Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls The Clark Quiz

Well, for the record, if Zoomway isn't registered here (and to my knowlege, she isn't) then it's because she chooses not to be. We don't make it hard to sign up and no one's banned or anything.

PJ

Ahhh. I see. But if the discussion is here, why would she think that a reply written there would make any sense without the original posts as reference? Kind of pulls things out of context, IMO, if the majority of the conversation is happening in another place and isn't viewed as a whole.

Lynn

I said my peace, so I was going to stay out of the rest of the discussion, but I thought I needed to clear some things up.

First of all, "Bolt, From Dubuque" was mentioned as a story in which the characters had been made to react a certain way in order to fit a predetermined storyline, and was characterized as very much out of canon. While I'm glad that the story was read and enjoyed, the disclaimer at the top stating that it is an ALT-universe story must've been missed.

Zoom's discussion on her boards pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. If you haven't read her posts, please take a look. Writing in the alternate universe (as presented on the show) is tough, in part because there was no Lois introduced, and in part because we only have 2 episodes to draw from for characterization of Alt-Clark. I consider Bolt to be a story that is very much in character, given what is presented. It's one of those "what-if" scenarios I spoke about earlier - what if you changed one event and things were taken down a different path. The result is the story I gave. And by adding another original character, it becomes an expansion of the universe we're given.

Expanding on the idea of the "what-if" scario, let me respond to something Kaethel wrote:
I think this is entirely wrong. If we use the show as a basis for characterization, then given events A, B, and C, we know that the character will respond in a certain way. To say that a character could react just the opposite way and still be in character is to ignore what the character is in the first place. For example, in the Pheonix, Superman stops Lex Luthor from killing himself, even though he could've easily let Lex go through with it, resulting in a more pleasant future for our favorite hero. Given Kaethel's premise, Clark could've let him die and still been in character, but how many of us truly believe that? Would Superman let someone die when he could save him? Would Superman let someone take the easy way out of well-deserved justice? Should we even have to ASK these questions?

Now, take away one of the events or add a variable (event B2, for example), and the reaction of a character might be different because the situation they find themself in is probably different. But does that mean that they will do 180 degree turn from their initial (known)reaction? I think the underlying fundamentals of the character come into play at some point. In the example above, if the confrontation had taken place at a later time or in a different place, or if Nigel's arrow had been targeted for a possibly fatal place on Lex's person, would Superman still have saved Lex? I think the answer would be yes, becuase of the underlying principle that Superman doesn't kill.

It's called design-build. Look into it sometime. The firm doing the design/build on the building is given a set of specifications and some goals on the project, and creativity results. As long as things are built to certain standards and the agency paying for the building has approved what is being done, then all sorts of variations are possible.

Butting in on another discussion:
Her stories were drug into these discussions, so obviously she felt the need to clarify elements of her stories that were misrepresented. Maybe she figures that anyone who would read the response would know what it's in reference to. I'm sure all you following the link do.

AnnN.

Oh, I agree, I never said it was out of character. I said it worked for me. I'm well aware that it's an alt-world story, and one that you know I enjoyed as I sent you private feedback (Sara Kraft here, aka skfolc ).

Actually, now that I think of it, I'd consider Bolt to be more of an elseworlds story as well as an Early Years story because you deal with alt-Clark when he was younger and gave him an entirely different future. But nonetheless, still in character and a great story, IMO.


Don't really need to read Zoomway's posts to know what an alternate universe story is, but thanks.

No arguement from me there! Like I said, I thought it was very well in character. Perhaps you missed my point. I was aiming to illustrate that taking characters in a different direction than "show canon" isn't a bad thing, and that it certainly doesn't make for bad fic. Sorry if you misunderstood.

As for what you said regarding Kaethel's words:

I think that's a little unfair of you, Cindy. As evidenced by the poll, the majority of us believe that Clark will not kill. I don't mean to put words in Kae's mouth, but I'm pretty sure she agrees with the masses. I think she clearly defined what she meant in her own post:

I don't think she was stating that as a hard and fast rule that had to be applied to *every* decision Lois and Clark made.

Sara

I don't think Kae meant to say that any conceivable choice would be in character -- that's kind of daffy What I understood her to say was that in some situations, there can be more than one choice that would be in character, and picking a different one from the show wouldn't take the character *out* of character.

Think about the end of Metallo. Superman visits Lois, points her gently towards Clark, then flies off. Lois thinks about it and calls Clark's apartment. Now, in the episode, of course, he wasn't there -- but surely you can't mean to suggest it would have been out of character of him to have gone home?

It would have been out of canon, obviously. But not out of character, IMO. And that sort of small change could have set things off in a very different direction.

I'm sorry Zoomway didn't appreciate my compliments of her work I do know that the aspect of Persistence of Memory that I referenced wasn't the main point of the story -- nevertheless it's my favorite part. As for the Mayson thing, hey, maybe I imagined the whole thing But I remember that back when she wrote You Made Me Love You (which was what, 9? 10 years ago?), Zoomway was nearly the supreme authority on what was what in Lois and Clark, and that a lot of people (though not Debby! ) would have accepted her interpretation as logical and insightful. Is that a bad thing?

PJ

Yes, Cindy, I think you picked an extreme example as well, but of course you knew that. You didn't need any kind of poll to tell you that, based on what we saw in the show, the majority of FoLCs would believe that Superman wouldn't kill.

Your example is of course a perfect illustration of events A, B and C staying the same, yet Superman reacting in the opposite fashion would take him out of character. But how about the one that Kae herself suggested, that Sara reminded us of:

We all know show canon. He didn't tell her. But as we also all know, and which Zoom mentioned in the post on her boards, he tried to. Twice in that very episode. So it wouldn't be OOC for him to tell her the truth because we know he wanted to, we know that he planned to, even though events kept getting in the way.

So he didn't tell her, but he could have. He could have gone the opposite way and told her. I don't think this is ignoring "what the character is in the first place".

I think it's fair to say that if events A, B and C stay the same, a character could react to it in different ways and still remain "in character". Sometimes there would only be very little variation possible in those reactions; in some circumstances, the variation could be bigger and as much as the opposite way.

OK, what about your extreme example? Do I think that Superman "could" have just stood there and let Lex kill himself? No way. And even with your adding variables, I still think he wouldn't let Lex die, and would do whatever he had to to save him.

But I also believe in the premise that Clark could kill. I remember reading a very interesting discussion on Zoom's old boards, which Rac referenced it in her preface to "The Burden of Conscience". People were arguing very passionately on both sides, and with pretty good examples to back them up. There was no "winner" there, no overriding authority to say that given a particular scenario, this would be "in" or "out" of character. I personally found Rac's story very believable; others might say that no matter the provocation, it was OOC. I'm not going to set out to change anybody's mind, but I'm also not going to bow down and say, "well, so-and-so said that it's OOC, so therefore it must be."

As far as I'm concerned, this is just one more example of the fact that characterization is to a certain degree subjective. There can be two different interpretations, for example based on the "same" canon, and one is not necessarily more "right" or "wrong" than the other. You can stand in your corner and argue for one, giving examples why this works for you. I can stand in the opposite corner, giving just as many examples the other way. Maybe we're both wrong. Maybe we're both right. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree.

Kathy

I guess I don't understand this as being an example of Clark making a different choice. In the show, he made that exact choice twice. In fact, he got two of the four syllables out ("I'm Sup--") before he was interrupted. Therefore, using that as an example of his making a different choice makes no sense to me. Telling Lois his secret was his choice. Outside events (Jason- and Jimmy-interruptus) that prevented his carrying out his decision don't change the fact that he already made that decision. That, too, is canon. Sara and Pam, I'm glad you explained the limitations on Kaethel's statement because I understood it the same way as Cindy did--that any decision that isn't obvious can be made in any way by any person at any time. For me, that completely negates the whole concept of personality, which is a tendency toward or preference for certain actions or decisions in a given circumstance. Without that preference, no action could be OOC because there would be no character. So I'm glad I was mistaken about what Kaethel was saying.

I believe that when people don't care about the outcome, they can choose one action as easily as another, so in that situation, saying someone could decide either way makes sense. But I also believe that people make their decisions based on their personal preferences, the decisions they've made in the past and how those came out, and the totality of their experiences. So, for me, the same person in the exact same situation will make the same choice.

However, in terms of the poll, that leaves a lot of lee-way. For example, if Clark wasn't a journalist, other things would have to have changed in his life for that to happen, and what those changes were would determine what job he took instead. I think all of us agreed that he would take a helping profession, and I could see him becoming a teacher, a doctor, a policeman, a fireman, or a Peace Corps volunteer, depending on what change kept him from going into journalism.

Similarly, some of the questions gave choices that depended on which season the event occurred in. For example, if a rescue went bad, in Season 1, Clark would normally have talked with his parents; in Season 2, he would most likely have gone to Lois as Superman; and in Seasons 3 and later, he would have gone to Lois as himself. I know that several people said not to worry about the circumstances, but the way I see it, decisions are a specific character's response to a specific set of circumstances. If we want to change his/her decision, we need to change the circumstances. I know many of you will disagree with me, but if you don't change the circumstances, the only other option is to change the character.

And Sara, you thought you were long-winded.

Yes, Sheila, he had made the decision to tell her. Twice in the episode. So we do know that he wanted to tell her, felt it was time to tell her. That is canon.

Although we all know that he planned to tell her before he proposed, the fact is, he didn't. He went a different way and proposed first. And reasons were given for why he did that that are also canon and have often been incorporated into fics.

So for an author to write a fic where Clark follows through on what he'd been trying to do all day and tells Lois, that is Clark making a different choice for that moment than he did on the series. The fact that there is canon support for his decision that she needed to know can only make his choice stronger, and presumably in character, but it is a choice that he didn't take in Centennial Park in the rain.

That's the way I look at it, anyway.

Kathy

Apparently, I was answering a different question than you, Kathy. "Would Clark tell Lois he's Superman before he proposed to her?" Absolutely--as we both noted, he tried to do so twice in ATAI.

But, "Would Clark tell Lois he's Superman before he proposed to her--after she was nearly killed in ATAI?" To that question, my answer would be no, not unless something else happened that would decrease the urgency of showing her how much he loved her and increase the urgency of showing her how much he trusted her.

That's the way I see it, Kathy, but it certainly doesn't mean it's the only way. If you've read my response on the Why Fanfic poll, you'll see that it's a moot point for me anyway. As soon as fanfic writers start changing the decisions L&C actually made or the events that actually occurred to them, they're dealing with alternate universe L&C's, no matter how in-character their L&C may be, and I'm more interested in the adventures of our L&C.

Wow! These threads have become a wonderful way of understanding fellow Folcs' points of view on various aspects of writing, don't you think?

Sheila, I'm intrigued by your view - one that I can identify with insofar as I prefer to read fanfics set after the show finished, or at least are new adventures which might have happened in between the events we saw on the show. I just thought of your story, In The Beginning, though - how does that fit into your way of viewing things? Does the fact that Clark doesn't arrive at the Planet for another year, by which time Lois has already married Luthor, mean that this L&C aren't theL&C?

Yvonne

"In the Beginning" was written for the charity fanzine, which was about "The Many Worlds of Lois & Clark." In other words, the story wasn't supposed to be in canon. I struggled for 3 months (May to August) to come up with an idea that would be about an L&C who weren't our L&C. That should tell you how completely my attention is focused on our L&C and what they actually did and didn't do.

So, yes, Yvonne. The L&C in "In the Beginning" live in an alternate universe. They shared the same universe as our L&C until whatever event occurred that prevented Clark from coming to Metropolis at the time he did in the series. (I'm thinking that Jonathan had a heart attack or suffered rhabdomyolysis in reaction to his cholesterol meds, so Clark had to stay in Smallville to help with the farm until his dad got well enough to take care of the farm alone again.)

Anyway, at that point, their universe split off into an alternate universe from our L&C. So they have the same personalities as our L&C because they have the same pre-pilot experiences, but they're definitely an alt-version of them.

BTW, getting back to the OOC part of the discussion: because I knew how our L&C behaved, once I started writing, I just patterned my L&C's actions and decisions on the L&C I knew so well. That part wasn't really any different than writing about our L&C in a situation that they hadn't faced in the series. It just isn't as satisfying for me to read or write about a different L&C as about our L&C.

Okay, that makes sense, Sheila.

But, darn it, you've just made me wonder something else.
Would the experience of putting his career on hold for a year to look after the farm and probably help look after his Dad too further shape Clark's personality? Would he be a different person to the person who came to Metropolis a year earlier?

Yvonne

Would Clark be a different person after that experience? Slightly, yes. However, since he just gave up a year of his life and put his career plans on hold in order to help someone else, I'm inclined to think that it just strengthened his tendency to put his own life aside to help others. Basically, it just strengthened tendencies that were already there. For me, that matches with his decision to save Lois even though it meant revealing his secret to the most famous reporter in the world. OTOH, you could argue that after learning how vulnerable his parents really are, the experience might have strengthened his fear of letting anyone know his secret and thus putting his parents in danger, which might have made him less inclined to save Lois at the expense of his secret.

That's one of the real pleasures of writing: brainstorming and sorting through and then choosing the events and experiences that will change your character's thinking in a way that the reader finds believable.

Yep, totally agree.
It's also one of the agonies, mind you.

Yvonne