Told you it wasn't happy, Christmas fluff .

FDK goes here.

No post tomorrow.

Next scheduled post:
Friday, probably 10-noon ET

Previews

Chapter 136
Chapter 137
Thanks and Merry Christmas!

Carol

You evil, evil cliffhanger writing woman

I knew that I should have waited to read these parts until Friday, but I just couldn't wait. Oh well!

Until Friday . . .

I don't think Lois is being unreasonable at all.
In her mind, there is no possiblity that Clark is in love with her.

Even after Lana said what she did, she wasn't willing to open herself up to the possiblity. It would hurt too much if she was wrong. So she simply assumed Lana was reading him wrong.

And from her standpoint, she is giving Clark what she believes he ulitimately REALLY wants: his freedom and his sons.
Sheiah has stated several times that she doesn't think Lois is in love with Clark in the "selfless, biblical" sense. I think this is an excellent example that she does.
Even though it is going to rip her heart apart, she's willing to give him up. She isn't going to make it harder for him by begging him to stay or guilting him in to it. And her sons as well, if necessary. To make Clark happy.

Now from Clark's standpoint, IS that what he really wants, or does he feel like he's being forced out?
I don't know.
On one hand, I can definitely still see some evidence of "double-edged guilt" when he was talking to his parents. That makes sense, since they were the ones who were pressuring him to love her in the first place. (I know that's not the way they see it Carol, but that's the way I see it, and I think that's the way Clark sees it, too.)
On the Other Hand, I wonder if Clark is REALLY ready to give Lois up. Of course he isn't, but I mean, does he realize how much it would hurt him and not just Lois and the boys?

I still wonder about shock thearpy. Is this enough? Or do we need Trask to attack Lois because she "seems to be close to the alien"? I don't know.

jfkle;f;ejf;ajgl;

I know, I was warned heh, but 133 landed on such a great cliff-hanger, that I had to ram through the next parts, too. Clark's still a floundering idiot, I'm afraid. Lois made the plunge and said, "Hey, you know what, my husband is a great guy to love." And Clark's problem is, he's told us...nothing. He says, Lois deserves this and Lois deserves that. When was the last time we've heard what he wants? Sure, he's said he can't make himself fall in love with Lois, but that's a broken record now and not the point here. What does he *want*? I'm totally in sync with Martha tonight.

Great parts,
Merry Christmas!
JD

Hmmm... that left me feeling ... irritated. Being willing to give Clark up if that's what he desires is entirely different than making the decision for him, moving out, finding a new place to live, and presenting this to him as a fait accompli before they've even talked about it. That may be unselfish, but that doesn't mean it's loving. Lois has done some loving things in the recent chapters, but this wasn't one of them.

And if Clark doesn't straighten up in the next part and make the right decision, I'm going to slam him, too. The only reason I'm not doing it yet is because he's still just sharing how he feels, not making a decision.

Ugh! I hate feeling this irritated with characters. It puts me completely out of the Christmas mood. (breathe, breathe, shut my eyes, breathe some more)

Merry Christmas, Carol. I hope you have a great day with your family.

Well, this had to happen, I think. Clark doesn't realize and won't admit that he actually *wants* to stay with Lois. Lois already tried to force the issue once, when she asked Clark for a divorce before. The fact that he won't commit to her is killing her.

It should be noted, of course, that it is Lois who has been obsessing about the divorce. Clark hasn't been thinking much about it. In the same way that he has been most unwilling to talk about the divorce, he has been unwilling to think about the divorce. When Lois and Clark first heard that Navance was dead, they both immediately thought about Christopher. But it was Lois, not Clark, who remembered that this meant that their official reason for staying married was gone, too. So it was Lois who pushed Clark away. I don't blame her, or at least, I definitely understand her. Admittedly I don't think it was the right thing to do, but like I said, I certainly understand her. But that leaves us with the question - what if she hadn't? If Lois had left it to Clark to push for a divorce, would he have done so? Or would he have stayed and allowed their platonic relationship to go on and on until death did them part?

Clark was so decisive, so strong-willed, when he and Lois were in Latislan. Now his will seems frozen. He doesn't know what he wants regarding Lois, except that he pretty much wants things to go on like before, because that way he doesn't have to make any other decisions.

So maybe Lois was right to push him away after all. I wish she would have told him that she still loves him and she wants him if he wants her, but she won't keep him imprisoned if he wants to get out of their marriage so he can be free to pursue other women.

These two chapters were heartbreaking, particularly chapter 135, but I think they were good for the story and necessary, too. You know what they say about dropping hints in a fic: 'If you hang a shotgun on the wall of a cabin in the beginning of a story, you have to fire that shotgun before the story is over.' You can't dangle the threat of divorce before our eyes for such a long time without making someone actually go for the divorce, Carol. But I don't need to tell you I hope that Lunkhead Clark will come around and realize how much he truly loves Lois!

Ann

I have a feeling that Lana will tell Clark what an idiot he is!

Trying to stay optimistic till the end...

How many chapters will there be?

Natascha

Merry Christmas everyone! I am off to work...

/waves/

Just finished wrapping presents and stuffing stockings and getting the BBQ Brisket in the crock pot and the 7yo back to bed...

Turns out we've got a bad Wiimote though . We have four total so it'll be okay. DH decided today to get two more which is good b/c otherwise we'd only have one working. Of course, he played one of the games while I wrapped all the presents and put the Brisket in etc...

Of course, it's 1:30 now... But we did put up dark flannel sheets over the kids' windows so hopefully they'll sleep in some.

Anyway - thanks for the FDK. Hope no one's too bummed out. There's ten chapters left at this point.

Schedule:
Friday: 136/7
Saturday: 138/9
Sunday: 140/1
Monday: 142/3
Tuesday: 144
Wednesday: 145 [why? Because I can! And because then it ends on New Year's Eve !]

Natascha - so sorry you have to work!

Okay - I'm going to veg for a few more minutes and then off to bed...

Thanks again! And Merry Christmas!
Carol

[Ann - did you get my email?]

Yes, I did!

Ann

You're right, Carol. It is sort of a bummer. And true to their nature That's torture. That's just needless cruelty. So, when will UP hit the streets

Congratulations to breaking the archive-record

Um Carol, I am going on vacation again this Saturday for a week. To visit kestrel and Jenni D. in Scotland for New Year's (that's the reason I am working Christmas). Could you find it in your heart to help me out again?


Natascha

PS. I realized last night that the title of the sequel Unanswered Prayers probbaly means that OTOH won't end well. Before that I just always assumed it would...

Merry Christmas!

The chapters may not have been happy ones but I was still glad to have them. I missed the debate on criticism last round, so I'm just going to drop a couple of pennies in the tin right now. I found Clark's regression on the Christopher issue to be frustrating. After deciding that he was his father in name, and then thinking that there was a very high possibility that he was his father biologically, his "does it matter" fell a little flat. Personally, I chock that up to my own experiences though. There are a lot of adopted members of my family and I cringe at anyone making even subtle hints at differences. Family is about love and decisions to love--and Clark supposedly has already turned that corner a while ago. I would have felt better if he had just said something to the effect of "of course he is" where the "does it matter" was more of a "it doesn't matter to me" type of thing.

I'm not bothered beyond that slight frustration though. I would only suggest a retread if it wasn't intentional, otherwise, as a reader, I can deal with fickleness being part of the characters' flaws and hope that their evolution will bring maturity in this realm.

I am saddened by the turn of emotions upon Navance's death, but as so many others have said, it was necessary. I was in the divorce camp long ago, so even though I'm not happy about it, I'm okay with them taking that step if it helps them see things more clearly (that doesn't mean they have to go through with it!). The part that really kills me is Lois parting with her boys. I can see where she thinks that's best (potential superness et. al)... where she might think she's being altruistic in the gesture, but I see it as a somewhat selfish, self-protection measure. She will have less contact with Clark if he's the main caregiver, and less reminders of Clark if she moves away and doesn't see his little clones running around. It leaves me unsettled, but I attribute that to great writing--writing that makes me actually feel for the characters. But please... fix it!

I hope that Lana drops some wisdom on Clark like she attempted to do with Lois. Lana may turn out to be a friend yet. And maybe it's time for Van to slap his little brother around some. I'd like to see what his addition to the story will bring a little more. *sigh* The end is so close, yet resolution seems to far away. I'm not sure how to feel about what the sequel will bring but I'm clinging onto my optimism bone!

Happy Holidays to all... and to all a great life!
~s

I hope you realize that I was arguing against your point and not against you, Sheliah.

I still maintain that from Lois's perspective, this is the ulitimate act of unselfish love. There is an old song which the refrain is "If you love someone, you've got to let them go." (Although I also admit there is a lot of defence mechinism in it as well.)

But I understand that you don't see it that way. I respect that
Maybe I shouldn't have used your name.

Of course, I think, if I'm reading correctly, it's really the characters that irratiate you.

But I was still a little concerned, so I thought I'd appologize, in case I did offend you in anyway.

Woohoo! Internet access.

I had a lot of chapters to catch up on.

So, Navance is dead! For this story to end, he either had to die, or Christopher had to turn five. I like that you chose to kill Navance off, because it brought the original 5-year timeline to an abrupt halt, and it caught both Lois and Clark off guard.

These past two chapters were heart-breaking. I know I've been in the boat that they had to break up, but actually reading it, is a different story. As I've said plenty of times before, I want them together, but I want them to *want* to be together. This whole facade was emotionally draining for both the characters and for us readers.

As always with these characters, they have their best and most open conversations with any one else but each other (Lois with Sam; Clark with Martha and Jonathan). If only they would talk to each other, and actually complete a conversation, they might actually progress.

Lois giving up the boys? That seems to be a 180 from where she was before, or am I remembering incorrectly? Being rejected by Clark, and then losing her boys, might actually send her depression into a tailspin. I'm worried about her, and I think from the previews, she'll do the Lois thing, and dive back into work. I wonder if her next exclusive by-line will read Lois Lane? If both Lois and Clark were mature, and not reacting to their emotions, they would sit down and discuss what each other would like, and what they think is best for the boys. I mean Nate is still nursing isn't he? Could he really live apart from Lois at this time? With any divorce, the kids should come first, but here, they're caught in this emotional crossfire.

Clark seems to be telling the "real" story to the whole world and then some. Although the threat is over, I still think that he really should have discussed what would become public knowledge now. I mean Perry knows, Martha and Jonathan know, and perhaps Lana in the next post? I think these conversations betray Lois' trust. They should decide together what should be out there, and what shouldn't. It's not Clark's decision alone.

The paternity question still lingers. As I've mentioned previously, Clark cannot go through his whole life, referring to Christopher as Lois' son. It certainly isn't healthy for him, and for Christopher as well. I know he mentioned the reasons for not going through with the paternity test (i.e. sample getting lost along the way), but surely with all of Sam's connections, couldn't a test be done in secret? I've been thinking, since Clark is impenetrable, couldn't they do a paternity test on both Nate and Chris, to see if they are full brothers? Without resolving this issue, paternity will be simmering in the background, and I think Christopher deserves better.

So, Clark's meeting up with Lana next chapter. let's see what happens. She could either say there's no chance they will get back together, or she could say she's still in love with him. At this point, I'm pretty neutral.

If you do bring Lois and Clark back together (and take Lana out of the picture), I'd like to see them divorce and then remarry. We need these characters to say their vows and mean them. If we don't get that, perhaps have them date? It's one thing to stay married cause you have to. But, is there chemistry and love between them? I'm not convinced as of yet. You had Clark lay out all the reasons he loves Lana. I'd like to hear why Lois loves Clark, and why Clark loves Lois. So much of their connection has been obligated, that I wonder now that they're emotionally free, was a connection really there in the first place?

I'm not quite sure, Carol, if my feedback is actually helpful or not. In case it's not, I'll go back to hiding under a rock, and be the silent reader type. Just thought I'd let you know I'm still reading.

Merry Christmas everyone.

I just had a crazy thought while thinking Bernie might do the paternity test.

There IS one way how Chris could look like Clark and not be his son

Michael

Yeah... previews were correct... and I don't know that I want them to dissolve their union.... a renewal of vows in a service with family and friends would be lovely, but they don't *have* to get divorced to do that... I just wonder how traumatic a divorce would be to Lois... if they went through with the process would she *ever* be able to accept that Clark wasn't settling for her?

And at this point I don't see Lois as "letting Clark go" I see her "shoving him out the door"... she has never really allowed herself to consider that his feelings could change... and granted she has reason... but at the same time I would have loved to have seen them bask in the relief a bit more and for her to have taken a small chance and think "if he wants to leave then *he* has to bring it up". I don't want her to refuse to let him go... but making him make the choice instead of letting him wallow in his complacency would have been interesting.

Eww. Talk about your heinously evil plot twists.

That would mean that Clark has been raising his nephew. And that Van-El isn't exactly a hero. While that's a truly evil thought, I don't think it's where Carol should go.

But then, she hasn't asked my permission to do any of the other things she's done in this story, so I'm pretty sure she's not sitting up waiting for my okay for her to proceed.

Loved the plot developments including the eventual split, where each is breaking up because they think the other wants to.

Will they? Won't they? What will Lana say? Will Lois see it (or be told about it) and come to the wrong conclusion? Again?!? Will either of them figure out that the best thing for them to do is to stay together? Will they understand that as long as any of Navance's family is on the loose in Metropolis, Christopher isn't truly free?

Yes, they're frustrating, but in many ways they're typical of young married couples, especially those who aren't mature when they marry. With apologies to another songwriter:

Is the membership for the addiction society still open?

Wow - you guys are busy for Christmas .

Melray - who me? Couldn't be?

Sara - Trask? Who's he?

JD - I don't think Clark knows what he thinks/feels... Maybe soon...

Sheilah - I think as far as Lois is concerned, the decision was made when they got married so she's not making a new decision she's following up on one already made. Sorry I took you out of the Christmas mood . We had a good day overall thanks.

Ann - I had a hard time writing 135. And firing the shotgun... Well, it's in hand anyway...

Michael - Hmm... yes I did ask those questions... /ignores rest of post except congratulations on archive record - thanks/

Natascha - hmmm... will have to think about that...

Sonia - I edited a bit of that - maybe I did it after you read - part of Clark's convo with Perry. That was one of those written a long time ago things that slipped through. Part of Lois and the boys was very real for me when I was pregnant with last baby. I was quite certain that DH was going to leave me [for one of my best friends - even though she was practically engaged at the time and they have a very sibling relationship] and that the kids would be much better off with him - even the baby that wasn't here yet and I'd keep him with me until he slept through the night and then if I could be their daycare... It was a very horrible period for me. I don't think Lois is quite where I was, but that's where it comes from.

Grinch - /waves/ Yes, it did bring it to an abrupt halt. Can you imagine this monster if it didn't? /shudder/ Come on - you know you want to shudder with me /shudder more/. The Nate nursing thing is mentioned in either tomorrow's post or the one after. Yes he is, and I'll leave it at that for now, but he's also 10m old so probably not as much as before. I agree he probably should have talked to Lois first. The purpose of the secret was to protect Christopher/Lois and the threat is gone [though it wasn't quite gone when he talked to Perry]. That's an interesting thought re: Nate/Christopher paternity test. Though they could probably use a cheek swab for Clark. Please don't go back under your rock .

Michael - that honestly never occurred to me [though to be honest, the Van-El as Bernie the Scientist is a relatively recent development - originally he had a random computer job]. And since it never occurred to me - it never occurred to them either . Besides, they will find out for sure - eventually - and I like that way better so it didn't occur to them. And I don't like your insinuation about Van!

Sara - that would be lovely...

Terry - yes I have been waiting around for your okay. Well, not really. And don't worry, Van's not our mystery toga party man. But they will find out who [but not in OTOH].

AnKS - Would Lois see them? Out of all the places to be in Metropolis at the same time, could they possibly be near each other at that point?

Terry - [Totally random aside - Jerry and Elaine were just saying that each other isn't a Superman or Lois Lane...] You're right about them being a young married couple - Lois just turned 22 this week. AFAIK, membership is still open .

Thanks guys - see above for schedule for the next week.

Carol

Michael, that sounds like a really evil plot twist, and I'm just not sober enough to handle evil right now lol.

Happy holidays you evil mastermind genius,
JD

Good thing I read it last night, Carol, and had time to sleep and forget it so I could enjoy my Christmas Except, when they made the decision originally, they hadn't chosen to sleep together and had another child together, which changed the entire situation. As much as we chew on Clark for making unilateral decisions without Lois, she's doing the same thing to him. Sara, don't worry about using my name. I was just disagreeing with how you saw Lois's behavior. It was entirely the characters that irritated me, not you, not at all. I was irritated enough with Lois that when she mentioned her headache, I didn't feel any sympathy because I figured it matched that crown of thorns she was trying to wear. In the middle of our 30-year marriage, DH and I were divorced for three years. I understand the concept of letting go of someone you love with as much grace and generosity as you can. But that's not the same as what Lois is doing. I don't know about that. I just thought I'd share a story from personal experience. When DH and I walked out of the courtroom after the final hearing on our divorce, he said he was afraid he had made a mistake. Although I still loved him dearly and hadn't wanted the divorce, I was so furious that I wanted to slap him. He put the kids and me through six months of hell for something he wasn't sure about?! He could have stopped it any time before that by withdrawing the petition, and he waited until it was too late before he had second thoughts? I didn't slap him or scream at him, but I think I said, "It's a little late now, isn't it?" and walked off. Re L&C--if they let the divorce go through, then they won't be in the sort of mindset that will allow them to turn around and remarry immediately. Carol may not be thinking of anything like that, but I figure I'd throw in my 2 cents worth.

I thinbk I'm about to start a controversy here.

Sheila, it's no secret that you have been extremely critical of Lois in this fic, much more critical of her than of Clark. And you have criticized her so harshly even though she has always wanted Clark to stay with her, while Clark has been the one who has wanted to put an expiration date on their marriage.

(All right, Lois has indeed asked for a divorce, but she has done it for the same reason that people on death row sometimes try to kill themselves - to put an end to the agonizing countdown torture.)

In your last post, you shared some of your personal experience with us. You were in no way obliged to do so, and we most certainly don't have any right to critique your personal life choices. Even so, I'm going to quote something you said.

It definitely seems to me as if you blame your husband for your divorce:

Your husband put you and your kids through six months of hell asking for a divorce that you yourself didn't want. Finally you gave him what he was asking for, and then he told you that he wasn't sure about the divorce. You reacted angrily:

You walked off, instead of fighting for an immediate re-marriage. I'm sure I don't blame you for walking off. I think most FoLCs here sympathize with you.

But I think you may be telling us that you later regretted walking off. I imagine that the divorce caused you a lot of heartache and practical problems, and in hindsight, you may have wished that you had swallowed your pride and tried to get your husband back as soon as possible.

So you blame yourself for not doing enough to salvage your marriage or getting a remarriage as soon as possible after the divorce. And you blame yourself for this even though you acknowledge that it was your husband who was the one who wanted to break up.

Now it seems to me that you blame Lois for the fact that Clark wants to get out of his marriage, in the same way that you seem to blame yourself for not salvaging your own marriage or getting remarried sooner after your husband had insisted on a divorce. When it comes to your own situation and your own marriage, only you can be the judge of what was right and wrong there. However, if you apply the same principles to all marriages, things get more complicated and troublesome. Because then you are in fact saying that it is the wife's fault if the husband pushes for a divorce.

In my opinion, each marriage is its own special case, and it is impossible for an outsider to assign blame onto one party or the other without knowing the circumstances as well as the spouses do. It is particularly impossible to say that it is always the husband's fault, or it is always the wife's fault.

But, Sheila, it seems to me that that is what you are saying. If the husband wants a divorce, it is always the wife's fault.

If you look at marriage that way, I think you are saying that marriage is not an equal partnership at all, not something that both spouses are responsible for. Instead, marriage is a gracious gift that the husband bestows on his wife, and the wife, in return, should be humbly laboring to preserve the gift her husband has bestowed on her. She is the one who should tirelessly labor to convince her husband that he will be less happy if he leaves her than if he stays.

Maybe I have misread you. Maybe that is not what you are saying at all. But even if that really is what you are saying, it doesn't follow that I have the right to criticize you for holding this view. We are certainly all entitled to our opinions.

But, Sheila, it seems to me that you have repeatedly told Carol that she should re-write her story and change Lois's behaviour. I get the impression that you have been slamming this story to the point that you have insisted that Lois's behaviour is intolerable and needs to be changed. And if that is what you really think, then you haven't been sharing your own opinions with us. Instead you have told us that it is a wife's duty to fight for her marriage if her husband wants to leave, and if he leaves her after all it is the wife's own fault. Moreover you have told us that this is not your opinion but the truth.

If that is what you have been saying, Sheila, then I think you have crossed a line. But I must admit that I'm not at all certain that I have read you correctly.

Ann

/grins about reply to first post, even if I'm not right/

What can I say? I have a devious mind. As long as it's just devious insinuation /shivers/ /shivers/

Merry Day After Christmas .

I'll admit that I'm more than a little fuzzy at the moment - though not as much as I will be when I get Sudafed in me [at which point I may fall asleep which would be bad with my 3yo awake ] - so I'm going to leave most of that alone.

That said, yes, things have changed [re sleeping together etc] but getting a divorce after 5 years has been mentioned since then as the decision of choice.

Michael - you are evil and we'll leave it at that.

Anyone want a whiny 3yo?

Carol

Just throwing in a couple of two cents here. I didn't start reading this one until about Part 83 or so. Not that I don't love Carol's writing - because I do - but I'm less fond of "early" L&C stories.

As mature as Lois and Clark both probably believed themselves to believe they were at 18, let's face it: they were only 18, they still had - and STILL have - a lot to learn about life. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought they had pretty much a handle on everything at 18. Over the years, I learned that I wasn't quite as smart or mature as I thought I was.

Clark and Lois are both making lots of mistakes, both making decisions and judgements based on what they assume the other is thinking/feeling, which is not always correct. I understand how each of them feel, and I feel sorry for both of them, but I don't know that either one of them is MORE to blame for the state that they're in. Although certainly it's easy to point the finger at Clark for pining after Lana for so long.

And Ann, I totally agree with you that each marriage is a special case and that no outsider can fully understand the circumstances. But this comment of yours, surprised me. I haven't read all the comments in all the feedback folders, so perhaps you are referring to earlier comments Sheila has made, but certainly I did not get this interpretation from Sheila's statement in this folder. Not at all.

Kathy

Let me rephrase it. It seems to me that Sheila is saying that if a man wants to leave his wife, it is up to the wife to fight for her marriage and make her husband stay. If he leaves her anyway, it is the wife's fault, because she didn't fight for him hard enough. So the fact that the husband wants to leave is not much a problem in itself, and not much of a threat to the marriage in itself. The problem is if the wife doesn't fight for her marriage and her husband hard enough. Which does makes it her fault if her husband leaves her.

And yes, I was referring to earlier posts by Sheila more than to this one.

Ann

Carol, I'm just replying on this so you don't misunderstand what I was trying to say. No, sorry, Ann, that wasn't my intent. I only used that personal experience to show that something as ugly as a divorce can't just be shrugged aside and forgotten instantly, no matter how much you love your spouse. It causes real, terrible pain that has to be gotten over before rebuilding the relationship can begin. That hasn't been my intention. I have requested additional scenes to show the positive sides of the characters' behavior (both Lois's and Clark's) or to explain their changed feelings, but my intention has never been to have Carol change what she's already written. For example, if Lois falls in love with Clark while he's being a b*stard to her because he's so good-looking and so good with their son, it makes her look shallow or masochistic. But if Carol includes a scene from Lois's POV where Clark is playing with the baby and being so kind and friendly to her as well, then the reader goes, "Yeah, I can see why she'd fall for him." Carol, I hope that isn't the way it comes across, but if it is, I'm sorry because it isn't my intent. After my first post, I've just tried to respond by telling you how the characters or situations make me feel. It's up to you to decide whether that reaction is what you want some of your readers to have or not. Sorry, Ann, I have never, not for one moment, thought anything remotely like that. Not about my own marriage, not about anyone else's marriage, not about any fictional marriage. I only mentioned my own divorce and remarriage in response to Sara's song quote, "If you love someone, you've got to let them go," to explain that I know experientially what it means and that it's not the same thing Lois was doing.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Sheila.

Ann