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?

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"

The thing is though with that attitude, the world as we know it would be a very different place. Superman could always plant himself by the river of truth and the world would move. There would be no dictators, no environmental threats, no poverty, no wars. All monitored and regulated by a demigod. It would be a world with less suffering but is it a better world? and would mankind be better for it?

This a common SF dilemma. In Asimov’s fictional future, sentient machines are made to serve humanity, but eventually the machines with their superior intellects realizes that it’s indisputable that they can provide better decision-making for humanity then humans themselves, so they take political control and over the years creates a utopia for their human charges, it’s just that despite providing a obvious superior alternative, humans aren’t content and seem to loose their will to develop and in the end the machines decide to dismantle their regime and safeguard humanity at a distance.

To me Superman’s policy of non-interference serves two purposes, one, he is afraid of putting his own conceptions of right and wrong above everyone else, without disccusion. Things could very quickly become right and wrong simply because thats what Superman says they are. And he isn’t human, he never have worry about food, shelter, money, or violence, who is he to judge humanity?

The other is that I see him as a great believer in freedom of choice. That it’s not enough to make the right choice, but you have to make it because you believe it’s the right thing to do.

But I agree that Superman is made unrealistically inoffensive not to put anyone off. In order to make sense he need to express what he believe is right or wrong. Partly he can do that through action, but he can’t be afraid to give his opinions on green house effects, abortion, death penalty and nuclear weapons tests etc.

But my view diverge from canon. I see him as more doing peace corps work, then crime fighting, unless he believes that Metropolis money and stopping kids spraying graffiti is more important then the starving people in Africa?