This is where we part company. Popular culture has somehow been twisted to accept this whole good vampire concept.

So if Clark and three other people were lost on an uncharted island with no source of food, and Clark was without his powers and he killed and ate the others as a way to survive but he felt bad about it afterwards, he could still be a good guy?

Deciding to KILL someone, three someones, so you can live is something he could not control?

Do you live in a world where there is NOTHING you would not do to live?

So a bad evil person says "here is a gun, kill three people or I will kill you". Do you go kill those people so you can live?

Do I get to pick which three people?

(for the record - I'm *kidding*!)

So I'm a fan of discussion, but what I'm reading here sounds an awful lot like a morality argument. That sort of thing makes me, someone who keeps fiction and reality on two different planes, very uncomfortable.

That said, I don't think killing is a black and white issue, especially in a scenario involving vampires, where as Jojo said, it's about being a victim of circumstance. Honestly, if you can't see the gray there, no one is going to show it to you. It all comes down to what you believe.

And seriously, I respect that.

However the righteous tone of your postings makes it sound, at least to me, rather off putting. I'm sure there are nicer, friendlier ways of beginning discussion.

alcyone, who can come up with three people to off like *snaps fingers* THAT...(also kidding!)

...and to include using resources such as moderators to approach perceived offenses instead of applying multiple exclaimation points on your own and being taken as meanly offensive.

My three to eat(of the Metropolis universe) would be Tempus, the YOUNGER Church(forgot his first name, but he was Brisco County Jr. ) and the Great Pumpkin...er I mean Jimmy #2.

You know, I honestly don't sit up at night and think up ways to spark controversy on these boards. *sigh* I guess that must be a rare talent of mine.

Patrick, I want to thank you for defending and believing in a morally good Superman, who, among other things, doesn't kill. After all, it was this sheer goodness in Superman that attracted me to him, when I started borrowing my cousins' comics back in 1968. My cousins preferred the Phantom and Agent X-9, but they also liked Batman and Tarzan better than Superman. But to me, it was Superman's amazing powers as well as his wonderful way of using those powers that made him the most fascinating comic book character to me. A year later I became convinced that he truly loved Lois Lane, and then he became a life-long obsession with me.

However, over the years, I became disappointed in Clark/Superman so many times. He often treated Lois badly and occasionally horribly (amnesia kiss and dead-beat dad anyone?). And in the comics in the late eighties he officially killed the three Kryptonian criminals from Superman II. He trapped them someplace and then he executed them, because he deemed them to be too dangerous to exist. I found it unbelievably depressing, and I thought it was a horrible blot on Superman's character. And this, mind you, is comic book canon.

The fact that I have been disappointed in Superman so many times has made me interested in stories about "flawed" Superman/Clark Kent. However, I'm never going to like Superman as a killer. And I think you need a very good reason to cast Superman as a killer in a fanfic.

As I said, comic book canon turned Superman into a killer. But there were other Superman comic stories that were not canon, but elseworlds. These stories put Superman/Clark in non-canonical situations and made things unfold from there to see what would happen. I have read many of those, and I have liked several of them. One of the best of these Elseworld stories cast Superman as Batman, raised as Bruce Wayne by Martha and Thomas Wayne. Martha and Thomas were killed when their adopted foundling son was eight, just as the Batman canon requires, and "Super-Bruce" grew up to be a multi-millionaire and an angry nocturnal super-vigilante. But this Bruce met Lois, found happiness, and became the good and optimistic Superman that most of us love to love.

There was also the story of how Kal-El from Krypton became Tarzan, son of the apes, and how Lois became his Jane. Another Elseworld cast Clark/Superman as a hero in Fritz Lang's classic black and white silent movie "Metropolis" from circa 1920.

In short, I have read a sufficient number of Elseworlds stories to be relatively tolerant of different ways of portraying Clark/Superman. One thing I can never accept is that Clark falls in love with another woman than Lois, or that Lois dies. I also absolutely can't accept that Superman is unnecessarily or gratuitously evil.

I am prepared to accept the idea that there may exist an Elseworld where Clark Kent is a vampire. That means I have to accept that vampire Clark feels a need to drink human blood, killing people in the process. I want him and need him to fight the urge to kill humans. I accept that this Clark has nevertheless killed three humans, but I would have liked it even better if he had been able to successfully fight his urge to kill every time.

But, Patrick, I think we need people like you who remind us that Superman is supposed to be about truth and justice and also about compassion, because that is what attracted me so much about him when I embraced him so fiercely as a twelve-year-old. So thanks.

Ann

**spoilers for Laura's story if you haven't read it below**

The nature of many vampire stories is that when many people are turned that first time they feed they are turned into something unholy and ungodly. Like an animal they are living off instinct until that "bloodrage" is gone. It is more of an instinct to them to find food and the need for it is overwhelming and all consuming. Once they have starved themselves enough sometimes that bloodrage comes back and it sounds a lot like what happened to Clark.

It is obvious in her fic that after he was able to control it and saw what he had become he tried to find ways to stop and in fact did.

It is one of the central ideas and stories in the vampire myth. You have the truly evil vampire that exist to kill people. They see no problem in killing people because they view killing as an instinct of survival much like killing a gazelle is to a lion.

Then you have the flip side of the coin of the tortured soul. The one who hasn't chosen this path and was made a vampire and who is now living with the consequences and trying to find a way to help other in the same situation not fall into the same situation as they faced. It sounds to me like Clark and his friend are on that path of trying to find ways for those who don't wish to kill to live with out having to.

Again it is all apart of the myth. If you believe that Clark was clear headed and knew exactly what he was doing when he killed and wasn't acting out of instinct then there is cause to be disturbed. It is a part of what you believe about vampires and what you know. It doesn't justify a death and that is why they are a tortured soul... but there isn't a black heart there as you seem to be implying. That he is a cold blooded killer seeking to kill more.

Besides she also mentions a boy that he saved from a fire. How many lives has he saved just like that? If we are talking of ethics... what is more ethical:

For three people to have died before he could control his need to feed and then for him to have gone on to save the lives of hundreds of people who wouldn't have survived with out him?

Or for those 3 people to have lived and he and 100's of other to have died because of that?

What is the greater good? It is an interesting debate and not one that I would enjoy answering because there are no easy answers.

All I know is that you are looking at a repentive Clark in this story who is just trying to make up for some of the wrongs he has committed. All in all it is a story... and as I think a good disclaimer for this story is:

**No real humans were hurt during the making of this story. **

Also I want to say your discussions are valid. There have always been the argument of good vs evil and what crosses it and what doesn't. How much sympathy can you find for a killer? Can they repent? It is the beauty of the vampire myth and their eternal struggle along those lines is what makes it such an interesting tale to me.

~Jojo, who has really ramble on about this to long.

And we also need authors who are willing to show us something just a little different now and then, who stretch the envelope and show us all the possible variations there are in our LNC universe and that there is never just ONE way of viewing these characters. Or, as they say over in the Star Trek universe - infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

Bless them all. They've certainly made reading fanfic interesting and fun over the years.

Oh, and as for the official viewpoint on Patrick's complaints in Laura's feedback thread: As Patrick himself pointed out, using the WHAM warning thread - or even posting a WHAM at all - is NOT compulsory on this forum, but purely a matter of personal choice on the part of the author.

I understand that in this instance the lack of a warning was simply down to an entirely legitimate difference of opinion as to whether the story contained any WHAM to warn about. But it could just as easily have been because the author refuses to use warnings as a matter of principle. And that would be entirely up to them.

As Laura broke no forum rules, no mod or admin would need to post requesting her to amend her story post. Any forum member can make such a request themselves to an author, of course - politely, please - but if the author chooses not to comply that is, again, their choice.

What - one rare talent wasn't enough for you? You have to have two?

LabRat

Laura,

I did not think you did. I also have no problem with you writing a "Clark as a good vampire" story.

I moved over here for one, because I did not want my replies to certain points in other folk's feedback to be viewed as hostile to you or your writing.

The other is that my points are not feedback to your tale at this point.

Yes, I see that. Thanks. it's actually a rather interesting discussion, though I'm of a mind to agree with Jojo at this point. She summed up my feelings remarkably well on the subject.

Of course it is a morality argument.

As for keeping fiction and reality on different planes, don't fool yourself.

Everything you read, and listen to and watch helps make you who you are, it helps to shape your values and beliefs.

I'd be a fool to argue otherwise. Nevertheless, its a question of degree. You can't tell me to what degree anything I read, listen to and watch shapes me. No one can. And that's the most important question. Basically, this means morality is not a set standard that you can slam on to anyone but yourself. Otherwise, things get scary. (Not to mention that the "goodness" of whatever you read/listen/watch is a thorny question).

I rather not rehash the usual argument. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

alcyone

PS I would find this more productive to discuss in terms of characterization (and it rings like the Can Supes Kill thread). How much are we able to tolerate before we throw in the towel and decide its not Clark? Where exactly is the line in Elseworlds?

oh dear.

Why can't we show as much tolerance of people writing their opinion about interpretations as we do about accepting the right of authors to interpret characters however they want? There's not much of that tolerance for the non-fic writer evident in this thread so far.

Laura (the writer in this case) should be free to make whatever changes she wants in Clark's character. (or any other character)
Patrick (the reader in this case) should be free to express his opinion on characterization.

Although I was ineffectual in arguing that two-way tolerance was an acceptable viewpoint in the last controversial thread, it's still early in the morning, and I'm always an optimist.

But probably no hope. No wait, it's not 8:00 AM yet, and there's still some time for optimism.

Laura wrote at the end of her part 1:
Let's give Laura some creedit here - I don't think she would have written that if she did not genuinely mean it.

Just as Patrick has written that he has not said that Laura can't write what she wants.

Question though - why the fuss about the exclamation point ! ?
It's a wonderful, beautiful thing - in gifc it can even be used as a phallic symbol.
"Clark!"

People use emoticons all the time that are just as extravagant, if not moreso. So do I have to give up punctuation for emoticons? I always feel a bit silly using them, except for & Am becoming comfortable with though.
Thus in my example above "Clark!" becomes
"Clark "
However most definitely not
"Clark "

I would really hate to give up the ! And colons and semi-colons .... ellipses and ....

I know I haven't commented on Patrick's question about characterization and it's a really good one. It would be great to see a real discussion of it.

c.

True, but as a person that's been approached by moderators a whole LOT, privately, via PM or email, I can tell you I'd be more insulted by some reader that decided to lambaste me in front of every one with the use of screaming exclamation points. Just an example (YOU SHOULD POST A WARNING IF YOU'RE GONNA MAKE CLARK A SCUMMY KILLER!!!!!!!!!!)

I immediately felt bad for the writer when I saw that, and was worried it might impeded the story which I am selfishly enjoying, so I said something. If I was butting in, I'm super apologetic. My bad.

Ahh, I get it now. You read something different than what I posted.

Just for the record I wrote

And in the very same post noted Use of the word was later in explaining WHY I believed the story needed a Wham warning.

However I will keep you in mind and is I ever have an issue with any of YOUR stories I will NOT post it anywhere. I will simply remain silent. That way I won't impede the story.

It was in fact one of the reasons I did not make my replies to some of the points in that feedback thread.

I hate quoting things from others because I feel like it makes people hesitate to post because people pick apart things. But I noticed this and just want to respond to why there is a fuss. So please allow me to respond.

Well I wasn't so much offended or upset by Patrick's post as puzzled. Which was why I questioned him. It was confusing to me why someone was just now pipping up about this when several stories have been written regarding vampires in the last few weeks and no one else was upset about them (although those were nfic and we generally have a stronger resistance for bad stuff there ). I actually had to go back into the story and re-read it in fear that I missed some big plot line that I wasn't aware of. I just want to make that clear.

However in regards to punctuation, you must remember when you write on the internet that people don't know what you are thinking when you type. Your punctuation and they way you format things make a difference. We all pretty much know that CAPS LOCKS is screaming. But what a lot of people don't understand is:

! ----- ! is used for emphasis or excitement
!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------- Used to show you are really hyper or really angry.

While Patrick has now cleared up that wasn't his intention everyone has to understand that what you (meaning all of us an not just Patrick) type sometimes isn't going to come across how you want it to if you don't make your point clear. Because Patrick used so few words and didn't explain exactly what was so upsetting it came across in a way he wasn't expecting.

I think it is a lesson we all should probably note in the future about the way we format things. Sometimes our true intentions are not coming though.

I see two people who have presented views toward the two posts you originally posted now Patrick and no responses from you. I don't know if we just gave you food for thought or if they just weren't what you wanted to discuss. But it would be nice at this point since we have cleared everything up (in regards to the attitude of the posts made) to see arguments from your side against what we have presented and what I think are calm arguments.

If nothing else, I would like to hear what you feel the vampire myth is. How exactly do you view them? We have gotten a lot of questions about our take on it but it is hard to understand your side when we have little information about your opinion.

I suppose it also goes along with this... what are your views on redemption? Can a man be redeemed or are they always going to be held accountable for their sins? If there is no redemption why try to strive to be good at all?

~Jojo, who was an ethics major in college and loves a good calm debate.

Interesting post, Jojo. Thanks. What about emoticons? Sometimes I read a lot into their overuse by some posters - is that just me?

Btw, this gives me a chance to rant about about negative labels applied to opponents, too, rather than the use of explanation of ideas, as Jojo is urging.

Anyway, to your questions.

I'd like to add another dimension to the character question - does how a writer presents the ethical issue in the story make a difference in how we view a character? it's context?

For example, if an unethical action is presented in the story but then that action is not really dealt with in any depth but is instead glossed over while something else is emphasized, does that treatment affect how a reader will react to the ethical issue?
{ looking around in fear of the Grammar Nazis after writing that sentence)

This has to do with style, I guess, and the tone of a fic. So, for example, Monty Python's Holy Grail (just saw Spamalot!) we laugh at the most obscene things. So does the casual aside of the deeply ethical act signal to the reader "satire ahead"? It's a question of emphasis.

By using the term 'redemption', you've crossed into theological territory, too. Very scary territory.

You know it occurs to me that the reason we root for Clark Kent /SUperman and get all huffy when characters like Mayson and Trask imply he's not human is because he is "innately good" as Lois said in Metalo (what was that ep called?) So we are offended.

But when we encounter a character with superpowers who is innately "evil" ( i know that's a theological term, but I can't think of a better one - maybe "predator"?) it's hard to root for him. We just don't care.

Now, I know there are women out there who get crushes on murderers - apparently Charles Manson got more love letters than anything else - but still, it seems odd, working against self -preservation at the very least.

At any rate, picking up on the vampire theme - there are vampires and there are vampires <g>
Vlad the Impaler was no sweetheart. But there are lots of comedies out there that play on the campy, melodramtic aspect of Dracula - sending up the sexual symbolism of blood lust and the virgin victim. "I want to suck your blood" uttered by a dark-eyed. long in the eyeteeth (fanged <g>) predator makes us break out in a fit of giggles.

So okay you play Vlad and I'll play Redeemer - the Hallowe'en version of football player and cheerleader. <g>

Anyway, to attempt to pull what I've said toogther, which may not be possible - does the context and emphasis send signals about how we interpret character in a fic? And maybe at times mixed signals. So we're not sure whether to take a fic as a drama or a farce. (this can prove embarrassing as I once found out )

Then of course there's the 'defender' or the slayer of vampires part of the story - the stake through the heart that destroys the vampire. In this case it would have to be a Krptonite stake Maybe driven by Lois Lane?

But Lois as Redeemer of the innate killer? Not sure I'm ready to accept Lois in those religious terms and I'm a staunch defender of her.

Anyway, Hallowe'en cometh and so that means Frankensteins, Wolfmen, Witches, and of course all the Vampires du Jour. It's not the season for heroes, but for the monsters we all know are out there.

c.

Very good points Carol.

Ahh but that is the reason I say we have to be careful in how we word things to make our intent clear. My examples were by no means the end all be all of things that can upset people. I was just letting you both know in case you didn't, that most of the forums and chat programs I am on read those types of exclamations that way. It isn’t a small percentage of people but a rather large one from what I have observed. I by no means am telling people they need to stop expressing themselves of censor themselves (and I don’t think you are implying that I said that I just realized I could come across that way). I am just saying that because this is text and you can’t always read emotions through it. Both the people reading and the people typing should learn to remember that and make sure of someone’s intent before taking offense.

And yes I did use the term redemption with the religious meaning. The role of religion, particularly the Christian religion, plays a rather big role in the myth. What with crosses being used to repel the vampire in some cases and often times the hunter’s being holy men or men appointed by the church (let’s use pop culture movie for an example: Van Helsing). So oftentimes you will see that religious terminology in the myth. Although in a lot of the recent literature out there they are pulling away from this ideology. I asked about redemption though because Patrick mentioned the ethics of killing a person. I was wondering how he felt about that. Did he believe that you can never make up for past mistakes? Or can you only make up for certain ones? (I love discussing these things by the way. I don’t any solid answers by any means but I love posing them and hearing other people’s opinions.)

I do understand context though and the glossing over of their character. It really does depend on the context of the story of how we treat them. It is also interesting to note (as you did with the different ways they are represented) that not all vampires are created alike. I’ve seen them represented in many different ways. Most recently I read a book where they were actually considered another race. Human’s couldn’t be turned into vampires. They could mate with them though. ^_~ Also, while they could feed on humans in the long run it didn’t really help them but for a short burst of energy. In order to really survive they have to feed off another vampire. Usually their mate. I have to say that was a much more pleasant tale for me.

I think we still have a lot to learn about Laura’s vampires and where she is going with her story. I’m really anxious to see where she goes with it. ^_^

I guess another question is… how am I rambling on about this so much when it is a passing fancy of mine? LOL I hope I am at least hitting some points you guys are talking about and not just boring you all with my babbles on the subject.

Okay, I'll be wary of exclamation points, but I'm not giving up ellipses, regardless of how they're used elsewhere. Nope. Never. Still I hate to give up exclamation points entirely.

You're right that both careful grammar and reading are essential.

I'd forgotten about the use of the cross in bram Stoker's novel.
Revising that fantasy now - Clark as the Fanged Blood Sucker (and Mate Muncher) and Lois as the Cross-toting Nun.

Bet he add's an exclamation point after saying to her "I want to suck your blood!"

Oh, me too. May I please use another exclamation point?

I hope you don't! I love them too. If I could... I would change my middle name to ...

I don't think I could ever see Lois as a nun though. Now a really kick butt vampire slayer... that I could see. (as we saw in Shayne's buffy cross over fic)

Key point was that I did not have any problem with anyone writing a vampire fic. My issue was I don't want to read it.

Example warning:
So I did not read it.

I agree with Patrick.

I cannot debate at all on this issue, because I am not familiar enough with vampires to debate. Why? Because I choose not to read them. That should be my choice. I get huffy when they're foisted on me by an author, in the same way that I get huffy when an author slams immorality into the last scene. Normally, I just silently quite reading, but I can't say that I'm not offended when it comes without foreshadowing or warning.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a reader saying, "Don't foist your immorality on me." I don't even think it's wrong to say it with enthusiasm.

I want to thank those of you who quit yelling at Patrick about that, since he never asked for anything to be sensored, but instead asked for the ability to make informed consent.

Elisabeth

Of course, one man's immorality....

It's perfectly fine to state that you don't like a particular plot theme or genre or story. So long as it's done with politeness.

However, telling the author that their character is 'scum', simply because you don't like those plot choices, is perhaps a little less polite than we tend to encourage on this forum and Patrick was - rightly imo - taken to task for that.

And, frankly, Elisabeth, to accuse an author of being immoral simply because you don't like their story would very much be treading across the line of flaming imo. It's a personal insult, rather than a critique of plot or characterisation.

I tend to applaud Laura's attitude to all of this. When all is said and done, please do recognise that all we are talking about here are some fictional stories. I can understand getting riled up when things don't suit you - I've closed down many a story file myself with a grimace of annoyance or disgust because I didn't like where the author took the story - but there are many more serious injustices and horrors going on out there in the real world to get fired up about than fanfic, at the end of the day. And it seems utterly pointless to me to create ill feeling or go around insulting people just because of a fanfic.

Let's put this into some perspective.

LabRat

ETA: I see that Labby posted while I was writing this, and she covered much of the same ground. But I'll leave it up here just in case...

***

But Elisabeth, the point is that there are no rules requiring authors to post any kind of warning. You have your own areas of discomfort about a certain number of items; another reader may feel fine with all of those, but have an equal number of other subjects that are taboo for them. How can authors possibly give enough warnings to satisfy the varied tastes and sensitivities of the readers?

I can understand if you or Patrick - or anyone here - reads a story and there's something that made you exceptionally uncomfortable, if not downright distressed. There are certainly other readers here who have experienced that, but the decision, debated many times, is to not make warnings mandatory.

I never interpreted Patrick's post as trying to censor the subject matter, but simply that he felt a WHAM warning must be posted. Even if WHAM warnings were mandatory, you can see from different responses that a WHAM for him isn't necessarily the same as a WHAM for others.

And here I would say again that the issue is that something that is "immoral" to you is not necessarily to me, or to others on the mbs. I can't speak directly to Laura's story because I've only skimmed it, as I have all the vampire fics posted in the past weeks, because they're not really my thing. I will admit that what I did see was very well-written, so I may get sucked in in spite of myself. I don't think there is anything wrong with you posting feedback and saying something alongs the lines of "I found the presence of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx in this story disturbing, because of my xxxxxx beliefs in xxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx". That lets the author know something that you didn't like and why you didn't like it. But I personally was concerned by your use of the term "foisting" - I think of authors as sharing their stories with us, in large part to entertain us and share their love of L&C. I don't think they're using them to try to force their way of thinking upon us.


Kathy

LOL - and here I was just thinking, Kathy, that you'd made some excellent additional points.

LabRat

I agree that just because most of us tend to 'close' story that contains horror and death (especially when it is committed by the hero of the story), doesn't mean that such a story should not exist.

Nor does it mean that such a story is not well-written or should be condemned.

It is just another genre that exists. And I agree that such stories should be given a BIG HUGE warning so that readers know what is in it.


'Kudos' Labby! (as everybody call you)
Well said!

Please, don't put words in my mouth. I never said so-and-so is immoral. I said that the story pushes that on people.

When a person talks about right and wrong, they are said to foist their morality on a person. However, there is the flip side that when no warning is given, they've just had something offensive shoved into their faces. I try to avoid that which offends me. I tend to stay silent when I'm offended and just discontinue reading. But that doesn't mean that, simply because this board doesn't require it, it isn't polite to post a warning--particularly in this case where the mere subject pushes the envelope of PG-13. Most vampire movies are rated higher than PG-13 and are catalogued as horror. It's rude to take something that is categorized by the industry as horror and post it to a PG-13 board without warning--even if this part didn't contain anything graphic.

Patrick is fully within his rights to ask them to post a warning. I am fully within my right to support him. And I am not intending to flame anyone. I am simply passionate about my desire to keep my heart clean. I don't want to be influenced by that, Labby. I can't simply pass that off as fluff, because once it's in my mind I can't take it out again.

You act as if this is all a big gray area, but both readers and authors alike know when they're treading on shaky ground: deathfics, on-screen sex, rape, and other emotional issue. Vampire stories are, in essence, deathfics. So please don't act like it's a wishy-washy matter of opinion whether they're offensive or not. Let the reader make a fully-informed choice.

Elisabeth

Maybe you haven't read the threads that have discussed deathfics, Elisabeth. It's been debated more than once, but it's been decided that warnings are not necessarily for anything, including deathfics. It's entirely up to the author to choose whether or not to post a warning. Unless a majority of board members rise up in rebellion against this policy, I think it will stand.

As I said in my previous post, my impression was that Patrick was demanding a warning and complaining that one had not been given. That is more than merely asking, but perhaps I interpreted it differently than others did. In any case, it's the author's choice.

Kathy

To answer the original question...

No, he could not be a good guy, IF he killed the others to eat them. If he waited until they died naturally and then ate them, then yes, he could still be a good guy.


As for the rest of this thread.

There is no harm in Patrick asking for a warning. Demanding yes, asking, no.

As for 'foisting', I will not speak on Elisabeth's behalf, as that way leads to things I don't want to think about. However, I can speak on my feelings about authors that don't give clear warning.

(fair warning, my '!' are for emphasis alone.)

As several authors know, I really hate it when LnC have pre-marital sex. I have always hated it. To me, that cheapens Superman and everything he stands for. Or, at least, stood for up to and including our beloved show.

I feel 'conned' when I am reading a really good story, and in the last screen of the last part, they sleep together. Pardon me, but I mentally go "AAARRGGHH!" when that happens and the story is totally ruined for me.

Case in point. ShayneT's story 'Duet' is a perfect example and I know is one of the stories my beloved is thinking about. We loved that story. We were rooting for the characters. And then in the last page, it was ruined, for us. That is what I would call Bait and Switch. We read and read and read, each chapter better than the last and then, blech!

Don't get me wrong, I love Shayne's writing. He is one of the best on this board and I am sooo glad he is writing again. But, in all honesty, Elisabeth and I felt gut punched.

I realize that by revealing that little fact would 'ruin' it for other readers that like that kind of thing. However, it was one of the things that started me reading less and less of stories here. I just didn't want to take the chance of being disappointed again.

Infact, I just PMed Laura about F&I with my soon to be normal question I will start asking the authors from now on. If I can't have a warning, I will just have to be cautious and ask before reading.

James

I will let Patrick speak for himself. But I think the authors know when they're in a gray area. Whether they should be required or not is for a different discussion, but I believe it is polite.

Elisabeth

Okay, I really don't like to get into these types of discussions. For one, not much bothers me. I always try to have the attitude that "to each their own." But these last few posts did make me pause.

As a newbie author, I must admit that reading this thread is a little discouraging. I'm starting to feel like I need to keep a list of different warnings for all the things that might end up in one of my stories. I completely understand that there are things that people feel strongly about--their morals, ideals, and beliefs.

But does this mean that if I don't add a warning that the characters in my story might have sex before marriage, or that a character will die, or that a character will be a vampire, or that a character will lie or steal, or that a character will commit adultery, or that a character will get drunk, or that a character will...

As you can see, that list can become really long.

I'm becoming worried that anytime I post a story, or a part to a story, I might unknowingly step on someone's toes, because for me, there are plenty of gray areas--what I see as treading on shaky ground could be a completely different concept for someone else.

Another point that I'd like to make is that an author might not always know where their story is going when they first start writing it. An example would be my story, Exposure. I've pretty much made most of it up as I went along, even going so far as to write scenes way toward the end. And in this story, I do have an ending scene where Lois and Clark make love before they are married. I hadn't planned for it to end that way back in the beginning, but as I wrote even further into the story, my muse struck again with another idea and it just seemed to work.

I'd also like to point out that on the issue of immorality, not everyone will view it in the same light. I used to view sex as something that was completely off limits until marriage. But my past experiences--ones that I won't even begin to go into--has shaped that belief into something different--something involving gray areas.

I sincerely hope that I've expressed myself clearly enough. Another main reason I stay out of these types of discussions is because I feel that I have a difficult time putting into words what I'm trying to get across.

And this post is in no way implying that readers shouldn't feel strongly about certain themes or genres. I'm only pointing out that what one reader might feel strongly about, another author might not even think twice about. It doesn't necessarily mean that the author was being rude not to include the warning, it just might mean that the author has different ideas, beliefs, and morals than the reader, and maybe the author didn't think a warning was necessary.

And I can't speak on behalf of all authors, but I know that I wouldn't be offended if a reader emailed me and asked some questions regarding a story I was posting. I'd rather give away the plot to the reader and have them quit reading, rather than step on any toes in the future.

Because there are so many different readers with so many different tastes, that how can we, as authors, really know what kinds of warnings to put up? Furthermore, should we start posting the first part of our stories with the title "warnings page?"

I'll quit my rambling now. This is my 10 cents (I couldn't possibly keep it to 2 )

This comment makes me stop and take pause, too. I think "shaky ground" is something open to interpretation for both reader and author, especially in the gfic folder. If the mandate is PG-13 or below, you're only going to get so much leeway to begin with (for the author) and you're going to have a certain amount of safety (for the reader) in knowing it's not going to be overtly violent/sexual, etc. There is a separate folder for stories of more graphic nature. If you pare down the gfic folder, at a certain point, it becomes nothing more than Disney tales.

One of the most beloved and debated stories on here is "Faustian Bargain," which was written both as gfic and nfic. The story contains more than one of what is being considered "shaky" perimeters, but that is what makes it such an intricate piece of writing. I can say the same about "For the Greater Good," which is a beautiful, emotional story, and yet somehow falls into "shaky ground."

People have asked me if I am going to turn my story, "Inside Out," into gfic. The thing is, the sex between Lois and Clark -- and yes, it is premarital -- is a key factor in the story, and I don't see how I can keep the integrity of the story if I take out certain elements. But that doesn't make my story -- or anyone else's containing similar content --immoral. Besides, what some may find as completely reprehensible may be a huge draw to others. After all, the nfic folder certainly gets a lot of traffic.

I think any time that someone is brave enough to pick up a pen or a keyboard and try writing a story based on a legacy as storied as Superman and/or Lois and Clark, they're to be commended.

And furthermore, as someone who writes "George and Lynn" stories, which I am fully aware are not allowed here, and who knows, may not even be allowed to be mentioned here, I know what it is like to have your story labeled, and it's not a good feeling. If you open some of these stories, it will take all of two seconds to figure out that it's not about Lois and Clark and/or what you were looking for and you can close it and move on. As far as I am concerned, labeling stories serves one purpose and one purpose alone: to mark someone's work as something that someone may feel is undesirable and therefore serve a warning to people. It casts judgment on a story before it is even read.

Imagine if every book at Barnes & Noble came with color-coded dots that indicated whether the book would have sex, violence, emotional angst or anything else. I daresay a lot more people would just wait for the movie version.

I wasn't demanding, rather I was whining. I read this story that started really well and ran right off the edge of the building and dropped 30 floor and hit the sidewalk hard.

So I was whining that no one warned me. I suppose I was spoiled by the folks who have done vampire stuff recently.

Then I got into an off topic debate in the feedback because people have been desensitized and did not see why I felt like I'd been sucker punched.

So it got out of hand and I started a thread elsewhere so I could explain why it bothered me so much without dumping on Laura's story.

I am not trying to push my moral point of view. I have a very ridge view of morality. I do not however believe I have the right to impose my morals onto other people without their consent.

Nor do I think anyone CAN impose morality from outside.

My point in asking "How evil can Clark be and still be cut slack?" was to explore what the general feeling on this subject is.

Am I being unreasonable in asking for a warning for what I think was a major wham?

By the nature and tone of the response clearly I was being unreasonable.

It turns out the problem is the classic fish in water story. The water is transparent to the fish.

And there we part company. That Clark is in my opinion scum. Period. That the author does not agree is their right and it is your right to disagree but by my values he is scum.

Tough. Someone wants to excuse him, justify his killing people, bloodlust or not, for his own selfish longing. Go for it. But I don't want to read a story where that behavior is ever justified.

Let's make it clearer. How would you feel about a story where Clark was an active pedophile and the author felt that he was still a good guy? And the author did not think it needed a wham warning?

Now do you see how I felt?

Anyways it is clear that the only reason there was no wham warning was that it just never occurred to Laura that it might bother someone.

And it is clear from the response that she is in the majority. So I'll just be more careful, wait for the first FDK thread and check it out PRIOR to reading a new story.

catching up on last night's posts:)

Just a small point - I'm curious about why Patick has been censured for using the word 'scum' to describe the Clark Kent of the vampire story while another poster was not censured at all for calling Patrick 'rude' and 'immature' ?

How we use language is so important. As a few people have pointed out to me, I don't use language very well. But I do try to improve (most of the time )

As for the warning thing, I'm not as certain it's as a grey an area as depicted in the previous posts, although it's certainly not clear cut either.
(forgive the mixed metaphor )

But it's my impression from people's comments and fdk on fics that most people on these boards would agree on this narrow definiition of "death-fic": it's one in which either Lois and/ or Clark dies.

Where the 'greyness' enters is over whether that narrow definition should be extended to other characters -secondary ones like Martha, Jimmy, or Luthor, new characters created in the course of a fic etc. For some, if there's a death in the fic, it's ... a Deathfic! (using exclamation points is my new guilty pleasure )

How we read is important , as well.
For example, I didn't get any sense that Elisabeth was trying to "foist" her values on anyone else, but was explaining what those were and how it affected her reaction to fanfics. Nothing wrong with that - it's interesting to know, imo. Just as it's interesting to know why some people react differently to deathfics than other readers, or to kid-fics or crossovers.

The warning thing: it's forever a circuitous argument about the reader's feelings versus the writer's ego. Both are valid. Most writers are now up front with "the" deathfic warning which many of us shallow types who can't handle death appreciate.

This new custom of posting a suggestion that you might want to check the warning at the end of the story is really good idea - the best of both worlds. Although it won't work for multi-part stories, so it's not perfect.

One more ramble - would some people be as put-off by a Clark Kent/Superman who had red hair, freckles and was an inch or two below the average height of an American male, as some are by a Clark Kent/Superman who kills for purely personal reasons?

For example, I understand that a lot of fanboys didn't like Dean Cain as Superman because he had brown eyes, and the biggest flaw of all - he was too short.

Anyway, fuzzy early morning rambles.

c.

James said:

Patrick said:

I think these are both very sensible ideas. Personally, I would probably elect to include a general caution or summary if I thought I was posting something significantly out of the mainstream or something that touched on one of the hot-button issues in this forum, but I am very unlikely to include a detailed "warning" about every single thing that someone might find offensive in my story. Even if I were inclined to do that, which I'm not, as several here have pointed out, we all have different ideas of what's offensive anyway, and I'm sure I'd miss something. As long as my story is properly rated and conforms to the requirements of the board, I think the burden must be shifted to the readers to take responsibility for their own reading material.

Patrick's decision to use the FDK threads as a guide is something I've been doing for as long as I've been reading fan fiction. I haven't read Laura's story because, while I enjoy her writing very much, I have zero interest in reading about vampires and kind of a narrow definition of what sorts of AU scenarios work for me. I knew it was a vampire story from the posting of the first comment, so I gave it a miss.

And while as an author I won't post a detailed warning, I would be very happy to respond to a PM from someone who wanted to know if certain elements were likely to appear in the story. And I do usually know with a fair degree of accuracy what even a long story is likely to contain, so please feel free to ask away. But I simply can't know which of those included elements is likely to offend which readers. Just trying to remember which of my kids likes mayonnaise and which doesn’t is kind of taxing to this poor old tired brain these days.

Of course, a final option is to wait and read the story once it's been archived, assuming it is. The content will be set in stone, as it were, and the summary will provide at least a hint as to what the story is about. If anything there raises concern, an e-mail could be sent to the author. I have no desire to foist my writing on someone who doesn't want to read it or might be made uncomfortable by it, and I doubt any of the other authors here do either. The reluctance to post detailed warnings stems from a disinclination to spoil the story for the people who do want to read it - not because I want to "trick" someone into reading it who is likely to find it offensive.

As a reader, I've always assumed that the burden was on me to manage my own reading. And yes, there are certain themes that are just absolute deal-breakers for me, and there have been times I've been frustrated by getting deep into a story and then having one of those deal-breakers rear its ugly head. But ultimately, I come down on the side of the authors' right not to spoil their stories with tons of warnings. Unless and until the moderators of this board start requiring detailed warnings to be appended to each and every story, readers who have specific content concerns might just have to take extra steps to make sure they avoid that content. Fortunately, there are several ways already in place to do that.

Best,

Caroline

EDIT

You know actually... I'm not getting into this anymore. I should have just stepped away when I did.