Sure this is a Lois and Clark forum, but I don't see why any writer that goes off the beaten path at best gets told flat out that he/she will lose X person's readership, or worse yet that she/he should be labeled as hostile to Lois for X plot. Surely it is possible for people to write to simply pursue an idea without having an anti-Lois agenda. I mean obviously some do, but to read so much about motive in writing if the author hasn't expressed as much is to make alienating assumptions.
I may be wrong , but I can't think of any posters who have made this type of criticism without presenting evidence from the story to support their point. Sure it's a matter of interpretation, but there has to be something in the story to have led a reader to make the interpretation Alcyone suggests (or any interpretation, for that matter) in the first place.
Shouldn't a writer strive for some internal logical in a story? Is it wrong for a reader to say, wait a minute not following your logic here? Sort of like pointing out a plot hole.
c.
