I'm watching thar episode at the moment and I can't believe that Clark froze Lois without telling her!
They said themselves that she could've died or end up as a vegetable!
Does anyone know a good rewrite of that episode/scenes?

Hard to beat Nan Smith's The Way it Should Hace Been

Actually, if you look closely, it was her idea the first time.

The next question: do you want Lois to survive?

if not, there's
Time Doesn\'t Heal by moi

Tiny Pieces

She\'s by Terry Leatherwood

Otherwise, just search the archives for Mazik.

Yes I want Lois to survive. I just thought that Clark acted completely out of character.
And yes it was Lois idea but in my opinion Clark should have told Lois at least before freezing her to give her a chance to think about it (although they only had 30 minutes after Jace's last call).

Isn't there a fic out there where Lois finds out when Clark warms her up and brings her back? She thinks it's Clark's voice but then opens her eyes to see Superman? I think I read one a long time ago but I can't find it!

I agree that he acted a little out of character, but I also think that, in order to go through with it, he needed to push the idea that she could've died to the back of his mind. He couldn't even consider fail at a time like this. He wouldn't possibly choose between her and his parents not in this or in other circumstances.

I just think he bought into the idea because Lois was feeling confident about and pressured him. Telling her would have been the right thing to do, but I think the urgency of the matter had to be taken into consideration.

Realization for him only came later when, thankfully, she was already safe.

@bellarata Yes I think I've read that story too but I also can't remember what it was.

@Mad Dog Lane Ok Lois got him to do that and I think telling her directly before freezing her would be not ideal either because both of them would always wonder if he just had said something because of that.

It's fun when she dies, isn't it?

Is there a story where Clark is punished by the law for killing Lois? Or is Superman the sort of citizen who is above the law, so that his own suffering and guilt is all the punishment he needs for killing someone?

Ann

Try my Time series - Time Doesn\'t Heal , Time Enough To Heal and Clearing the Record WIP

There's also She\'s (I'm pretty sure Terry mentioned legal proceedings.)

Read them all

You are right Dandello. Now that you reminded me that there's such a thing as reincarnation in Lois and Clark I feel much better.

Although Lois died before they knew that. :S

How would they reincarnate? It would be nice to know how they would manage to have Utopia that way... (Hinting on a sequence of events that only Dandello would know how to write )

At least a few writers (Nan's Home series comes to mind) have Clark as 'immortal' and finding (and falling in love with) Lois's current incarnation.

In the Time series, Lois and Clark had been reborn as New Kryptonians sent to Earth as infants.

So maybe we shouldn't be so hard on people who cause the deaths of other people in the real world, either. Maybe there is such a thing as reincarnation here, too.

Personally, I thought Clark's behaviour in ATAI was absolutely shocking. He wielded a lethal weapon, his superbreath, on Lois, and put her in mortal danger, just because his parents were in danger and because she had asked him to do it. That is not a reason. If you have caused the death of another person, a person who wasn't asking you to kill her, should you get off the hook just because she asked you to do what you did, because she was in such awe of you that she thought you could do what you did without killing her?

After Clark had put Lois in mortal danger by freezing her, he had the nerve to propose to her without telling her about his other identity. And then he had the nerve to sulk when she didn't immediately accept him, after he had nearly killed her and then proposed to her under false pretenses.

The only rewrites of this episode that I find acceptable are the ones where Clark either isn't acting like such a total jerk, or else fics which expose Clark's full, utter jerkdom, and punish him accordingly. And having him grieve for Lois forever isn't nearly enough of a punishment, since if Lois dies, then she is the principal victim here.

Ann

The idea of reincarnation should never be used as an excuse to do wrong anymore than Christian forgiveness should allow a criminal to repeat his crimes or for society to not get its due.

Neither should 'she asked for...' be an excuse for crimes against women and children.

Clark's actions in ATAI were poorly thought out and callous. He took advantage of Lois's feelings for him and her trust in Superman.

Had Lois died, it should have killed Superman as well, if not literally, then figuratively. His actions proved he was untrustworthy and the world would not have been able to tolerate that - Trask would have been proven right. Aliens are bad for Planet Earth.

Interesting discussion. I just have to correct this small point though. Lois wasn't unaware of the dangers and risks involved. She specifically says, "Yes, I could die." At no point did she believe that the risk was minimal or that Superman could do it without killing her. That was the whole point of her sacrifice. She knew it was highly dangerous, she knew the odds were better that she wouldn't survive than that she would but she chose to go ahead anyway to save Clark's parents.

I make no judgements on whether it was the right or wrong choice - I don't have much of an opinion either way - but she didn't go into the decision naively.

LabRat

I did, although in that story, the DA's office declined to pursue charges against Superman because of Lois' impassioned claim to responsibility (on videotape and obviously not coerced in any way). I'm not opposed to making Superman legally responsible for his actions. In fact, I put Superman on trial for murder in Rebuilding Superman. Of course, in that story he'd killed Bill Church in the heat of the moment, not Lois.

I'm always amused by the consistent assaults on Clark's character when this subject comes up. Because the writers wanted to put Lois in mortal danger once more, and because they chose a way which also put Clark in a terrible personal position (and which, incidentally, confirmed Clark's other identity as Superman to Lois), he's viewed as being stupid, insensitive, thoughtless, reckless, uncaring, and ultimately dangerous. Oh, and he's a complete jerk because he asked her to marry him ("I'd love you even if you were a normal man but I can't stand Clark Kent." - Lois Lane to Superman) without letting her know he was also a super-powered tights-flashing babe magnet who Lois had all but attacked on several occasions in the past.

What about Lois? She asked Superman to do something which he didn't want to do, something he strongly advised her not to ask of him. Why didn't she ask him to carry her into the room as she pretended to be dead and just throw her on Jace so she could beat him up and let Superman take down Nigel? That would have been just as dangerous but maybe more in character for Lois than being passive. But no, she had to choose a course of action which put her in mortal danger. Despite what you think of Clark, Lois wasn't smart enough at that point to think of anything better.

I think that sometimes we get a little too invested in these fictional characters. Some of the best writing on the archive and on this site takes some aspect of their relationship and changes it, then forces them to work to resolve it. For example, look at the WIP "From the Ruins" by Alisha. In that story, Lois revealed Clark's dual identity early in their relationship and destroyed any chance he had for a normal life. Yet I've not read any accusations against Lois for being stupid, insensitive, thoughtless, reckless, uncaring, and ultimately dangerous. Or a complete jerk.

True, no one has defended her actions in that story as being totally right, but for some reason Lois making mistakes or being dumb doesn't trigger the response that Clark making mistakes or being dumb does. I don't know why that is, but it appears to me that it is true. Maybe it's linked to the reaction to Lois deathfics as opposed to Clark deathfics. (I offer as example Gone the Rainbow , an incredible Clark deathfic which should have won about eleven Kerths and which garnered critical praise but no condemnation for Clark's death.)

We have to remember that anything Clark or Superman did in the series was scripted by writers who don't think about Superman the way most of us do. They were looking for dramatic storylines and good ratings. They weren't necessarily trying to be consistent.

And how come no one gripes about Clark freezing Lois during the Leslie Luckaby/Lex Junior arc in season four? ("Voice From the Past," which was quite operatic in the last segment, very evocative of "Phantom Of the Opera.") That time it was Clark's suggestion, although Lois willingly submitted to being frozen again. Also very risky, even if they'd done it before successfully.

Opinions are just like armpits. Everybody has at least two of them, and sometimes they don't smell so good. We should all be careful about shoving our armpits - er, opinions - into other people's faces and do it gently so as to avoid stinkin' up the place.

No, Terry, I view Clark as a complete jerk in this episode because he chose to deliberately put Lois in mortal danger. It was his choice to do that. No one forced him. There was no way that Lois could have forced him. If he risked Lois's life, it was because he wanted to do it - because he ultimately thought it was worth it to risk her life to get his parents back. That decision of his is what makes me regard him as an utter jerk in that episode. And I agree with you that Lois was completely infuriating many times during the first season, but tell me, in what episode did she deliberately put Clark in mortal danger by, say, freezing him, or feeding him posion, or committing another life-threatening act against him?

Terry, are you saying that if Lois hadn't seen through Clark's double identity during ATAI, and if she had still believed that Clark and Superman were two different persons, it would have been all right for Clark to propose to Lois as Clark Kent only? Are you saying it would have been all right to trick her into marrying Superman, when she was completely unaware that she was doing just that, even if she had possibly just decided that she wanted Clark Kent only, and not Superman?

There are several people here who hold marriage in extremely high regard. Several people here have said that they don't approve of divorce at all. I don't know how you feel about divorce, Terry, but let's assume, just for the sake of the argument, that you don't find it acceptable. Let's say that Lois had married Clark Kent without realizing he was Superman, because Clark himself chose not to tell her. Would you say that it was all right for Clark to hide an extremely important part of himself from his fiancée and fool her into accepting his proposal without knowing who he really was? But when Lois found out that she had married a man who had hidden an extremely important part of himself from her, it would be unacceptable for her to divorce him for that reason, because a woman is honour-bound to stay true to her marriage vows? Even if the man she has pledged herself to hasn't allowed her to know him? Isn't that what you usually call fraud? But maybe it doesn't apply to a man who has fooled and tricked a woman?

Ann

I'm not Terry and I do hold marriage in extremely high regard [UP not withstanding but those are extenuating circumstances!]

That said, I can understand very well Terry's point about proposing to her without telling her the truth.

*Marrying* her without telling her the truth is an entirely different issue.

More ideally I suppose, they would have dated longer, there would have been lots of I love yous traded and possibly a convo about her feelings/lack of/whatever towards Superman and then told her before he proposed, but I have no problem with him asking first. He'd been trying to tell her before then. It didn't happen. He wasn't going to marry her without telling her. At least I never thought so...

My .02 .

Carol

Ann, you have made my day. And my point.

You are projecting real-world political and ethical constraints and dilemmas onto fictional people. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said:

If Clark Kent and Lois Lane were real people, if the Lois and Clark series were an accurate retelling of history, if these people behaved in precisely the manner in which they were portrayed in the show, then we could have a legitimate gripe session with both Clark and Lois for what they did and for what they didn't do.

But this was a TV show! So many people try to fit what they see on the small screen into their own personal ethical system, into a larger more cosmopolitan ethical system, or into an absolute morality, that we tend to forget that all we saw on the show was meant to entertain us. None of what we saw was intended to be the moral guide for society. It was supposed to be a pleasant hour of entertainment interspersed with advertisements for real-life commercial products.

This site is fun, y'all. Reading the stories here, checking out the feedback, trying to write something others will enjoy reading, it's all fun. It's not supposed to be anyone's moral compass. We write about people who make mistakes and try to fix them. It's fun and entertaining.

And that's all it's supposed to be. Chill, y'all. Peace out, as my daughter says.

Terry, who is still not completely sure what that means.

Well, I probably going to regret joining this debate, but whatever.

First of all, I always thought Clark should have told Lois about Superman after their first date.
However, given how bent out of shape he is about telling ANYONE (not just Lois, remember Martha had said he had never planned on telling anyone at all.), I think it's in character to have waited until the beginning of ATAI.

Whether it's in character to have frozen her is debatable. Clark always regarded her savety above EVERYTHING. (Even above keeping his secret, actually. In "Fly Hard", Clark believes she is calling for Superman and obviously plans on going to her, even though he WOULD HAVE TO DO IT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE, EVEN LEX. - But she was just stating her password to her computer.)

But I think it's a matter of being so desperate he's not thinking straight at that point. He wants to find a way to save his parents AND Lois. She presents him with an oportuntiy to do it.
Furthermore, Lois can be VERY determined when she wants to be. And she was at that point.
Technically speaking, he wasn't obiligated to do it. He could have just said "no" and flown out the window. But I get the impression if he didn't help her save Clark and his parents (which is what Lois was trying to do by asking this), she would never want to speak to him again, secret or no secret.


As far as the sercet goes, like I said before, I definitely think he should have told her before he did. But telling her right before he freezes her just doesn't work for me. In the first place, from a writer's perspective, it alters the dramatics of the story, which is what they were trying to achieve.
From a personall perspective, it just doesn't make logical sense that he would say that in that situation. I know there have been plenty of authors who have written it so he does, but I still can't make sense of it.


Now as far a proposing before he told her, THAT WAS WRONG. Period. But it was also in character. Even though Clark had been ready to tell her before, he wasn't ready to marry her unless he knew she loved "the real him." He's remembering his exprience with Lois a year ago in "Barbarians."
The writers (who were looking for dramatics and good plots, not for us to be happy with the characters), wanted them to create a mirror image of that episode. In that episode, Clark told Lois he loved her and she rejected him in favor of Superman.
In ATAI, Lois chose Clark above Superman (before she found out the truth), and ONE OF THE REASONS WHY SHE DIDN'T SAY YES WAS BECAUSE SHE WASN'T SURE SHE WANTED SUPERMAN. (IN WHATTA)


I've also been thinking about Clark's feelings for Lois over the first two seasons and I think "I Loved YOU from the Beginning" was baloney.
Was he attacted to her at the beginning? Yes. Did he value her passion for her work and desire to make the world a better place? Yes. Was he protective of her from the beginning? Yes. Did he feel a "connection" to her from the beginning? Probably.

But - was he friends with her from the beginning? No, that happened later. Did he TRUST her from the beginning? NO. I think after the first season (particularly after she didn't publish the Kryptonite), he trusted her not to blab his secret, but he still didn't trust her heart. Part of that is the "I'll never tell anyone", like I said before, but part of that is "I want her to love Clark." That's what I meant about not trusting her with his heart. And he didn't trust her with that WHEN HE PROPOSED. So, really he didn't have true love then, either.
And what about being HONEST? True love is honest, as well, and Clark wasn't honest with her until the third season, either.
So, no Clark you didn't "love her from the beginning." Maybe you thought you loved her in the first season, but that's it.


Now, that being said, I don't think he did him or Lois a diservice by waiting to tell her until they were dating.
Because Lois wasn't in love with him back then, either. She wasn't in love with Superman, even though she believed she was. She admits this in the third season. "Did I ever tell you why I gave up MY CRUSH on Superman?" - Here she admits it was a crush. An intense crush, but still a crush. "Because he was a FANTASY."

And that's exactly why I think Lois loved Superman. Yes, she loved his ideals, but she loved the idea that he was a fantasy, too. That made him unattainable. An unattaniable fantasy was a perfect guy who could never hurt her like all the other men did in her life. So she could be "in love with him" wihout worrying abou it.
I really think she had to start noticing Clark as a boyfriend rather than a friend (because Clark wasn't "safe" at all), before she would be ready to know that Clark was Superman. That's why I say he should have told her after their first date.


Okay, so some of that was kind of off topic...but it all relates...I think.

Love your analysis, Sara. You presented your position logically and clearly. Mind you, not everyone will agree with you, but at least it will be difficult for them to disagree on an logical basis. Thanks for your reasoned input.

Sara, I agree with most of the things you said, but I have to return to this:

Should Clark have frozen Lois? In my opinion, he absolutely should not. And here's why.

Yes, if Clark did not freeze Lois, he risked the lives of his parents. That is an absolutely awful situation and a most horrible choice.

But - if Martha and Jonathan had been killed, it would not have been Clark who killed them. It would have been their kidnappers who killed them. Surely you can't say that, for example, if a kidnapped American soldier was killed in Iraq, it was the United States who killed the soldier by failing to meet the kidnappers' demands?

But if Lois had been killed, it would have been Clark who killed her. Suppose those kidnappers in Iraq had demanded that the United States had to kill somebody that those kidnappers regarded as their enemy for them to spare the kidnapped soldier's life and hand him over to the Americans. Would the United States have agreed to those terms? Would they let the world know that they agreed to those terms? Would they say that, yes, our soldier means more to us than this other guy, and we have talked to the other guy and he agrees to let us kill him, so that is what we are going to do to get our soldier back?

All I can say is that if the United States had openly agreed to those terms, so many people in so many parts of the world would have been shocked. The reason is that the United States is thought of as a country that upholds certain ideals. There are things that the United States wouldn't do, such as kill an innocent person to get another person back.

In the same way, Superman is thought of as a person that upholds certain ideals. Among other things, he is thought of as a person who doesn't kill. He is most certainly thought of as a person who would never use his superpowers to kill an innocent person as a way of bartering with kidnappers.

Clark is given the choice to try to get his parents back by actively using his superpowers on Lois and possibly kill her, or to try to get his parents back from the kidnappers by some other means. Clark chooses to gravely endanger Lois's life. But that is precisely the sort of choice he should never make.

Terry, you kindly point out to me that Superman isn't real. The thought has actually occurred to me. But what makes it so interesting to discuss Superman's actions is that he is defined as the ultimate good guy. He is not perfect, no. He will certainly make mistakes. And LnC's Superman was, in certain ways at least, more flawed than the older versions of him used to be. I can chalk up his decision to propose to Lois without telling her about his secret identity to his uncertainty and general imperfection. He can be a good but flawed and scared guy and still propose to Lois in such a dishonest and cowardly way. (I don't think he can be a good guy and actually marry her without telling her.) But can he deliberately put Lois in mortal danger by using his own superpowers on her in a life-threatening way and still be a good guy? I don't think so.

Sara, you said:

Here's what I think about integrity. You don't actively and deliberately put a friend in mortal danger just because he or she asks you to. So maybe your friend won't speak to you afterwards if you refused to endanger his or her life. Maybe you have lost this person's friendship forever. Well, that's a pity, but so be it. Because if your friend behaves like that, then he or she was not a real friend. Your friend actually asks you to commit a very serious crime, and to risk having your friend's death on your conscience for the rest of your life. If your friend dies, then every time someone misses him or her or grieves for your friend, then you know that it is your fault that this person does not exist any more.

If Lois had rejected Clark forever because he wouldn't freeze her in ATAI, then Clark was lucky to find out before it was too late what sort of a person Lois was. Persuading Clark to freeze her was one thing, although that in itself was a really bad thing, too. But never forgiving him for not complying with her request would be shocking proof of Lois's unreasonableness and selfishness. The way I see it, if Lois truly respects and honours Superman, she will not try to put him in a situation where he might become a killer. That is why Lois's behaviour as well as Clark's is out of character in ATAI.

I find it interesting to dicuss what Clark can do or not from a moral point of view because I've grown up regarding him as an icon of goodness. I've learnt to accept that he can be very very good, yet flawed. I find it very interesting to contemplate what a good yet flawed guy can do. I agree that he can propose in a dishonest and cowardly way, like Clark did in ATAI. But you'll never make me say that it was acceptable for him to actively use his superpowers to put Lois in mortal danger as a way of bartering with kidnappers.

And that's why I can't read fics which tell me that Clark deserves all our commiseration and pity because he was forced to sacrifice his loved one to get his parents back. The thing is that Lois's life was not Clark's to sacrifice, no matter if Lois told him that it was.

Ann