I'm a huge believer in the theory that you can make a character do anything - so long as you ensure that you give them the proper motivation to explain their actions.
Yeah, but there's proper and then there's proper.
Put it this way, I've been in this fandom almost since the beginning of the series and it always amazes me when this topic comes up in the first place. I mean I understand the desire to play with the "what ifs" when dealing with any fan fiction universe, and they're admittedly infinite in most cases, but this series IS called LOIS & CLARK so there's a limit to just how far I can personally stretch that understanding without balking big time. To put it bluntly, I don't want to read a story about one of them with someone else and claiming there are "proper" motivations for it happening only raises my "angst-radar" to red alert status in the first place. Most likely I'll never be able to get past those horns blaring in my ear.
And that's not even getting into the question of whether one can truly be in character without the other or whether its good fan fiction writing in the first place to veer that far from the context of any series. Realistically speaking when DOES a story cross that invisible line to no longer being IN a particular series universe? I don't know, but I do suspect that it might be easy to cross that line without even realizing it in relation to a series like L&C if one isn't careful because there are unique expectations set up when there is an "&" put into any series title. Think MacMillan & Wife, Starsky & Hutch, Scarecrow & Mrs. King, and the list goes on and on. They don't have to be romantically linked but they do both have to BE there or there's a major problem looming on the horizon.
The even more unique problem with L&C is that the minute one has BOTH of them present in a story it's going to be extremely difficult justifying why they AREN'T romantically involved with each other, which leaves angst and I don't do angst well at all. So, we're back to those horns blaring.
