disappointed in Superman so many times during my long "career" as a Superman fan that I can easily believe that he is far from perfect. Don't get me wrong. I love stories where Superman is wonderfully loving and unselfish and good, but I can easily be fascinated by stories where he is a far more questionable character. The problem I sometimes have with such stories is not primarily that Superman behaves badly in them, but that I sometimes get the feeling that the writer is not criticizing Clark/Superman for his bad behaviour.

Let me explain what I mean. Most of you may be aware that I hate the movie Superman II, because I thought that Superman behaved so nefariously toward Lois in it. He accidentally revealed his double identity to her, and then he quickly shed his superpowers so that he could make love to her. But when he found that he had to have his superpowers back, he erased Lois's memory with a super-kiss, so that she would be clueless about what had transpired between them, and so that she would be as ignorant of his double identity as she had been before.

Ah, but if you add the movie Superman Returns into the mix, there is more to say about morally questionable Superman. In Superman II, our hero promised the President of the United States (or maybe the Secretary General of the United Nations) that he would never let the Earth down again, but instead he would always be there when humanity needed him. But what did he do after that? No more than a couple of months after he had made love to Lois and made the solemn promise to the world leaders he left the Earth altogether, apparently without informing anyone where he was going, and without saying good-bye to Lois. He had also did not ascertain whether or Lois she was pregnant from their lovemaking, which in fact she was. Then he was absent from the Earth for five years, being a total deadbeat Dad the whole time, and when he came back he still didn't tell Lois about his double identity. He also did not offer to help pay for his son's care and upbringing.

Let's return to Superman II and the amnesia kiss. That was an entirely new power on his part, one we had never seen before. And pray tell, how did he do it? Rid Lois's mind of pertinent memory snippets, I mean? He gave her a very erotic kiss and lowered her mental defenses, then he entered her mind, sought out the offending memories about their lovemaking and his secret identity, and erased them. Just like that. When Lois came to, after that supremely erotic kiss, she was her bitchy old self again, as contemptuos of Clark as before. How did he do that? If you watch the movie, you can see that Clark seems to deliberate before he gives Lois that kiss, as if he is asking himself whether or not he should actually do it. But once he has made up his mind, he is perfectly assured and confident. He knows exactly what he is doing, even though he has never done anything like that before! How is that possible?

But more importantly, how should that kiss be judged morally? Uninvited and without warning, Clark enters Lois's mind and blots out those of her memories that he doesn't like. What if such an amnesia-kiss had really been one of Superman's established powers? What if he regularly sneaked kisses on females and removed such memories of theirs that he didn't like? (Maybe even after having sex with them first?) Tampering with the minds of others, anyone?

What pained me most about Superman II was that the movie didn't question or criticize Clark's amnesia-kiss in any way. After Lois's offending memories had been erased and she had staggered off somewhere into the bullpen, she disappeared from the movie altogether. After that, we only saw a happy, smiling Superman, who was completely satisfied with how everything had turned out. The movie gave us no particular reasons to criticize Clark's amnesia kiss because it didn't show us any negative consequences of that amnesia kiss. And yet those consequences must have been there - for Lois. Surely she must soon have realized that two days and one night were completely erased from her memory? Please try to imagine what that must have been like for her. Imagine what it would have been like if it had happened to you. What if the two previous days were just completely gone from your memory? Wouldn't you have panicked?

The movie could have cut between a crying, sobbing, distraught Lois Lane, cowering all alone in her own apartment, and a victorious, smiling Superman, flying triumphantly across the sky, waving the American flag. Such a cross-cutting between a broken Lois and an elated Superman would have constituted a rather harsh indictment of Superman's treatment of Lois. Alternatively, a sorrowful Superman could have been seen hovering above Lois's apartment, listening to Lois's sobs. That would have shown us that Superman was sorry about the hurt he had inflicted on Lois.

But the movie didn't waste time looking at how Lois was affected by her shocking amnesia. The movie effectively told us that Lois didn't matter. All that mattered was that Superman was victorious, and that he could soar above us, now that he had overcome both females and foes. By not acknowledging the pain that Superman inflicted on Lois when he gave himself the right to rob and rape her mind, the movie added insult to injury.

To me, the ugliest and most heartbreaking thing about Superman II is that it doesn't criticize Superman for what he did to Lois. Similarly, I'm often frustrated by LnC stories where Clark behaves badly (at least in my opinion, though others may not agree), but where the writer does not seem to criticize Clark for it.

But when all is said and done, this is just my opinion. And like I said, others may think that Clark was completely justified in doing things that made me fume and swear.

However, you writers, are readers such as myself justified in asking you to criticize someone like Clark more severely when his behaviour is selfish or otherwise bad? I know, I know: you are absolutely not required to pass judgement on Clark, no matter how he behaves. Do I have the right to criticize him all the more severely in my FDK, if I think that you haven't blasted him harshly enough for his behaviour in your stories? What do you think?

Ann

I'd say you (anyone) has the right to be critical of unethical behaviour in any character, and also if you so chose to rationalise that behaviour so as to make it more acceptable. But I do think if you're in the rationalsing business for one character, you should be consistent and do it for others.

Cut them all some slack or none.

As for stressing the criticsm when other fdk'rs and the author are giving the character a pass, that's human nature. it works the other way too on these boards - notice the extravagance of some pro- Clark posts for example.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (if Newton can be believed, that is)

But hopefully there can be a dialogue on the points of difference rather than two sets of soliloquies.

But, of course, it is never acceptable to mix metaphors .

c.

Luckily Singer had already announced that Superman Returns was only a loose sequel to Supes II. There are questions as to whether or not Lois really got the 'amnesia kiss' or if she and Kal-El just slept together without her having figure it out. We don't even know if the Zod Squad showed up prior to his disappearance.

But then I write SR fiction too.

But getting back to the present discussion. Superman is held up as a paragon of virtue - the movie version said 'I never lie.' Due to his overwhelming power, he must be held to a higher standard - he must hold himself to a higher standard because while a mortal can make mistakes with few repercussions, a super-human cannot.

Maybe that's one of the reasons so many stories here, when they do have a 'bad' Clark, end up with his redemption and a return to the status quo or even a place better than the status quo.

I don't think it's out of place when a writer has a 'bad' Clark who is showing no discomfort at the results of his negative actions and no one around him is pointing out the damage he is doing, for that writer to be gently reminded that Superman has a legacy of truth and justice to live up to.

I think in some ways it may be because CK/Superman IS inherently good. Because he is so naturally good, writers that portray him as a questionable character and their readers cut him slack because 'there must be some external reason why he isn't as pure as usual.'

But even then, it's very disturbing when the author fails to give us that external reason, or worse, seems to accept, even applaud, the 'badness' without a representative of 'humanity' pointing out that he is acting badly or without a conscience.

While it is entirely plausible for a good person to do evil things, that 'good' person usually exhibits remorse or concern about the ramifications of those actions. When the author fails to have Clark exhibit those attributes, and no one else around him does either, we have to wonder what the author is trying to say.

BTW, even in the Mankiewicz version of SII, it's not much of an improvement. It doesn't have the 'amnesia kiss', but instead, Supes turns back time and completely erases the reveal as well as Zod coming to Earth. Again, Supes is the only one to remember making love to Lois so he gets away with doing what he wanted with no consequences at all.

Ann said:
etc etc.

But... these boards are for the TV series Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. Not the movie incarnations. If people would like to discuss the movie versions of Clark/Superman, or to compare the portrayal of Clark therein as opposed to Clark in the TV series, then you're very, very welcome to do so in the OT folder (in the first case) or the L&C folder (in the case of comparisons). I'm sure a discussion of comparisons between genres would be really interesting.

If what you'd like to discuss, Ann - and I'm sorry that I'm not really clear from your rather long post - is how fanfic writers portray the Clark from the TV series in fic based on that series, then that's a perfectly acceptable - and, in fact, fascinating - topic for this folder.

I just wanted to remind everyone, though, that we're not a Superman - the Movie forum. And, of course, is it really fair to blame 'our' Clark for the failings of a Clark in a completely different incarnation? Just as the Clark in Smallville is clearly not 'our' Clark, neither is the movie Clark.


Wendy
Boards Admin Team

I know the moderators make/enforce the rules, but I found her post pertinent to the topic. Rather than using a specific LnC fanfic here as an example, and possibly hurting someone's feelings, she was using the movie characterization as an example instead, to make a general argument against bad/unredemptive Superman in the fanfics HERE. I don't know if I agree with her argument--my taste agrees with hers, but rather than censoring such fics I just try to avoid reading them--but I thought the post was in the right place.

I usually keep my nose out of stuff like this, but I also thought that her post was in the right place. The way I read it, she was discussing Clark's behavior in fanfics.

Just my two cents.

Well I think the comparsion is quite pertinent to the question of values because I imagine that for most people (those that actually might have a life ) classical superman and LCTNAOS superman are kind of blurred.

For me Superman’s decency and empathy is crucial to his character. I didn’t say goodness, because what is good? Would it be evil for a Kryptonian to exploit humanity the same way we are exploiting “inferior” species? I would rather see it as biologically determined.

In the LC variant I see Superman’s “goodness” like this; he is desperate to care for his surrogate world so that he won’t have to face the existential vacuum of being one of a kind with godlike powers. This is why he is so morally rigid, he is the only one who can put limits on himself. The slippery slope could quickly make him lose his artificial humanity which is his greatest fear.
And this is why Superman-Clark comes across more human then humanity itself. Why he chose to hold a ordinary job, Why he so hesitant to use his powers and influence for his own sake.(There is a million ways he could get rid of Luthor or Scardino). Why he gorge himself on his family and friends, people treating him as if he was one of them, and ultimately why Lois becomes so important to him.

To me this dichotomy is what Superman is about and what makes the concept tick; There is always the question of the right way or the easy way, because it’s practically never a question of Superman inability to solve the problem.

I have very little understanding for the classical character. This Superman is in full command and comfortable with his Kryptonian heritage and vastly more intelligent then humans, His goodness seems cosmetic there is absolutely no reason for him observe human laws other then this being some unfathomable Kryptonian prime directive.
And he strikes me as aloof, two-dimensional and indulging himself. He turns back time for this woman he fancies, (but not for thousands of people dying in a earthquake), or the amnesia kiss or the deadbeat dad stuff from SR.


So what do this mean for fanfic? To me, that those fics that doesn’t take Clark values into account have some problems with consistency. Like If he would do THIS why isn’t he doing THAT?
And why fic:s that test his breaking points are so interesting, what is he ready to do for those he loves? I thought the show handled it very well. Before they were together Clark could treat attempt on Lois life with a certain even-handedness, but in the latter seasons were they are couple, he grows more and more reluctant to put man’s law and his scruples over his feelings for her. Because his fear of losing her, becomes greater then that of losing himself.

But as soon as we mess, in a fic, with the character traits we saw in L&C:TNAoS aren't we moving into a different fictional realm as well? A Clark who more resembles SVClark or MovieClark or Vampire Clark or RamboClark or House Clark or ShrekClark or DumbledoreClark or ...

Where to draw the line is very difficult.

Please don't take this as an attempt to counter Admin. The final word is theirs of course.

c.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that Ann use fanfic examples! The point is simply that if we're talking about Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman on these boards -which is their purpose - then it makes sense for examples used to be from that series.

So tell us about a time Clark did something bad in the series. Don't tell us about a movie Clark, who is about as relevant to our Clark as the comic Clark is. Different retelling of the same basic story.

There are plenty of examples from the series - such as Clark not telling Lois as Superman that Lex was evil, Clark proposing before telling her that he's Superman, giving the child back to the kidnapper (even though he was acting under hypnosis).

I'm not saying that discussion of the morality of Movie-Clark isn't an interesting discussion, just reminding members that these boards aren't a general Superman forum.


Wendy

My last post crossed Wendy's in that alt-universe: "Post-time"

No, of course not. But it's so much easier to use a movie reference than a fanfic reference. Who's going to be upset by a reference to a movie? But a reference to a fanfic is a very sensitive thing.

That's why the Vampire issue works well - who takes vampires seriously?

c.

Of course it is. Which is why I suggested that - in the spirit of these being the Lois and Clark Fanfic Message Boards - we use references and examples from the TV series in order to stay on topic


Wendy

Fair, enough. I'll never dispute using examples from the show.

But back to the other aspect, does that mean that characteristics in Clark that we didn't see in the show, nor were hinted at, should also be ruled by Admin as off topic in fanfic? (btw is using bold font the same as exclamation points?)

For example, isn't "Vampire" as much a deviation from what we saw in the show as a non-fic discussion that uses the movies as examples? I can think of absolutely nothing in the series that shows or even hints that Clark was a Vampire.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the conclusion that L&C fic can wander far afield from the series but comments can't. It seems a bit of a double standard.

But of course Admin can call the issue.

c.

Hmm. I see where you're coming from, but as a writer I don't know if that's the attitude I take. I can only speak from my limited experience, but when I sit down to write something, I worry more about the consequences of a character's actions than in critiquing them outright (so for instance maybe I _won't_ 'punish' the character right away, but have it come back to him/her). I'm afraid that intervening directly will come across as pedantic in the narration (but I'm unclear what you mean by "critiquing" so maybe I'm going off on a tangent).

I keep away from omiscent narration like the plague for that reason--I don't want to give the impression that any one reading is getting anything that isn't affected by a character's perspective. Its only an attempt in any case, I don't hold any illusions that it looks that way to others. Trying to predict how something you've written will be read is the quickest way to go insane.

Well definitely, but I think what can get hairy is that perhaps for the writer the consequences of X action is enough (as it is in my experience). I hesitate going down this path, but in the interest of clarity, an example:

If Clark was forced to kill, from what I know of his character from LnC, I would think that his own feelings of regret would be punishment enough (now this gets into canon issues and we've gone through this, but honestly any decent person would be extremely distraught by this--I don't think it's uncalled for to kick canon on that aspect). I don't feel need to jail him and make him submit to lawful punishment.

I reiterate not interested in debating _this_ per se but posing that this is how _I_ view Clark and inevitably if I pen something with this situation, that's what's gonna show up. However, there's many out there who don't agree with this view (I think you don't, Ann, but I'm not sure). Anyway, so if I write something and my Clark is criticized on the basis that he "got away with it" or that my narration condones him then I'm not sure how to take this. It feels like someone is speaking to me in another language.

Of course you do. That said, I also think that sometimes this comes across as not trusting the writer. Again, of course, I understand why you wouldn't trust situations where Clark acts badly to be resolved well given your experience and you're certainly entitled to trust who you want, but, really, no one comes out of a writer-reader disjunct happy. I can see how "punishing" someone's Clark through vehement fdk can begin to feel a lot like author punishment. Especially, since as an author (at least in my view) all you can do is apologize for not meeting expectations and try to shake it off.

Just my useless .02,

alcyone

Alcyone wrote:
Yes, that's a writer's problem - the challenge of style, I guess.

But if by the end, the author appears to be still okay with Clark Kent as , say a rapist, to use a different example, then I'm less sure. To imply nothing is to condone. Fear of "pedantism" may lead to avoidance of the big issues that were raised earlier in the story.

Yet I still sense that our perceptions would be different if we were talking about the villain's actions. There we don't need to see the bad guy's actions condemned. We know a blood sucking Luthor is evil.
<g>

Which I guess raises a sidebar question:
If Luthor does it, do we automatically read it as bad, evil?
If Clark does the same "it", do we automatically read it as "poor misunderstood baby"?

This of couse leads me back to Lois (staunch defender that I am) I like to think that she stands for truth, justice and all that jazz So if she caves and winds up with "Evil Clark" then I feel betrayed by the author - I want her to call the guy on his behaviour and walk away. (or drive that stake through his heart to continue the Vampire analogy )

I guess what I'm saying is I look for some moral and narrative consistency within the context of the story itself.

Sorry for posting so frequently. But these last few threads have touched on some interesting issues.

But I fear I'm raising the whole issue of moral relativism.

c.

The problem is that once again there is this underlying assumption that everyone is on the same page about it (that we all read there's no implication of any consequences) and that it's somehow all on the author's court. You're taking the author to task on your reading of it. That in itself should call for greater care when giving fdk, especially negative fdk.

Saying, "I feel that in the text there wasn't as much emphasis on the consequences of X as I would have hoped" is one thing.

Saying, "Your story is against everything canon stands for and is morally attrocious/suspect," is just tremendously strong for something that is, in the end, a subjective reading.

Obviously, I give writers the benefit of the doubt, especially in a fandom like this where the status quo (being 'good') is so passionately defended. I doubt that there are many fics that tread the morally ambiguous line so blatantly. Even Laura's vampire fic (that brought up this notion of being "bad") is all about how Clark is desperately trying to be "good." I'm afraid any fic with Clark being *blatantly* (as in by consensus most of us are taken back) "evil" without a good reason would have a hard time here. Issues of characterization and all...

But, hey, I'll take any recs of fics where Lois caves in to "Evil" Clark. Points if she offs him and takes his place.

)

There's no way I could think we're on the same page - too much evidence to the contrary. Nor do i think it would be desirable if we all were - Borg etc.

But if the author doesn't take a stand, and here I don't mean 'blatant, obvious' but some skillfully written stuff. then the reader is left with a vacuum - and so that means that any type of fdk is fair game.

Nor am I sure that we should always blame the reader for not reading that there's no "moral consequence" evident in a story - Sometimes we do read poorly; but sometimes we write poorly too. I've certainly done both, but hopefully not all the time?

Based on what I've read in the related threads, I'm less certain that everyone had that perception. I checked the fdk thread, too, and didn't see much of that interpretaion - mostly just how sexy VampClark was . <g>

lol! but yeah, I'm okay with that.

c. [

I'm not following you. I don't know what you mean by "vacuum" (it sounds a lot like, the opposite of when a writer skillfully tells you what to think) and I don't know what the link between that and feedback is.

addendum:
Re--
My original point was that writers don't go for blatantly treading on ambiguous morality. Laura seemed a fitting example based on how her own stated characterization would follow Clark's being "good" (she even stated he's a "good vampire").

In other words, that quote is referring to how I view writer's tendencies in the fandom. NOT reader's interpretations (which I'm not sure has anything to do with my argument in that paragraph). But perhaps you'd like to argue that writer's DO love crossing blatant morally ambiguous lines in this fandom...

That's where we begin to speak different languages.

alcyone (unless of course you give me the name of that "Evil" Lois fic, that is)

Alcyone, I'll try again.

I thought you were saying that a writer need not suggest in any way that the protagonist's actions were "bad" (such a simplistic word). That at the end, it didn't matter if the reader was left with no sense one way or the other about what the author was getting at. Hence my use of the word vacuum and my suggestion that any comment on a vacuum can't be negative by definition. It could as easily be regarded as positive. Or neutral.

As well, i assumed you were saying that for the author to take a stand on those actions is "pedantic" or wrong or just clumsy writing. Who wants to be pedantic? What I meant was that a skillful writer could avoid the pedestrian "pedantic" and achieve the same ends more stylistically.

Now I know my comment lacks a certain post-modern moral ambivalence and I apologise for that. But this is Clark Kent/Superman, as opposed to L'Etranger's Mersault, for example, that we're talking about here - and that imposes a constraint I think.

But I suspect you disagree with that, which is okay, too.

This explanation was too pedantic, right?

edit: just read your addendum:
What evil Lois fic?