FDK goes here .

Yes, a lot of that is auto-biographical - you had that right, Ann. As for what happens to him from here on out... RAFO. This stuff was easy to write [though finding my notebook with my DS' weights written down took a little more doing] - easy in the sense that it flowed, harder in the remembering what it was like sense.

Next scheduled post:
Monday, 10-noon ET

Previews

Chapter 114
Chapter 115


Thanks .
Carol

Lovin' it.

Just one little point - Dodge, as in 'get out of...' refers to the city. So it's 'get out of Dodge.'

Wow! This stirs up some awful memories. My history is a lot easier than yours. For one thing, it was my eldest so I could give her all of my attention. For another, it was only ten weeks with no hospital stay or drugs. However, I remember how exhausting it is to both nurse, pump and bottle feed. I remember how all-consuming the worries were: is it her, me, or both of us? Should I do something different? Finally, I remember that nobody just listened to me. They all felt they could make it better by telling me how fine their own children were and telling me that I was just overly-concerned as a first-time parent. It was also horrid for James when he returned to work, knowing I was doing it all without any support. Yuck! Yuck! Yuck!

I can't imagine what it would be like to mix in the fear that someone may find out about his alien origins if they look too hard.


Elisabeth

It wasn't unexpected after the spitting up yesterday, but still. *hugs* And it gives further proof that Chris doesn't have to be perfectly healthy just because he's Clark's kid.

At least it gives Lois and Clark a reason to bond. He's already cuddling her again and from the conversation in the preview, another talk is in order. You know, I was actually thinking of ways Lois could make Clark see his lunkheadedness while I had nothing better to do. Bad Carol

And just where do you think you're getting off to with not finishing the Clark/Sam conversation. What did he answer? Divorce? And what did Sam say?

/stalks away mumbling about stupid kids and evil writers.../

Michael

Well, I UNDERSTAND why Clark talked to Sam. He had his "hand caught in the cookie jar" so-to-speak. He was startled. And Clark was always taught to respect his elders. Sam is an elder, and Lois's father at that.

And in some ways, I think it was helpful to him. It did force him to come to terms with why he's REALLY staying with Lois.

This is important to the progression of their relationship.


BUT I still maintain he should have asked or at LEAST told Lois before he told Sam.
Their married, even if it isn't a conventional marriage, they should make these decisions together.

And even in the BEGINNING, when they were not really friends, they tried to make decisions together about what to tell other people about Navance and the circumstances of their marriage.

And what really gets me is he didn't even TELL her about his conversation with Sam afterwhards.
Naturally, you can make the arguement that she wasn't really up to a conversation like that after giving birth recently, especially since she's worried about his health.

But still, he's keeping MORE secrets from Lois. I don't care if he figures she doesn't need to know because Sam said he'd never tell Lois himself. He shouldn't keep secrets like that.

Oh, and worrying about his health with the combination of his parr alien-origins is heart-renching. You do a great job blending your own expriences into a story. (I'm glad your DS is fine, now.)

He didn't answer!!!!! And in part 113, he wasn't even thinking of the question!!!!

Got to add one thing... I don't agree with Sara K M that Clark let down Lois by talking to Sam. Lois's problem is not that Clark has let Sam in on an embarrassing secret of hers. Or at least, that isn't her main problem. Her main problem, apart from Nate's 'failure to thrive', is the fact that Clark still has his heart set on leaving her after the five-year waiting period is over. She doesn't want people to know that about Clark, true. But much more than that, she doesn't want Clark to leave her after the five years are up.

Ann

Oops, you did it again...

You know, you're so mean, leaving out Clark's answer to Sam's all-important question of what happens after Chris' fifth birthday.

About Nate, this makes me really, really worried. Do I only imagine things, or are the symptoms pretty much the same your own son showed? And... please tell me the title of the sequel does *not* refer to anything bad regarding Nate.

/switches on hope mode/

Mellie, Carol already mentioned the meaning Unanswered Prayers during the cruise. It's about praying for something you think you want (i.e. Clark prying to get back with Lana) but finding out that life as it is is much better.

/switches off hope mode/

At least that's what I'm going with.

Thanks guys. Quick reply.

Elisabeth - I remember that - the people not really listening/understanding. Fortunately, our doctors weren't among those people.

Lara - I missed that one - thought I got it.

Anyway - I ended up at the hospital to see our nurse practitioner whose son is having the same surgery that mine did last year [talk about surreal when your practitioner calls *you* for... advice for lack of a better term]. They're transporting him from our town to St Louis for the surgery earlier this week [he as other complications so they can't do his here]. Those that pray - if he crosses your mind, I'm sure they'd appreciate a prayer - the little boy's name is James and he's 6m old.

More later... gotta go clean...
Carol

I'm sorry to hear that the baby needs surgery and will certainly put up a prayer for him.

These last few chapters have certainly been emotional given the hint of reality that is mixed in. It all makes me wonder how LnC's relationship can withstand the trials that are coming. I have no doubt that Lois will be needing support from her husband--the last thing she needs right now is his assumed rejection of her feelings to send her over the edge to depression.

That said, I can understand why Clark wouldn't tell her about the convo with Sam, even if he wanted to (in spite of Sam's order). Sure, I think that they are at at point in their friendship where he would tell her something like that, but given the stress she's dealing with--just having given birth and being extremely worried at that point--Clark could have been thinking more about her current state of mind than how angry she would be when the fact that he and Sam talked came out. Then, with the stress of the following months of having a sick baby, his intentions to tell her could have once again been set aside.

Edited to add: I do want to know what he answered to Sam's five-year question though! I can imagine Sam's not going to be nearly as approving of his son-in-law as he has been in the past. End edit.

That inner-teenager of Clark's made me laugh. He sure is fickle. First, he was all about Lana... now he wants to tush-push. I could imagine him whining 'She's your wife!'

So, Nate's being admitted to the hospital. Stress is about to get worse to an exponential power. I hope that Clark lets someone else take care of Christopher for a little while so he can focus on Lois. He needs to stay at the hospital on some of those nights as well. Will that happen? RAFO!

~s
(/who is barely refraining from singing a certain song from Annie about tommorrows and days away...)

Jumping a bit ahead here....

From part 115:

How interesting. Lois is going to ask Clark why he loves Lana more than her.

The standard response is that it's wrong to ask such a question, because you are not responsible for your feelings when you are in love. You love just because. Because your heart has set its sight on this other person. And that is all there is to it.

Well, my colleague Arnost Rusek, who is so extremely interested in biological explanations for everything, begs to differ. Arnost claims that in many cases, we are ruled by our genes. They, our genes, really have only one desire: they want us to send them, our genes, into the future by procreating, by having babies. But that's not all: our genes also want us to have babies with the 'best' possible person (or persons).

Our genes want us to make the 'best' babies we can, the sort of babies that have the best chances of procreating themselves. Therefore, our genes are always on the lookout for such a more-or-less perfect mate for us. And when they, our genes, spot such a highly desirable mate for us, they make us fall head over heels in love with that person. That way they make us want to have sex with that person, and if we obey our genes and do have sex with the object of our genes' desire, we may indeed end up having a baby with that person.

I believe that Arnost's theory does have merits. Think about it. It is almost impossible to be very much in love with a person and not want to have sex with that person, isn't it?

You may object that, yes, you do want to have sex with the person you are in love with, but you do not necessarily want to have his babies (or her babies if you are a guy). But that is because our genes are so primitive and so unaware of modern technologies. Our genes don't know that there are contraceptives. So while our genes insist that we are in love and want to have sex, our cool heads can choose not to have sex with that person in spite of our infatuation, or else we can choose to have sex but use contraceptives. That way we are only partly ruled by our genes.

But I think Arnost is right when he says that falling in love with a person is at least mostly about our genes having spotted a person that they want us to have babies with.

(And this is the difference between being 'in love' and 'liking' and 'loving': To be 'in love' means that you want to have sex and babies with a person, to like that person means to approve of and appreciate that person and to like being in that person's company, and to 'love' menas that you want to do what you can to make that person happy.)

Arnost says that this is why some women want to have sex with men who are irresponsible rascals or worse. Such men are often charming. Men who are worse than rascals, men who are downright criminal, sometimes ooze power. Many women like that. If they have sex with such a man and have his son, a son who resembles his father, then maybe the son will be as charming and irresistible as his father was, and that way the son may have babies with a lot of different women and give his mom a lot of grandchildren.

However, men like these - the rascals and the criminals - are often very bad at providing for their children. Why should they stay with just one woman? Remember that we are talking about men who really are charming, at least to many women. Instead of staying with one woman to take care of her and her children, they can leave her pretty much as soon as they have impregnated her and move on to impregnate more women. Such men can end up having a dozen children or more and never taking care of a single one of their children.

But the pregnant woman needs someone who is going to take care of her and her child (or children). According to Arnost, the best thing for her is to find a staid, reliable, dependable man who will take care of her, and then she can cheat on him with charming guys and have their kids instead of her husband's.

I know, it sounds awful. I too was shocked when Arnost first explained it to me. I absolutely don't believe that all women will do that - indeed, I know that not all women will do that. But I also believe that quite a few women will.

As for men, Arnost says, they most of all want to have as many children as possible. A woman can't realistically have more than twenty children, and usually her body can't deal with having a lot more than ten. But a man can have literally hundreds of children, if he has access to a sufficient number of women. That is why some men are such incredible womanizers, Arnost says. And that is why many men are looking for voluptuous twenty-year-old girls even when the men themselves are in their seventies or older - because their genes still insist that they impregnate more women, and the more obviously voluptuously fertile a woman is, the easier it should be to impregnate her. And that, says Arnost, is why men prefer young women.

Of course, the rich old playboy may end up just having sex with his newest girlfriend instead of making babies with her. His genes forgot to tell him not to use birth control.

All of this is quite depressing, because this way of looking at the human race certainly shows humanity from a pretty sordid side. But like I said, not all men and not all women are like that or act like that.

Let's return to Lois and Clark and OTOH. Clark is in love with Lana. Why, though? Is it only a hangup, a fixation? Arnost tells me that blond hair signals a higher level of female fertility, but I really don't know if that is true. But is that why Clark is in love with Lana and not with Lois? Because Lois hasn't got Lana's blond hair? That just can't be it, can it? Then what is it? Is it that Lana reminds him of his childhood and his innocence? And he shares so many memories with her? Well, if so, then he and Lana have grown apart during the two years he has been married to Lois. Now he shares many memories with Lois that he doesn't share with Lana.

Don't tell me that Clark just wants to 'diversify'? Well, he already has two kids with Lois, and now his genes tell him it's time to have a few babies with Lana????

Clark has no reason to believe that Lana is more fertile than Lois, or that she should be better at giving him babies. Goodness, Lois has become pregnant every time he has made love to her. Lana, on the other hand, has had a miscarriage.

So why is Clark in love with Lana but not with Lois? I look forward to the answer. But maybe Clark isn't going to answer Lois's question, in the same way that he didn't answer Sam's?

Ann

I think this will break Clark right here after being "grilled" by Lois and Sam. Please Clark come on you love the girl.

I've been debating whether or not to say this all day, but whatever.

I still think Clark should have told Lois about the conversation with Sam. I understand the time is stressful for Lois right now, but how long his he going to use that arguement? I'm sure he can have a reason for the next three years why "it's too stressful for her right now."

People have chaisted canon Clark for years about not telling Lois his secret because "the timing was never right." Now personally, I think there's more to it than that, but we're not here to discuss that.
What I'm saying is that it may make sense to him, but it's still not a valid arguement.

As far as the divorce though, I think Clark should be cut a little more slack. (Yes, the Clark-defender of this fic is putting her hat back on!)

I certainly agree that Sam's additude towards Clark will be less agreeable.

But let's examine Clark's reasons and his thoughts on this subject.

When Clark first married Lois, he compared himself to Chris and Jonathan, as men who took in a child that wasn't his to raise. Lois said that wasn't a valid comparison because they never planned on divorcing Martha.

This is what Clark said about that a couple of months ago.
He doesn't know what to do about this, but he does know he shouldn't take it so lightly and pat himself on the back for doing the "right thing."

And there is this.
He KNOWS that divorcing Lois will tear apart their family.

He knows Lois is worried she won't see her kids after that.

He also doesn't want to leave his children.


But from his perspective, there isn't anything eles he can do about it. He isn't in love with Lois.

And for all his "nobleness" about Lois finding someone who IS IN LOVE WITH HER (which I think is a valid arguement if he doesn't believe he is in love with her)I think it would be 100 times more "noble" to agree to stay with Lois JUST for the kids and because he doesn't want to see her hurt.

That's staying with her out of pity, and he believes Lois doesn't want that. And I believe he's right. Lois desperately wants Clark to stay, but she doesn't want him to out of obligation at the end of the five years.

This Lois may be different than the canon Lois we're used to, because of life expriences, she isn't as "hard" or as "driven." But she still has most of the same core qualities. And one of the core qualities of Lois Lane, has always been that she's a very proud woman. And that means she WOULD NOT WANT someone's pity.

And I think a husband staying for a wife when they're not in love with them, is probably one of the most pityfull things a person can do. No Lois would ever want that.

Sara, I don't really want to argue with you, but... just consider this. Lois needs Clark. Her depression has so much to do with the fact that Clark has put an expiration date on their time together.

Lois isn't fantasizing about other men or about finding her own 'true love'. It may have been in this latest chapter that Lois was thinking to herself that the only man she ever wanted to be with was Clark.

Clark should know that she loves him. She told him so, and Clark should realize that it cost her a lot to tell him. When Sam asked Clark if Lois loved him, Clark was cowardly enough not to give Sam a straight answer. He justified his own behaviour by telling himself that he didn't know if Lois still loved him, since she hadn't repeated her declaration of love for him.

Lois is rich, because Sam is rich. Imagine, however, that Lois had been dependent on Clark for a place to live. And imagine that Clark had told her that he didn't want her to demean herself by staying with him just to have somewhere to live. He knew that Lois was a proud woman, and she wouldn't want to cling to him just because he provided her with a place to stay. To rescue her from the humiliation of hanging on to him just to get a place of residence, he would now sever their relationship and send her away. Maybe she would end up homeless, on the streets, but sure it was better to be homeless and proud than to stay with Clark just because he gave her a home, just because he felt sorry for her?

My point is that you cut Clark too much slack if you say that he is going to divorce Lois just because he wants her to keep her pride. She loves him and she needs him, and he should never say to himself that he is doing her a favour by leaving her.

Ann

EDIT: Of course... you can say that if a woman needs a man, she doesn't love him, because needing and loving are two different things. Depends on how you define love, I guess... but it would be a good thing if Lois outgrew her need of Clark. Oh well...

And you say you don't watch Smallville?

Ok 1. Aww, poor Nate, and poor Lois and Clark. No one wants to see their baby hurting.

2. It doesn't really bother me that Clark and Sam had this conversation at this point. It would have if this was the very beginning of their marriage and post-Latislan, but sometimes you have to give a straight answer to a parent. Let's not forget the fact that Lois just a senior in college. She may be married with kids, but she hasn't been on this planet very long, and parents never stop being parents.

Great parts Carol!
JD

Loving it... although I hope Nate'll be fine and healthy soon...

I am excited about Lois' question in the preview.. it's something I've been wondering too, just why does Clark love Lana? heh

I am freaking cold.

Winter hit with a relative vengence last night. Was mid-sixties yesterday, currently is 11 with a wind chill of -4. Ice on the roads and there's only about 4 of the local school systems in today and ours is one of them which means I'm supposed to take two kids to school in about 3.5 hours... I think they may not go today... We'll see...

Thanks for the fdk. It would be interesting to see some sort of similar scenario but without Sam's money - like what they sort of thought was happening before they moved in with Sam. If they really were making it on their own while in college.

Anyway - look for more soon...

Carol

I certainly will pray for little James. I also want to pass on this reassurance, Children's Hospital in St.L is AWESOME! He'll get the best of care there.

Elisabeth
who is extremely jealous of Carol. We never got above 52 degrees before the weather grew horns and a red tail.

Even though the office she works for has a contract with Children's Hospital in STL [after hours triage], it doesn't take her insurance. They took him to... Cardinal Glen? I think. I'm not sure. The pediatrician she talked to yesterday said he'd had a lot of really good success with sending patients there so...

I haven't heard anything yet - and don't know when I will...

Carol

I've been reading this story for the past week roughly and I dedicated myself to reading it everyday when I can. I'd love to leave FDK, but I honestly don't know what to put. I've been hard-pressed on trying to express myself lately b/c I don't feel great and my brain is smushy.

My heart is heavy for Lois. To be in love with a beautiful, kind man and not to have it returned in the same fashion. Sigh.

Poor little Nate (hug).

One of my friends said their family has a history of having children with feeding difficulties. Her brother has so much weight loss and poor food retention that it negatively effected him long term - mentally and physically. It was so bad he couldn't live with his family. This was back in the late 60s early 70s though. When my friend was born her Mum knew what to do and yelled at the doctors to listen to her.

Her two children exhibited the same symptoms, and because of her knowledge and experience of the past situation, nothing when wrong. Their problem was related to the type of food they were eating. I can't remember exactly, but it was interesting and satisfying to know history didn't repeat it self.

Stressful. . .


From ch 112.... wow 112!

I was skitterish in my chair. I realize that it would be difficult to have this conversation, but maybe he didn't say the usual "I don't know" "it's up to Lois" "I always want to be a part of Christopher and Nate's life". . . Maybe would close the situation a bit. Then again who knows what questions Sam would through Clark's way! Parents are parents! I’m glad though that Sam is perceptive.

As for staying together when both parties are not head over heals in love... I think that's not a good thing. It is very uncomfortable to be around grown ups who try to hide their true feelings. They think they are hiding it, but they are not. Kids know. If kids don't, then perhaps it isn't important or a necessity to them? I was in a similar situation like that, as were two of my friends... parents together who just stayed together for the sake of the kids. Varying levels of love or tolerance and emotion. I am very emotional person and think I am open to anything, but I know I am very insecure about showing love and what not in front of other adults in my family b/c of what I dealt with as a child. I even have problems with showing happiness in public situations when it is okay; but I somehow am embarrassed with the show. I consciously have to deal with this issue and I think I'm coming out on the winning end. A child needs to see love and the main relationship he sees - his parents - needs to be secure. IMO.. . Thinking / brainstorming ‘out loud’ about how this situation could have effected me. Yes a child can learn from the mistakes he sees.

LOL