Carol wrote:
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.
Yes. Absolutely. A story
must be self-consistent or the vast majority of readers will stop reading, whether it's fanfic or a published novel by a writer who got a six-figure advance for the collection of dreck I'm holding in my hand.
One of my favorite yell-at-the-author moments comes whenever the hero/heroine is in a sticky situation, takes out an armed opponent, and then
leaves the weapon beside the unconscious enemy! Even if the main character is a pacifist who absolutely refuses to kill people, doesn't it make sense to remove the weapon from your enemy's reach so he doesn't wake up, follow you, and shoot you in the back?
So an internal logic is pretty much required for any story, no matter what length, to be believable. But what's the premise here? If Lois is "the great love of Clark's life," as so many want her to be (me included), why can't he find love again after she dies? Why couldn't Lois find love again after Clark dies?
Carol also wrote:
But what has thrown me out of stories has been the suggestion that other loves that each had (oddly, nearly always Clark as it turns out) was "the love of a lifetime". As soon as that premise is set up, it means that I as a reader (all too sadly logical) can't buy that either Lois or Clark will be "that one great love" for the other.
That doesn't make sense to me, Carol. You seem to be saying that if Clark married Jane Doe and Jane died, all before he met Lois, that Lois can
never be "the love of a lifetime" for him. If that's logical, then your premise must be that only Lois can make him truly happy
and that no other woman can really even tease anything other than a fleeting distraction from him.
The first part of your premise - that only Lois can be Clark's "one great love" - is exactly what L&C is based on. And I agree completely, totally, fully, and innumerably (sorry, had a Jack Sparrow moment). I don't think I could write a story where Clark loved
anyone else more than he loved Lois.
But the second part of your premise isn't reasonable. You're taking the position that once he has Lois, no other woman can do anything for him after that, even when she's dead. The New York Yankees had a first baseman named Lou Gehrig who died of what is now called (supposedly in his memory) "Lou Gehrig's disease." He left behind a childless widow who never remarried, saying that once she'd had the best no one else would do.
That's a very romantic notion, and it's one which fits our ideals of "love" very well. I'd like to think that I've ruined my wife for any other man (and so far I'm doing pretty good), but it would be foolish for me to believe that she would "forever remain faithful to my memory" if I were to pass on any time soon (or any time not so soon). Insisting that Clark cannot love any woman after Lois isn't logical, it's an unreasonable requirement.
We aren't the ones who don't get you, Carol. You don't get "us." The story that has Clark choosing someone else over Lois is so rare that I can't think of any at the moment. The ones which come to my mind immediately ("What Might Have Been," "The Butterfly Legacy," Nan's "Home" series) all have a Lois who has either married someone else (usually Luthor) or time has passed and Lois has died. We're not deliberately stomping on your romantic ideals. We're simply exploring other possibilities.
Way back when I was posting "The Road Taken," Carol left the following feedback on the final chapter.
This story remains a very Smallville take - there is no "Lois and Clark", and it's Lana who is the love of Clark Kent's life.
In this story, Clark did love Lana - before he met Lois - but
nowhere did I state that Lana was "the love of Clark Kent's life." That's Carol's interpretation, not the author's intent. I get where you're coming from, Carol. I really do. You want stories where Clark cannot possibly love anyone else after he meets Lois, whether he ends up with her or not. And that's your right. You shouldn't change your opinions or preferences based only on anyone else's opinions or preferences.
But it's your opinion, not divinely revealed truth. You have every right to prefer those stories. You do not have the right to trash those stories which do not meet your standards. If a story doesn't meet those standards, that does not disqualify it as an interesting or reasonable or logical story. I will tell you the same thing I told Ann.
If you don't like the story, don't read it. Don't flame us for not adhering to your own personal preferences. Don't accuse us of illogical plotting or destroying the magic. We're different people, and we like different things. I don't care for every story on the archive or on the boards, but I'm not going to whack an author in public for that reason. Plot holes? Yes. Main characters acting out of character? Probably yes, unless that "acting out of character" is part of the central premise of the story.
But I'm not going to attack anyone because "that's not the way it's supposed to be." That's wrong and it's hurtful.
I'm not the only one to say this, nor am I the first, but here it is again: If you don't like it, Carol, just don't read the story.
