Okay, blatant hi-jacking here.
But I wanted to respond to Terry's comment.
I still believe that Mayson was partly motivated by her dislike of Superman, but as I said before, that's consistent with the series.
Terry, absolutely, that was her motivation. For her, "The Law" was what was most important; Superman didn't follow procedure and as such he undermined the law.
I'm not sure the "intervening act" argument would have held up in court and against a good defense counsel, It would have been interesting to read your take on Clark's trial.
Define "good".
Then there's the whole matter of jury selection etc. (have just watched the first episode of "Justice" and am now recalling "Runaway Jury" and well....
Clark's trial: in a way i sort of attempted to do that within the story - Clark's introspection, Perry's defense of Superman, Lois's probing, the phone-in radio show, all the media coverage, etc. But, of course, that's not a real trial. (or is it?
)
Mayson wanted to charge Superman with criminal negligence, not with murder. (the 'intervening act' argument here) So why didn't I write the actual trial? Avoidance behaviour - too lazy to research all the details about American court procedure, etc.
Also, I'm not sure I had a "take" - it was the issue I wanted to explore, look at it from all sides.
That Superman does not kill has always been part of the Superman mythos (and a controversial one here, I know
). When I first watched the episode, I was horrified both at Corbin's death and by the look on Superman's face -the whole thing seemed, to me, to contradict what Superman was (or believed he was).
Thank-you for taking an interest in my story, Terry
c.
