Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Lois & Clark Fanfic FDK: Rebuilding Superman 20/20

Let me know if the ending gives everyone closure. And just to let you know, there's an epilogue to be posted in a few days.

Thanks to everyone who's read along, and additional thanks to everyone who's posted feedback! And I do mean everyone!

Well, I posted fdk before the boards crashed, but I'll try to cover most of the points I made. I think that most of the world might regard Superman as not guilty, but I think he realizes that while he didn't commit 2nd degree murder, he still killed a human being. I think he learned as a result of this that with his powers, he has more options than, say a police officer, and that instead of killing in the future he will exercise one of his other options. I think that now he is much more likely to become the Clark/Superman of tradition, who never kills even the worst of criminals.

All in all a very well-written story, Terry.

Nan

Well, Terry, I wasn't sure I was going to post a reply to the final chapter of your story, because it's no secret that I have had very severe issues with many things that have happened here. But, when the boards were down, I sat down and tried to explain why I feel the way I do about the Superman character. But I also tried to make it clear that what I feel about Superman is what I feel about Superman - it's not the truth about Superman. And it can't mean that other people can't explore quite different aspects of Superman, aspects that have been there in the character every bit as much as the traits that I cherish.

I could see that you addressed many of the issues that I have repeatedly raised in my previous feedback. I appreciated that you did that. Your story is extremely well-written, like everything you produce, and the ending fit the story very well.

The thing I wrote to you when the boards were down was lengthy, I'm afraid. I hope it's not provocative or hostile. And I'm going to copy it into my reply here.


In the early 1960s, when I was around seven years old, I fell in love with one of Sweden's most popular fictional heroines, Pippi Långstrump (Pippi Longstocking). A nine-year-old orphan girl with fiery red, stiff braids, Pippi lived alone in a big, decrepit house, with only her horse and her monkey for company. Her father the sea-captain had left her a chest full of gold coins before he was lost at sea, so Pippi had no money problems, and she usually spent her money on candy and toys for all the children in her town.
Pippi as I saw her

Pippi was the strongest girl in the world. Actually, she was the strongest person in the world. She often carried her horse around, so that the poor animal could rest his legs. Because of her strength, no one could force her to do anything she didn't want to do. When the police tried to move her to an orphanage, she simply carried the policemen out of her house and put them down on the sidewalk outside. Then she gave the policemen a gingerbread heart each to console them.

Pippi carrying her horse

Pippi was strong enough to beat up and threaten everyone and anyone. Yet she never did. When she took on the neighbourhood bullies, she left them dangling from the branches of some trees - not so that they were hanged, oh goodness, no!!! She just hung them up there so that they were unable to come down on their own. When they started crying she got them down from there, told them never to bully anyone again and gave them a gold coin each to console them.

I loved Pippi, her independence, her strength, her irreverence and her kindness. Because, yes, she was kind. In all the stories about Pippi, she was never, ever angry. As she told her best friends, Tommy and Annika: "When you are very strong, you must also be very kind."

When I was finally introduced to comics and the character of Superman when I was twelve, almost thirteen, I immediately fell in love with Superman. I think I recognized aspects of Pippi Långstrump in him. He was the strongest person and the most irrepressible force in the world. Yet he was never angry, and he was always kind. He was the benevolent protector of humanity, not a fearful avenger of crimes. When I was introduced to comics I came across many other comic book heroes, but I always preferred Superman, and for two reasons. He was the most powerful and amazing of the heroes, and he was also the kindest one.

These days I'm a hardened, cynical 51-year-old, and I no longer believe in these perfect representatives of ever-benevolent strength who can solve all the problems in the world by using kind but irrepressible force. Yet I must admit that some part of me still yearns for my childhood icons of unstoppable good: Pippi Långstrump and the Silver Age Superman.

In a previous FDK thread, Tank said that "his Superman" would never kill. You, Terry, replied that Superman is not "Tank's Superman", and by extension, he certainly isn't "Ann's Superman" either. None of us fans owns Superman. Yet as Tank pointed out, each and every one who writes about Superman sees this iconic character through the filter of his or her own temperament and preferences, and so we all create our own Superman. And I would say that this true not only of the writers. Everybody who likes Superman likes him for one or many specific reasons. Every Superman fan wants to see his or her favorite aspects of Superman explored or expounded on. I believe that most of us have "negative preferences", too, things we don't want to see Superman do, because "our Superman" - whoever that is - wouldn't do such things.

So, Terry. It is no secret that many aspects of your story have disturbed me. I was upset that your Superman killed in the first place. This flies in the face of my own idealized image of a Superman who can control his temper enough never to seriously hurt anyone, much less kill anyone.

Of course, I realize that my "own favorite Superman" is an idealized character, not a realistic one. You, Terry, have pointed out that there is only so much stress that a person can take before he or she snaps. While I believe this to be true, I also believe that not everyone would kill even when he or she had been pushed beyond breaking point, and I would like to think that Superman is one of those who would never kill. Nevertheless, I must accept the fact that others think that Superman could be driven to committing murder. I can't insist that the character of Superman, as he has been presented in the Lois and Clark TV series, in comics and in movies, has been presented in such a way that it is reasonable to claim that he would never be able to kill. I must certainly admit that, given the circumstances in your story, The Maysonry of Life, it is not in any way unreasonable that Superman would snap and lose control enough to kill Bill Church.

I was upset that Superman would kill in such a brutal, cruel way, too. The idea of killing someone by literally ripping his heart out of his chest is extremely ghastly to me. On the other hand, as I tried to think of a way for Superman to kill his victim more "humanely", I came up short. The whole idea of Superman losing his temper and using his fearful strength to kill is that the killing will happen through the use of superhuman strength on mere mortal flesh. There is no way that such a killing can be anything but gruesome.

I was upset that Superman was not more - well, crushed by what he had done. He seemed more - how can I put it? - angry and troubled at being criticized by others? - than horrified at himself.

I was horrified at the idea that the American legal system would not be able to find Superman guilty of any crime after he had killed a man by ripping out his heart. I was even more devastated at the ubiquitous joyous celebration after Superman's acquittal, where everyone was ecstatic that Superman had been found innocent of any wrongdoing after he had ripped the heart out of a living man's chest. I felt no better about the fact that Superman himself was so happy about his acquittal, and so relatively untroubled by the cruel killing that he had committed, that he seemed almost ready to do backflips.

Another of my most cherished ideas about Superman is that he is Lois Lane's soulmate, destined to be with her and love her. Because of that, I have no qualms whatsoever about seeing him make love to Lois under almost any circumstances. However, seeing him with another woman, loving another woman, proposing to another woman, marrying another woman or making love to another woman - all of that is quite painful to me. Therefore I found it depressing to see him with Mayson in The Maysonry of Life. It was even worse to me that Clark's love for Lois didn't seem deeply, fundamentally different from his love for Mayson. It seemed to me that Clark chose Lois mostly or even solely because Mayson was dead, and therefore out of "the marriage race". Throughout your story, I remained unconvinced that Clark loved Lois, or at the very least, I remained unconvinced that he loved her with any real depth, zest or conviction. Perhaps he married her mostly because he was feeling lonely, and marrying Lois was the easiest way to cure his loneliness. (On the other hand, yes, I know, Terry, you have told me that your Superman loves Lois.)

For all of these reasons, your story collided head on with so many of my own most cherished ideas about Superman. But my ideas about Superman are my ideas about Superman. They are not the truth about Superman. They are not the absolute, perfect ideal of what Superman should be about.

Your Superman is realistic in so many ways. In real life, people get angry. If a person is inhumanly strong and gets pushed beyond his own breaking point by horrible circumstances, yes, someone is liable to get hurt. Or even killed. And as I have already pointed out, Superman is such an amazing hero that it is more than likely that the American legal system would have acquitted him if he had brutally killed a mass murderer. And I don't mean to imply that all or most other societies would not have done the same thing, if it had been up to them to judge Superman and he had been one of their own. And it's probable that most people in those other societies too, if not every member of those societies, would have celebrated their hero's acquittal afterwards.

Your Superman is also realistic in that his love for Lois is not obviously extremely special. Most people fall in love more than once in their lifetime. Whom we actually choose in the end is decided by chance and circumstances. Why should we ask that Superman's love for Lois should be so different and so out of this world?

Personally, I do want Superman's love for Lois to be something incomparable. I want him to be different from the Superman I have met in your story. But I'm not someone who gets to make rules about what Superman should be about.

Your story is strong, extremely well told, realistic, suspenseful and fascinating. If Superman had existed for real, then the things that you tell us about in your story may really, really have happened.

Ann

Terry,

First thank you again for posting, especially given the 'controversial' nature of this fic. I honestly wish that wasn't so, but seeing that it was I appreciate it all the more. I wish I had more time to quote and go over the best bits of the story. The dialogue is excellent, I love the interactions of the characters and I think you did a wonderful job especially in fleshing out the secondary characters so they are not merely add ons, but contribute greatly to the fic. I was really just stunned and really enjoyed how the court scenes flowed and the wonderful explanations of how the legal system works. A well-researched fic is a gem to find and I have a healthy respect for authors that go all-out in their stories. This really engages me and draws me more fully into the plot.

Outside of that more or less formal element, and continuing on the realism bit, that (the realism) really made me think outside of just the words on the page. That's the metric by which I judge, not only good fic, but good writing in general. It's no secret that I have a personal aversion to idealization. It is flaws that add character. Flaws make us reflect and when one curbs the impulse to judge and place oneself above others, these can show us a great deal about ourselves and the world we live in. I'm not merely bringing this up to pub for my preferences(I do it quite often, I'm afraid, *blush* my apologies) but to highlight that it was Superman and his crime against the backdrop of the court system that really had me riveted. Because of this I did come to feel that the ending was a bit rushed in terms of his acceptance of blame/his faith in the legal system. I know what he says and how we're meant to take it, but something about that doesn't ring quite as genuine as his struggles in the beginning. Let me hasten to add that this is my impression and it very likely can be wrong and definitely insubstantiated.

Overall however, I thought it was a thought provoking, daring work of fanfiction and I applaud you for it (well-written is understood ). I'd like to ask you how you see this fic in comparison to its 'prequel'. I remember you stating at the beginning that you didn't intend to continue "The Maysonry...", but that you changed your mind? Why is it that at first you thought there was 'nothing more to tell'? I have to admit when I read that after realizing how long "Rebuilding..." was I laughed. There was a whole world more to tell!

Also...how did the project change as you began writing it? You've gestured at new things that came up--do you care to comment on these? Did you have any goals in writing this outside of exploring a different path in the world of LnC? What did you struggle with (if anything)?

You don't have to answer these at all--as an author you'd be in your rights to leave some mystique. Thanks again. Anyway I look forward to seeing more from you.

alcyone

Bill Cosby wrote:

Bill didn’t write this to me specifically, of course, but I thought it appropriate.

I knew starting out that not everyone would laud this story with garlands of daisies, but I really didn’t expect the depth of feeling I uncovered. Still, if something I write touches my readers, it’s definitely succeeded on some level.

Nan wrote:

I agree with you, Nan. He does realize it. And I hope that the epilogue touches on that sufficiently.

I think that my tendency to allow my readers to come to their own conclusions concerning the characters in my stories is part of what has created the strong reactions some readers have had. I don’t like telling readers what to feel and how to feel – not that doing so is wrong, it’s just not my way – so getting varied reactions is something I’m prepared to experience. It also explains how different readers have different reactions to the same piece of prose.

Alcyone asked:.

Cool! Questions about the writing process! I feel like a real author now.

How did the project change? Well, unlike some other brave souls on this board, I don’t post anything until I have the whole work pretty much finished, except for beta reading and spot editing. I’m too chicken to do it any other way. So there weren’t any drastic changes during the time I was posting. I did, however, toss out a couple of early plot lines before I actually committed anything to e-paper, neither of which were very well developed.

Some of the new things that came up involved the readers’ comments on Clark’s state of mind. I don’t know why, but I tend to tell these stories through Lois’s point of view instead of Clark’s. “Masonry” was written entirely from Lois’s eyes in the third person, even though I didn’t deliberately design it so. It was only after I received some feedback that I realized that doing so distanced Clark from the readers. I attempted to correct that flaw in this story, but only the readers can say how successful I was.

I also added the Melanie’s confrontation with her brother after his cross on Cath. Initially I just wanted to get on with the jury’s reaction to the entire videotape, but since Jack had already busted Melanie for something, I figured that she should be able to bust him for something too. And I realized that his questions to Cath needed some explanation, especially since they didn’t directly impact the prosecution’s case. I must thank my wonderful beta Tricia for that insight.

As far as why I wrote this story, I didn’t have any specific goals in mind, other than tying up the loose ends of “Maysonry” in this offering. I can’t help allowing my personal “lenses” to color what I write and how I have my characters behave, but that’s no different from any other writer or reader. We all bring our own cultural and personal baggage along with us no matter what we do.

I did struggle with Superman’s verdict. I thought about having the judge set aside a guilty verdict on the basis of the statute, but after thinking about it I didn’t like it. That ending would have cheapened the whole legal process and would have introduced even more complications with the B-plot relationship. And I didn’t want a tertiary character to have that strong an impact on the story.

I also struggled with justifying Superman’s actions legally. I would not have been comfortable with having a jury nullification verdict of not guilty. I, myself, needed to have some legal basis for not convicting Superman. The New York statute on second degree murder gave it to me. The allowed affirmative defense is written into the law and is available to any defendant.

The biggest change I made during the process was the addition of the epilogue. Several readers expressed the hope that Cath’s baby would survive and that she would also be okay, and some also mentioned that they’d like more information about Lois and Clark after their marriage. I hope the epilogue answers most of those questions sufficiently. If not, anyone is free to add on to this story, either in the reader’s own mind or by posting additional scenes.

Alcyone also wrote:

Hmm. Perhaps I didn’t do as good a job on the ending as I thought I did. My intent was to allow Superman to believe he wasn’t guilty of second degree murder, not to make him forget that he’d killed someone. To that end, the epilogue has a small bit in it which, I hope, will relieve your anxiety on the issue.

Ann wrote:

I won’t quote, because it would make this post even longer than it already is. But let me respond to a few of your statements.

In reading your comments in this folder, I don’t view them as provocative or hostile. But I do think that the sharp clashes we’ve had in this folder have scared off some who might otherwise have posted feedback. I might be wrong, but judging by the personal comments I’ve received about this story, I don’t think so. Perhaps we can both agree to disagree more politely next time.

I do not consider you to be a hardened cynic, Ann. Such a person would not feel so deeply about either a childhood idol or an adult hero figure. I refuse to think of you as defeated. Instead, I consider you to be a wounded warrior, still fighting wholeheartedly for what you believe in. A cynic wouldn’t take the time or make the effort to do any of what you’ve done to stand up for what you believe in. And I thank you for explaining your point of view in such a thoughtful and well-constructed manner. I still think you write some of the best feedback on these boards, even if I don’t always agree with you.

As you correctly pointed out, none of us owns Superman. Yet while we write our stories, those characters created by others become ‘ours’ in a very real sense, as you also correctly pointed out. I’m sorry that my vision of Superman collided with yours in such a violent fashion. I assure you, that wasn’t my intent. But I felt I needed to finish what I’d started with “Masonry.” I left too many issues unresolved at the end of the previous story.

Bill Church’s death was violent, yes, but there was a dramatic reason for it. I had Superman tear Church’s heart out because Church had just torn Clark’s heart out by killing Mayson. Even if Mayson wasn’t Clark’s ideal partner, and even if he wasn’t in love with her as deeply as he is with Lois by the final chapter, Mayson was still an important part of his life. Her death left him with a number of unresolved issues, besides offending his sense of justice and reverence for law and order by murdering a young woman on the side of the angels right under his nose. With the knowledge of Clark’s dual identity, it makes sense to me that he would destroy the person who had just destroyed his world. It doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t justify it, but it does explain it. I never wanted to leave the impression that I thought Superman was right to kill Bill Church, only that it was legally understandable.

You said you were surprised that Superman wasn’t more crushed by what he’d done to Bill Church. I’m sorry that didn’t come across very well. I thought that Clark’s withdrawal from the world (quitting the Planet, hiding out in Kansas, refusing to be Superman in situations where he wasn’t absolutely needed (especially within the US borders), writing non-threatening and non-violent impersonal travel stories or romance novels where everything comes out fine in the end, cutting off all personal contact with Lois) would have ‘shown’ that. Guess I was wrong, especially since a number of readers commented on that same issue. It was one of those instances where I tried to ‘show’ Clark’s heart without ‘telling’ you his heart, and it didn’t work as well as I hoped it would. But aside from having him commit suicide over his guilt, I’m not sure what else I could have done.

You stated that you were ‘horrified’ by the legal system’s failure to find Superman guilty of something. I submit that this is another instance of personal preference, cultural baggage, and emotional reaction prevailing over cold, harsh reality. Personally, I find it offensive for a non-American to criticize our legal system. For example, the sight of illegal immigrants marching for their ‘rights’ offends me deeply and fundamentally. I do not believe that they should be afforded ‘rights’ for which they don’t qualify. I don’t believe that they have any legal standing to tell the US what to do with them when they aren’t in compliance with the laws of the land they claim they want to live in. Yet there are other well-spoken, thoughtful people on the other side of that argument, too. I think they’re wrong, but I respect their right to hold their opinions.

Legal systems aren’t consistent the world over. For example, a Swedish case you referenced earlier in your feedback comes to mind, the one about the two burglars who broke into a house where one of them killed the homeowner. You said that since the court couldn’t prove which one had actually done the evil deed, neither was convicted of the killing. But in most states in the US, both of them would have been convicted (probably of at least second-degree murder), because the murder statutes include situations such as this. If you commit a felony where someone dies during the commission of that felony, you are just as guilty as your confederate who actually wielded the weapon of death, even if you had nothing to do with the act which brought about the death. This simply means that US law and Swedish law aren’t the same, not that one is superior to the other.

The American legal system isn’t perfect by anyone’s definition of the word. Sometimes the guilty go free and go on to commit more evil. Far more rarely, the innocent are wrongly convicted and sent to prison, but this is nearly always the fault of another person instead of a flaw in the system. A case in point: The state of Oklahoma has a number of legal cases pending in the system concerning police chemist Joyce Gilchrist’s nineteen-year career in which she gave a number of false positive matches on fingerprints, DNA, bodily fluids, hair samples, and other pieces of evidence, many of which resulted in convictions. Some of those falsely convicted defendants were guilty of other crimes, but a few were innocent of any crime and therefore in prison for no valid reason. Ms. Gilchrist was fired a few years ago and legal action is currently pending against her for presenting false evidence in criminal trials. But still, many lives were ruined and many of the real guilty people escaped direct punishment because of the deliberate acts of one person. This kind of thing can only be from real life, and it will take decades to sort it all out, if it ever does get completely sorted out.

You also said that you were ‘horrified’ (that’s a really strong word) by the celebration of Superman’s acquittal. At the end of any emotionally charged event, people react, and Superman’s trial was an emotionally charged event. The basic mood of the people of Metropolis was that 1) Bill Church was a murderer many times over 2) they weren’t going to shed any tears over his death 3) Superman is viewed as a hero 4) Metropolis needs its heroes. In real life, there would be those who would agree with your viewpoint quite forcefully, Ann, and they would surely express sentiments similar if not identical to yours. But they would be in the minority, at least in my vision of Superman’s world.

As for Clark’s love for Lois not being extremely special (I translate that as meaning ‘unique’), I can only offer the defense that he’d been badly wounded by the woman he really loved and was reacting to that hurt. Again, this is one of the flaws in “Masonry” that I wasn’t sure how to address properly, and I see now that I didn’t do as complete a job as I might have. My view is that Clark’s relationship with Mayson was a ‘rebound’ kind of love, spurred on by Mayson’s pursuit of him and Lois’s perceived rejection. Yes, he was a doofus in that regard, but us guys are doofuses sometimes. Although I must mention, in Clark’s defense, that one reader wrote to me and insisted that Clark consider Lois persona non grata for the rest of his life because of what she’d said to him in the opening scene of “Masonry.”

(I remember a Lois Lane comic from (I think) the very early 70’s where she got fed up with Clark’s idiocy and Superman’s avoidance and left Metropolis and got involved with some other guy. The cover page showed her ripping “Superman’s Girlfriend” from the title of the comic and throwing it on the ground while Superman looked on in shock. She didn’t marry this other guy, of course, but I don’t remember why. But she was willing, at least for one issue, to give up both Clark and Superman if she could have a loving relationship with a good man. My point is that people aren’t ideal and none of us behave in an ideal manner all the time. I know I don’t. And we all have “I’m not going to take it any more” points in us, even fictional characters.)

So Clark’s relationship with Mayson was a kind of ‘settling for second best,’ since he thought he couldn’t have Lois, his first best. Of course, since I never showed Clark mulling about that, it’s not the readers’ fault for not seeing it. That was one of the flaws in “Masonry” to which I alluded at the very beginning of “Rebuilding Superman,” and one that I probably didn’t address as well as I might have.

Thank you all for your comments. If you felt strongly enough about the story to tell me what you liked and what you didn’t like, then I consider that a successful effort. I hope that my next effort will be received in a similar manner.