Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related How evil can Clark be and still be cut slack?

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?