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

The practicality behind this eludes me. It presupposes that any author whose writing had no discernable moral push (to a reader) cannot recieve "negative feedback."

...

Ok. I'll leave that one there. I think we're definitely speaking in different languages.

Exactly. I don't believe in constraints _especially_ in 'folk' creativity--precisely because we're not dealing with stuff like L'Etranger (which actively demands a certain interpretive push). THAT is really an entirely different thing, regardless of what might seem at first blush in my argument.

Ultimately, I believe interpretive communities (like this one) make their own rules by consensus (organically), so that there isn't a need to impose constraints outside of those of the participant's collectivity (other than the minimum for order by the mods). The community itself moves happily in whatever way it will, regardless of individuals (though these are the building blocks and we all put in a piece).

I'm not sure you see it quite like that, but to each his own.

*shrug*
alcyone

Just as every writer begins with certain preconceptions about the characters of Lois and Clark in his/her story, every writer also begins with certain preconceptions of what is "right," what is "wrong," and what is "acceptable under the circumstances." I believe that this discussion is very enlightening - and extremely well-mannered, too. Kudos to all who've remained calm and eloquent in this thread (and that would be everybody whose comments I've read).

Should Clark suffer for the "bad" things he does? That depends on the context of both the story and the worldview of the author. If the writer's worldview demands immediate and direct retribution for evil deeds, then yes, Clark should have a kryptonite anvil drop on his head whenever he makes Lois cry. But if the writer doesn't buy into an absolute moral code and believes that there is no absolute right and wrong, then the only retribution Clark might suffer is either from society or from his own conscience.

I know, those are pretty much two opposite poles, but I get the feeling that some readers would like for Clark to get zapped instantaneously for everything "bad" he does, irrespective of how we define that "bad" thing. That's okay. If it's delayed a bit, maybe it will make his comeuppance sweeter when it does come around. And for the readers who are willing to excuse Clark for almost anything he does, then maybe no retribution is necessary beyond his loss of sleep over his actions. Hey, everybody's different.

I happen to agree with Ann about the dishonest ending to Superman II. I also agree that it's not something that should be discussed to death here. "Our" Clark probably wouldn't do something like that, anyway. But if he does, we'll keelhaul him!

Or maybe we'll forgive him. It all depends, doesn't it?

My back is bothering me tonight, so it’s five o’clock in the morning, and I haven’t managed to get any sleep and I'm doped up on pain killers. So don’t expect a lot out of my comments here.

Anyway, interesting discussion - and, as Terry said, very civil - so if no one minds, I’ll add my two cents.

Now, this is slightly off topic, since the topic is about how much we will forgive Clark for. But it's more... the writer's perspective (for what it's worth)

I agree. I don’t use omniscient narration either. Or at least, I don’t use it a lot. But I don’t think it is necessary to have omniscient thought to convey that bad behavior is... well, bad behavior.(And here, I would simply note that making bad behavior seem... well, bad, doesn’t necessarily, at least to me, mean ‘punishment.’) Let me take an example from the show (and although we are talking about Clark here, this is a Lois example - mainly because I think it shows the way to do this particularly well.)

Okay, I suspect most of us would say that Lois was behaving badly when she stole Clark’s story. Now, we were told by the authors and the actors that Lois was behaving badly because of the following:

1. We hear a conversation between Lois and Lucy where they make it obvious that Lois has been up half the night obsessing over what she did.
2. During that conversation, Lois admits that it was wrong and promises Lucy she will never do it again.

Of course, then we see her unable to apologize to Clark for what she did. But look at Lois’ face as Clark turns around and walks away. She knows in that moment that what she did was wrong - and even that her comments to Clark were wrong.

So do you have to use the omniscient voice to convey wrongdoing? No. All you need is to have someone recognize that it was wrong. Now, in writing, we can’t make the best use of facial expressions, but we certainly have something that television doesn’t have - we can make use of internal thoughts. And we still have dialogue.

I don’t think it’s a matter of trust.

I mean, I’m not a professional writer. Most of us aren’t. So sometimes we miss things. Even if, in our own minds, we had a reason for a character to do something, we might well forget to put it in the story. So if Clark is behaving badly, I think it is fair for someone to point that out and ask: “Why?”

So... In my opinion, don’t assume that the writer (assuming that writer is me) knows what she is doing. I probably didn’t even think about your concern and have to stop and ask myself: “Why is Clark behaving badly?” Or... maybe I have thought about your concern and all will be explained later. In which case, as I say to my beta readers all the time... Keep reading. Or maybe I have thought about it and completely forgot to put it in the story (yes, trust me, that happens a lot, too).

Now the writer also has the right to say: “I don’t have to explain to you why Clark is behaving badly” or “I don’t have to even acknowledge that Clark is behaving badly.” That is certainly their ‘right’. On the other hand, as a reader, I’m probably going to feel as if the story... didn’t quite do it for me. I’m left with just too many loose ends and questions (ie. Why didn’t Clark realize that what he did was wrong? Or why did Lois fall in love with him?).

So the question the writer has to ask themselves is: “What do I want to leave the reader with?” If you want to leave your reader with questions, that is certainly fine. If you want to leave the reader with the feeling that they buy your story, then it’s up to you to sell it.

Anyway, just my thoughts (after a night of no sleep).

ML

I hope your back is less painful this morning, ML, and that you did manage to get some sleep.
----

ML's example works really well.

[QUOTE] Of course, then we see her unable to apologize to Clark for what she did. But look at Lois’ face as Clark turns around and walks away. She knows in that moment that what she did was wrong - and even that her comments to Clark were wrong. "
_________________________________
-- Also, Clark 'punishes' Lois at the end of that episode by sending her on a wild goosechase to the city dump in search of Superman and when we see her she's a mess, shoe broken, scratching. She then tells him he was right. (huge paraphrase of her dialogue there) But we don't feel badly for her - we knows she deserves it. Nor do we label Clark's action as 'bad' (or 'mean' which is a better word here) because Lois acted (and acted 'badly"' (ie unethically) first. And because their initial 'bad' acts were no so very bad

Now, of course if we were strict moral abosolutists we would slam them both but we don't, we cut them both a bit of slack - Lois because of her contrition and Clark because he's rebalancing the power between them.

Terry raised the point about whether we're moral absolutists or moral relativists. But I don't think most of us are either one or the other all the time. It probably depends on whether the 'bad' action is a misdemeanor or a serious crime, like murder. By the end, I suspect most readers want to feel the consequences have fit the crime, and restitution has been made to innocent victims' and or their families. rather than finishing the story with the sense that the character was given a free pass and actually got rewarded.

I'd better add that that last statement applies only to the main protagonist, the one who the reader is supposed to buy as 'the good guy'.

Otherwise we're left with the Mersault shrug at the act of killing.
which is okay in serious literature but this fanfic we're talking:)

Yes, I know that's a double standard, but there it is.

Sometimes , though, I get the feeling that some readers and writers are moral absolutists when it comes to Lois Lane, but moral relativists when it comes to Clark Kent.

I think ML's point gets at it - we're looking to see some sense of balance or justice by the end of the story or feeling that the author's universe is operating in a fair way - the 'bad' guy doesn't get the 'good' ending.

Although it's interesting to know what an author says outside the story about what his/her intentions in writing the story - eg that Clark is a good guy, what really counts is what the writer has actually written in the story (and also *not* written},
As well it matters how the reader perceives what the characters were doing in the story. Which means , I guess , there are often two stories - the one the writer believes s/he's writing and the one a reader is reading. Every once in a serendipitous while the two are the same.

Think i've segwayed with that last paragraph.

and missed up the quote function pretty badly.

c.
edit (for more than typos, I mean - I'd somehow missed Arawn's post, but just read it now - he's put the dilemma of Clark's character and circumstances so well. )

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stick my neck out even further.

As many of you may know, I was raised in a religious home. All my relatives except my parents believed that every word in the Bible was true, and everything God had ever done was perfectly good.

My problem was that, after I had begun reading the Bible, I couldn't agree that everything God had done according to the Bible was perfectly good. In Samuel 15:3, God's prophet Samuel says this to Saul, King of Israel:

Spare them not. Slay them all, man and woman, infant and suckling. Suckling - a small baby still feeding from his mother's breasts. God spoke through his prophet Samuel and ordered King Saul to do this? And I was supposed to think that God was good for giving Saul this command?

I got the chance to ask two pastors what they thought about God's command to Saul here. Was God really good if he ordered Saul to kill all those little babies?

"But what would have happened to those babies if they hadn't been killed?" one pastor replied.

"What?" I asked, totally confused.

"Well, you had no objections to the idea that Saul was ordered to kill the adults of Amalek. What would have happened to the little babies if they had been left alive when all the adults lay dying around them? Surely you can see that God was merciful when he ordered the babies to be killed too?"

There are two ways to interpret the answer that the pastors gave me. One possibility is that they honestly thought that genocide was acceptable and good if God ordered you to do it, because God is infinitely good, and therefore whatever he commands you to do is perfectly good, too. Therefore genocide, even today, is a good thing if God orders you to do it. Admittedly I don't think it is at all likely that the pastors really believed that. A much more probable interpretation is that the pastors believed that everything God is reported to have done according to the Bible is good, and therefore, ordering Saul to commit genocide around 1,000 B.C. was good. But the pastors almost certainly believe that God has changed the rules since then, so that he would never order anyone to commit genocide anymore, and therefore genocide today is against God's will, and therefore it is bad.

Still, the fact that the pastors would condone God for ordering genocide three thousand years ago was something that deeply, deeply upset me. Bottom line, it is my horror at this impossible moral relativism that motivates me when I keep insisting that a person shouldn't be forgiven for doing bad things just because that person himself is defined as good. I would go so far as to say that you are what you do. And because Superman to me has always been somewhat like "God" - that is, he is superhumanly powerful and he is, supposedly at least, very benevolent - I frankly want to take him to task when he does something which is unacceptable to me. I want to remind him who he is supposed to be, or at least, who I think he should be! I don't want to be someone who condones him whatever he does, the way those pastors condoned genocide if it was ordered by God! After all, if Superman doesn't hold himself to the highest standards, he could easily turn into a superhumanly powerful tyrant.

Does that mean that Superman/Clark Kent can never be forgiven for doing a bad thing? Of course not. Even though I am not a religious person, I am well aware that most religions talk about mercy and forgiveness. It would be too hard to live if we could never be forgiven for our trespasses, and the forgiveness must extend to the most powerful people as well, like Superman. And I absolutely agree with Arawn that Superman has to be enormously self-disciplined, because ultimately no one but himself can discipline him and stop him from doing bad things. At the same time he is expected to interfere in human affairs and make things better, without putting a foot wrong. The pressure he would be living under would be enormous. Yes indeed, we should cut him some slack when he stumbles and strays, but when he does so, I personally can never deny the fact that he has stumbled and strayed.

Consider the episode "And the Answer Is", where Superman froze Lois and risked her life in order to get his parents back. What if he hadn't managed to bring her back? Would that have made him guilty of her death? Yes, in my opinion, it would have. If someone else had caused the death of someone by carrying out a highly risky, unathorized expreiment, would they have been punished by the law? Probably. Should Superman, therefore, have been held legally accountable if he had caused Lois Lane's death by freezing her? Yes, I think he should have. Is it all right if a writer says that Clark will miss Lois bitterly for the rest of his life, and that is the only punishment he needs? Yes, of course! Such a story doesn't break any rules of these boards. But is it all right if I post FDK saying that Superman caused the death of Lois Lane, and he should be answerable to the same laws as anybody else? I hope it is.

Ann

Oh. I take another view entirely. Most of the writers I associate closely in this fandom (and beta for) are _extremely_ self-conscious and then rely on several betas to get a sense of how it reads on the outside (and speaking of reading from these writers outside of beta-ing, it shows).

Now that isn't to say that they don't miss things ever or that their betas are perfect (though I'm tempted ). But from my experience, I give the writer credit that they've thought things through and wait for the end before I voice any complaints (of course based on my experiences with these people). I always think they know something I don't (my function as a beta is slightly different ). It depends also what function you see the board play. Some people use it to beta for them. In those cases, I see what ML and Carol argue for more than in other cases.

I might be being too kind to authors. But I'm okay with that, a little kindness goes a long way.

And again, as a writer, looking at my characters like children and saying oh this person is behaving badly and I must make sure to 'punish' them seems to me like it oversimplifies things. Even the example from the show is too simple--of course stealing Clark's story is "bad."

But what if it was something more complex (as these things tend to be)--check out Ann's example about ATAI. She sees Clark's action as causing Lois' death (and do I get away with labeling it "bad"?). I don't. And this being the case, if I were to write something using this bit, the "bad"-ness of Clark's actions wouldn't be the point. "Morally suspect" is often in the eyes of the beholder when it comes to stories. We all tend to cut one character more slack than another. However, clearly this causes some people anxiety.

I think the only way to maneuver around those gray areas is through what the community tolerates (or keeping the writing "safe" and in a black/white binary, which protects writer, but gets predictable fast, there's only so much interest I can summon for characters all good all the time). Clearly the (effective, well-regarded) fanfic produced demonstrates that the community doesn't see it quite as Ann does.

It all comes down to 'Bad' behavior not being just bad behavior. Or at least I don't think it need be in any case when you're trying to write something that feels believable (because there are reasons to why people do what they do, at least in stories). The terms themselves are problematic because we don't all carry the same standard (as I argue again and again)-- my "bad" Clark/Lois might be a victim of circumstance and maybe I see it like that and you don't. Maybe if most people agree with you, I will take a step back and reevaluate my story (to be able to fit into the taste parameters of the community).

If it's just you though...I might conclude it's an author-reader disjunct and move on.

Like I said, this is a shady area. The best you can do as a writer, in my view, is to be true to your own vision and get a good set of betas to check it for consistency against what is accepted. Those questions are better when asked of them, than they are when asked of a mass of individuals.

You can't please everyone. I'm sure writers know that...but it'd be good for readers to be reminded of this as well. I know as a reader (which I am primarily), I try to never forget that.

alcyone

Yes but why is Superman good? If he just is infallible caring and nice because he just is, you make Clarks’ character smaller then it has to be. IMO.
Clark isn’t human, there is really no practical reason to why he shouldn’t impose his will on humanity. In many ways he is like a lion cub that has been brought up by humans, He identifies himself and his values with his surrogates out of habit, but just like a lion there really is no natural reason to why he shouldn’t prey on them. Would the lion be evil for doing this? I don’t think so. Clark could have anything he desire and this is what the US with it’s reverence for individual achievement would encourage him to get, instead Clark has chosen something else, I picture Clark as someone that has thought extensively on these questions and decided that there some places his thoughts are not allowed to go.

I don’t think ATAI is an example of bad Clark, Lois devices a plan to assist Clark’s parents. We know it’s risky, but so is Jonathan and Marthas situation. (IF we ignore giant plotholes like that Clark knows who is accountable for their kidnapping. ) Anyway, who is he to deny her the opportunity to save his parents lives? I suppose he could have come clear with her here, but this is not really a time for telling his life story to Lois. A decision has to be made.
(I must say that Terry’s story "She's" was a masterstroke in the angst department. Clark knowing without a doubt the depths of her love, without the opportunity to coming clean with her and being responsible for her death, forever wondering if he really chose his parents lives over hers.)

I view Superman’s legal situation as this: In the show(and many fics) we see in several instances how Superman is subject to the legal framework. To me, this makes little sense. IF superman was real and there was no way to force him to comply with human law, there would be a huge reluctance to make him answer for it.
I mean presently he zooms around doing major rescue work for some reason, do you really want to nag about his shortcomings? What if he won’t be there when the next hurricane hit your country if he finds your government ungrateful? What if takes up world domination as a hobby instead?
I cannot see a court daring to challenge him on anything, unless it beyond doubt that his intent was malicious and then it would be a national security issue, not a legal one.

And yes I think people would judge him very differently then if a human being or agency did the same thing. Which Clark would know and abhor.

This is why I find MLT take on Clark’s reaction in the “people vs Clark Kent”, spot on. Here Clark simply pleads guilty to killing Jefferson Cole. Everyone think he is nuts because, no jury would have convicted him of second degree murder when they heard the whole story. But this is irrelevant to Clark because he knows that he always would have a way to get out of it.(even without using his powers). Only he can dispense justice on himself. He put this even over his concern for his pregnant wife.

Btw MLT, I'm sorry to hear about your pain.

Ann, In response to your reference to the killing of the Amalekites. can understand your horror at what would seem to be basically mass murder. However, if we compare it to Sodom and Gomorrah, is it that different? In both, entire nations (those cities were independent kingdoms) are wiped out. But we know God's reason for destroying S & G. He did it because of their immorality and their evil deeds. In context, the order to kill the Amalekites seems to be God using the Israelites as his arm of justice in disciplining/punishing them for their many evil deeds. Other than your pastor's point about the babies being all alone, there is also the possibility that these children would grow up to be as evil as their parents. Of course, one could go much deeper into theology about God allowing/causing people to die, but that's another topic.

WARNING: Post if very off topic.

Thanks, Arawn and Carol. I'm hoping to go for surgery at the beginning of November - which, I hope, will solve the problem. (I always love it when problems get solved )

ML

Woody, have you actually read the Biblical story of Sodom? Abraham's relative Lot lives there, and two angels come to see him to warn him to flee. Lot invites them to come into his house and stay the night. But at night, all the males of Sodom surround Lot's house and demand that Lot hand out the strangers to them, so that they may "know them", that is, have sex with them. This is Lot's answer:

Lot offers his virgin daughters to the homosexual rapists, so that they may abuse them to their hearts' content, if only they leave his male guests in peace. We have to admire his hospitality. Well, the angels take Lot and his family out of the house, God rains sulfur and fire over Sodom and Gomorrah, and Lot's wife looks back, so she is turned into a pillar of salt.

There is a similar but worse story in Judges, chapters 19-21. A Levite and his concubine spend the night in a house in Gibeah, home of the Benjaminites. At night, the house is surrounded by men from Gibeah, who demand that the Levite is handed over to them, so that they can have sex with him. The Levite gives them his concubine instead, and they rape her all night. In the morning, the Levite takes her home. At home, he cuts her up in twelve pieces and send one piece each to every tribe of Israel, calling for revenge. All the tribes of Israel except Benjamin gather outside Gibeah. Hundreds of men from Gibeah manage to flee from the city, but all the women and children are trapped inside. The other tribes kill all the women and children. Then they feel sorry for the bereft men of Gibeah, so they attack a city which did not take part in the killing of the women and children of Gibeah. They kill everyone inside this other city except four hundred young virgins, who are taken away and forced into marriage with the Gibean men. But since there weren't enough virgins to satisfy the needs of all the men, additional virgins are attacked and stolen away from the city of Silo. During most of this story, God sometimes intervenes and gives the tribes of Israel good advice.

I'm sorry, Woody, but using one instance of genocide in the Old Testament to condone or explain other instances of the same thing doesn't work for me.

Arawn, you said:

How can there be any doubt that Clark chose his parents' lives of Lois', if he froze her to death to save his parents?

I agree with you here:

Indeed. Clark must have thought extensively on what his own place on the Earth should be. And he has chosen not to use his powers to rule, to kill, to gain riches, to have slaves and armies and enormous harems of concubines. He could have done all those things, but he has chosen not to. He wants to belong to humanity, not hold himself above them, and he seems to believe that all humans were born with the same inviolable worth. That is what makes him so good to me.

Ann

Ann, you must confess that this has now strayed way off of the original topic. Your original topic posed the question of whether or not Superman is good. Now we are on the topic of whether or not God is good. (Notice that I capitalize the word God. We're not just talking about any god, we're talking about the God of Abraham.)

Superman is just that; he is a super-man, with all of the failings of any man or woman. I don't personally believe that a superwoman would be any better. I know how fallible woman are, seeing how I am one.

Your criticism of God is entirely different, however. I know that you aren't just throwing this out there to cause a fight. I know you firmly believe that. I can always trust you, Ann, to tell us how you really feel.

I also know that you and I will have entirely different views on this. For one thing, please, do not confuse Lot or the Israelites with God. What Lot does is as flawed as what I do. What the Israelites did will be just as bad, if not worse.

Those who have read the account of Lot and Sodom and Gommorah will see just how badly Lot and his entire family behave. Lot throws his daughters at a mob of homosexual men trying to gang rape two visitors. God didn't ask him to do that. As a former virgin daughter, I would be horrified if my father did that, but the daughters take it in stride as if this were normal behavior. In fact, they don't want to leave before judgment arrives. The angels have to pull them along by the hand to get them to go. They leave their fiances, who think that the judgment of God is a big joke.

As for the book of Judges, I hate that part of the Bible. It's not because I hate God, but because the people of Israel keep doing worse and worse and worse. They muddle around without looking for direction. God kept calling them back and then they would behave badly again. It's a disgrace, but it wasn't ordered by God.

Your original example was your best example, Ann, because it lets God speak for himself. I agree that genocide is awful. However, please, don't treat those people like they're innocent farmers working the land and coming home to play the fiddle and dance a jig by candlelight at night. Instead, they worshipped fickle gods that had to be appeased. For those who worshipped Molech (the Ammonites, the incestuous descendants of Lot, whom God also asked to be wiped out), worship included throwing those suckling infants to be burnt alive in the hopes of appeasing Molech. For those who worshipped Baal (the Canaanites whom God also asked to be wiped out), worship included cutting themselves with swords and spears until their own blood flowed in the hopes of appeasing their Baal. I don't remember whom the Amelikites served, but I do remember that none of them were peace-talking people. Most of them treated women and children as property or, worse yet, prostitutes. God didn't just wipe them out on a fickle whim. He asked for justice to be served.

I know you aren't going to be swayed by all of this, Ann. I know that because you have witnessed too many times Christians who have not acted like Christ. You've told us, as much. However, I can't stand by and listen to you casually attack my God.

I also can't stand by and listen to you bring God down to Clark Kent's level. For one thing, Clark is fictional. I am highly offended that you would speak of God in the same way you would speak of a mere myth.

Elisabeth

(Dang. I just know that I'm going to regret this post. I just can't stay away. And please forgive the off-topic part.)

Ann, I feel that I must respond to your last two posts. The instances which you relate are indeed recorded in the Old Testament, but there's a very important difference between the slaughter of the Amelekites and the other instances you mentioned. In the first story, the Amelekites are killed because they were deadly enemies of Isreal and had tried to wipe the Isrealites from the face of the earth several times. The Old Testament also records that God told Abraham, "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you." This is an extention of that promise. In the worldview of the Old Testament, the Amelekites started a war of extermination against God's chosen people and they suffered the consequences.

You accurately relate the story of Lot in Sodom, but you've left out an important detail: Lot is there in the city to satisfy his own selfish desires. When Abraham offered him the choice of pasture land to prevent their respective servants from fighting over water and grazing areas, Lot chose the well-watered plain where Sodom and Gomorrah sat. Lot put financial gain ahead of his family's welfare and ahead of his relationship with his God. No wonder he was so stupid with his daughters. It was consistent with his poor character.

The story in Judges ends not with the violence, but with the book's author noting that "In those days, there was no king, and every man did what was right in his own eyes." Some of the greater lessons are that man - even God's chosen people - when left to his own devices, turns invariably to selfishness and self-gratification and violence, and that without some rule over him, man will not behave properly towards his neighbors. The entire story is there to shock the reader and make him/her realize that without strong moral guidance, man is a pretty pathetic creature.

Whew. Now for some on-topic comments.

Ann also wrote, in reference to Lois's death by freezing in two fics on the archives and one video:

In the TV show, Clark didn't freeze her to death. He put her in a state of suspended animation to allow them to fool Nigel and Jason Mazik. And it wasn't his idea, it was hers. She begged him to do it, to let her help Clark, even at the risk of her own life. And even in the moment when she realized that Clark and Superman were the same person, she still closed her eyes and allowed him to continue.

If I had been writing that episode, she would have stopped him just before he exhaled, called him Clark, and together they would have thrown together some crazy scheme to save Jonathan and Martha which would have avoided the whole freezing thing. But I didn't. And to condemn Clark but not Lois for moving ahead with such an impossibly dangerous plan is a little slanted. They were both responsible for taking that huge risk. And they were lucky.

I, like others, see Superman's goodness as a deliberate choice rather than something innate within him. Certainly the other Kryptonians we saw on the show were susceptible to pride, arrogance, anger, racism, and a desire to conquer. So he's not a good guy just because he's from Krypton, but because he chooses to be a good guy.

As far as good Clark versus evil Clark, I don't think I could write an evil Clark and make it believeable. And here I'm confessing a fault in myself, not casting stones at anyone else who is good enough to do it. I'd much rather write an evil Lois, because there are so many character traits and so many negative experiences in her past which might have pushed her towards the dark side. That's a story I could sink my teeth into, if only I weren't already so busy.

Let me say again that so far this has been a civil debate among reasonable people, and I think it's a fine thing. Some of us disagree with some of the rest of us! Horrors! No, it's a good thing, because we're all intelligent, thinking people who present our positions with grace and tact. I, as a mere member of the boards, commend all who have behaved in so civilized a manner. Thank you.

Edit: I did not get to read Elisabeth's post before I posted my comments, because it wasn't there when I started writing. Please forgive me if anything I wrote seemed redundant.

Elisabeth, I agree that my first example was the best, which is why that example was the one I used when I talked to the pastors. I would not have brought up the other examples if it had not been suggested that one instance of genocide can be used to explain or condone another.

The point I really wanted to make is that I was raised on huge numbers of religious children's books, given to me by my Pentecostalist relatives. They expected me to embrace their God as fiercely as they embraced him themselves. But when I read their books, particularly their various Biblical stories, I concluded that God sometimes behaved in ways that disturbed me deeply. In one book, given to me when I was seven, there was a picture of a small Egyptian boy, around three years old. The boy was crying his eyes out because he was attacked by huge swarms of insects that God had sent to torture the people of Egypt, because Pharaoh wouldn't release the Israelites. But the small boy being almost eaten alive by insects wasn't responsible for the fate of the Israelites. I can't tell you how much that picture disturbed me.

(One year after that, when I was eight, my grandfather told me that the world was coming to an end any day now, and I had better prepare myself. I knew right away that I was doomed, that I would be separated from my parents and go straight to hell, because the picture of the small Egyptian boy had engraved itself in my mind, so that I saw it when I thought about God. And then I couldn't believe that God was good.)

Anyway, the reason why I care so much about Superman's morals is that Superman represents an idea that is somewhat like the idea of God. Of course Superman is not God; how could he be? According to Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief, God has created the universe, the Earth and humanity. Has Superman done that? The answer is so obvious that I shouldn't have to write it down, but no, of course he hasn't. Not even in the most fictional of fictional worlds has Superman created the world and humanity. Moreover, in Christian and Muslim belief (I'm not absoutely sure of the Jews) God has the power to redeem humans and grant them life after death. Can Superman do that? Even in the most fictional of fictional worlds? Of course not.

But Superman is godlike, which most certainly doesn't mean he is God. Even the very human Clark Kent in LNC:TNAOS is somewhat godlike, because he does have awesome, superhuman, somewhat godlike powers. And what attracted me to Superman when I was twelve years old was precisely that Superman was so powerful and so good. Superman would never send wasps onto small children to punish a distant leader for treating another people badly. Superman only used his powers to help.

When I was a child, it was easy for me to think that everything in the world was either black or white, and that there were clear-cut answers to everything. Well, I don't believe that anymore, and I know that if Superman had existed, he would be put in "shady gray" situations where it would be really hard to make the right choice. Also, a "human" Clark Kent like the one we saw in LNC:TNAOS has his own human needs too, which can't be ignored. Precisely because this Clark Kent isn't God, he can't be there for other people all the time. He has to have time for himself, and because he is fallible, he is bound to make mistakes. But I need him to try to hold himself to the highest standard possible. I realize that others may not need him to do that, and there is no way I can say that they are obliged to. (Also, Elisabeth, my need for Clark to hold himself to the highest standard does not at all include an obligation to steer clear of extramarital sex with Lois Lane. I consider Clark and Lois to be "soulmates of cosmic proportion", and to me that easily overrides any earthly rules and regulations about when and how they can be physically joined together. But I realize that you feel very very strongly that such an act is totally unacceptable on Clark's part, and here we must agree to disagree.)

Let me make one more comment. In the horror story in Judges, it should be noted that the Biblical condemnation of the whole thing is very mild. I think that there is one reference to Gibeah in the entire Bible, one verse where someone, proably a prophet, tells people to "remember Gibeah". Other transgressions, however, are mentioned and condemned far more often, and they are punished by God in various ways. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the dance of the Israelites around the golden calf are mentioned several times in the Bible, and they are held up as severe warnings. The Isrealites didn't have a king then either, but that is not offered up as an explanation for those misdeeds. But when it comes to the horrors of Gibeah the Bible merely points out that this happened when there was no King in Israel, and leaves it at that. That is not much of a lesson to learn from such an atrocity.

But when Clark makes mistakes, I very much want him to learn from what he did wrong. That is why my need for Clark to be "good" has its roots in my readings of the Bible.

Ann

TOC,

As Terry said, he didn’t (I think you should get the episodes, chances are that you would like them. ) Lois comes up with a plan that puts her life at risk (nothing unusual about that), Clark simply endorse it under considerable duress. That’s not to say that he wouldn’t have felt and been responsible if it had gone bad. But that is life. I think it speaks something of Clarks character that he accept Lois taking such risk, at least to a certain degree.

Yes but not only that, he has chosen to exercise his powers in a very low-key fashion even in trying to make the world better as he defines it. He doesn’t topple tyrants, institute global laws, or enforce a more even distribution of resources, he doesn’t judge, he merely tries to show humanity a better way. Ching, the new Kryptonian viewed this approach as naïve and vacillating, that Clark was merely afraid of taking responsibility. And perhaps he is right.
Anyway , I think certainly there is room for greyness and struggle, but when Clark’s morality and worldview isn't taken into a account it begs the question why the world isn't different.


Elisabeth,

Without any intended offence, some people, like me, consider God a myth. No more real then the cartoon character Superman.

While as interesting as it is, it may be best to leave the bible debates out of the discussion. No one will ever come to a consensus, and tempers will inevitably be riled up, as is already starting to happen. Especially as we all view religion differently. Also, explaining what is right and wrong in the Bible goes widely Off Topic.
<mod hat off>


I'm not sure that I see it as a deliberate choice. It's more of a nurture issue. If Clark had been raised by someone other than the Kents, he wouldn't be quite as good as he is now. They instilled the old-fashioned values that we see in the show. Bring in Alt-Clark, and you can see some of the differences, since he lost the Kents at age 10, so lost a lot of that upbringing. If he had been raised by someone like the Luthors, he would have been completely different, and most likely would have turned out to the be the supervillain instead of the superhero. (That is all speculation on Lex's upbringing, of course)

Now I'm going to back to struggling to figure out the actual topic.

the nature/nurture debate is almost as fraught as the religious one. I think psychologists now do agree that individuals have some innate or genetically determined characteristics. All those studies of the 'twins separated at birth' have paid off.

What about kids who are raised by the same parents but who turn out to be quite different form each other with respect to characteristics like altruism, honesty, or even sense of humour, optimism vs pessimism or other traits?

So it's difficult to argue for sure that Clark is entirely a product of his upbringing.

Is altruism a learned behaviour or innate? Or a combination?

My understanding of the question's meaning is that it's a variation of the "how much can we change a character's 'canon' or mythic personality and still have people buy that character as *the character*. Just because she/he carried the same name and the same physical appearance, does that mean we will accept that person as 'the' character (canon or mythic or iconic - whatever term works here)?

A good example of that is the Smallville fandom's Chlois 'debate'. I gather some SVfans have rejected the SVcharacter called 'Lois Lane' because they don't see her personality or behaviour being 'Lois' like. But they do argue that a character called Chloe is in fact the "real" Lois Lane because she has all the Lois character traits and behaviours.

So same thing here with respect to the 'bad' characteristic (in this particular case the killing of people for reasons that serve no greater societal need) . How much are we prepared to accept (or cut him some slack) as Clark Kent/Superman.

At what point has he become a completely different character? Maybe Batman or Spawn or even Smallville Clark Kent or Lord Nor?

Maybe to put it another way is to ask: What *is* it that defines Clark Kent/Superman - his personality traits or his name and physical appearance and super powers?

Of course, I probably have this all wrong.

c.

For me, personally, the answer is D - all of the above.

I don't base the Clark/Superman that I write on the comics or the movies or any other incarnation of Superman. I base him on what we saw on the show - primarily the Clark we saw in the first couple of seasons on the show when (to me) he was a much more complex character and therefore endlessly more fascinating to me than some god-like creature with buns of steel and a rigid morality. I found him interesting because he could do whatever he wants, but he chooses to play by the rules -- most of the time. It was those "gray" areas when he wasn't always such a goody-two shoes that drew me into the show. He would tease Lois with innuendo, he wasn't a nerdish doormat, he'd toss her in a dumpster or send her to the sewage reclamation plant, and he had no qualms about lying to keep his secret. Given the chance to scare the crap out of Lex, he pulled the trigger. That was wrong - but it was *awesome*!

I'm perfectly willing to read a story where I have to cut Clark some slack, provided the author can show me enough of "Clark" to make him believable. Otherwise he becomes a comic book character - and that's not what enchanted me on the show or brought me back to it years later and sent me in search of fanfiction.

I thought of mentioning that, and I really should have. My elder brother and I have a completely different set of values, but we also had different environments for about 4 years in our early teens. But I think even without that, it wouldn't have changed much.

But I still think upbringing plays a large part. But that's just me.

That's a good question. I think all of it as a whole makes up Clark Kent. But you can change small things, name, profession, etc, and still have Clark Kent. But if you change too much, he becomes a completely different character. That's what fascinates me about so many of the Elseworld fics we've seen over the years. Just how far can you push the boundaries and definitions of the character without making him a completely different person.

I think that's the reason why we have so many problems defining what's based on L&C and what's not. The definition is different for everyone. We all see the same core, but it's those attributes at the boundaries that everyone starts disagreeing on.

Of course, not only do we slightly change the definition of the character, but then we start putting him into situations that push the boundaries even further. Throw him into situations that can make or break the character. It's something that's shown in movies all of the time. Good character goes about doing his normal good routine, bad things happen, and force the good character to do bad things. How much will that change the character, and what are the repercussions of the aftermath? We can hope that the good character comes out almost completely unscathed and becomes a bigger and better person, but that doesn't always happen.

Of course, it's also fanfiction, and a lot of people prefer the happy endings. So of course they should become that bigger and better person!

To some extent I buy that. The fact that Clark apparently always have had the love and support of his parents plays a big part in his "goodness" and his upbringing mould his social manners. but is the natural end product of a American Midwestern upbringing a altruist that care little about career, money, or recognition?


In “big girls” it seems that Clark discover that some part of his outlook is more a product of his nature then nurture.

I only meant that Kryptonian character is more reserved and analytical.

Kryptonian logic, Kryptonian character, Why are you so Kryptonian of a sudden?

I’m not more you know… all of a sudden I’ve always have been. I’m just now discovering my heritage.


Now in the fic world most fan’s don’t care about why Clark is good. He simply is a nice guy that can lift really heavy object and Clark would be relieved to agree. But to me that is a wilful delusion of his.

Clark Kent life is a theatre scene just as much Superman is. And I adore stories that really explore this. It can be little things like Jimmy laughing at him for forgetting a can opener. Or like Caroline’s. “If I were you”

It was fascinating to watch Clark chat with his old friends. It was as if he'd never left Smallville. He'd kept up with every bit of gossip, it seemed, and followed every conversation as if it were the most interesting he'd heard in a while. When the men's talk turned to football, he borrowed a pen from Leslie and began drawing plays on a napkin. When Jennifer mentioned her little boy's frequent ear infections, Clark told her about a Chinese herbal remedy he'd learned of during his travels. He talked farming with the farmers and commerce with the businessmen. He knew something about everything, it seemed, and could contribute just enough to any conversation to be a participant without ever being in danger of monopolizing it.

When Lois thought about it, she realized that Clark had been like that in the newsroom, too. He was always genial, always easygoing, but he never went out of his way to draw attention to himself. When he wasn't immediately involved in a conversation, he managed to subside into near invisibility. He wasn't that way with her, but he was with most acquaintances. How could he have such presence as Superman and be so retiring as Clark? And was one of the two the real Clark Kent, or was the truth somewhere in between? She knew that, if asked, any of Clark's old friends would have claimed to know him well, just as she would have claimed to know him well only a week ago. Now she suspected that Martha and Jonathan Kent were probably the only people on earth who could make that claim. .

Is Superman REALLY a good guy ? Does he stand for Truth,Justice and American Way ?

Consider that original Golden Age Superman was anarchist.

Then publishers changed Superman.

Whereas Superman supposedly stands for Truth and Justice; he is actually about populism, mainstream values and non-offensiveness.He can´t be pro-life or pro-choice, not pro-immigration or anti-immigration, not gun control or gun rights,etc. for if Superman ever supported or opposed any such purpose lots of readers would be alienated.

Superman is essentially a character who say to everyone "I accept everyone, I don´t judge you" and then his supporters say "we accept you too".

There was Superman Returns review which stated that main difference between Superman and other heroes was not greater power or ideals but ability to fly.Then every kid could wrap a piece of cloth around his shoulders,pretend it´s a cape and run across his family´s living room shouting "I´m Superman,I am flying"

Who many people would like a character who constantly accuses majority of people of being wrong ?

Face facts, you think Clark is good because he is non-offensive.I suppose that if his rocket landed into Nazi Germany, Clark would be a Nazi."Can´t condemn the, they would hate me and I would alone"

This was not goodness, it was craving for approval.That why mainstream Superman restrains himself; to avoid disapproval from people.

I prefer Captain America`s non-appeasement:

Publishers should bring original Superman back;"I am here to fight for oppressed,if I will be hated for that,so be it"