Clark and Lois came up with an interesting story to cover his return, but I'm not totally comfortable with it for two reasons.
First, the "lie" which Clark has to tell gets more complicated, as he found out, when he has to cover for the month's absence. But I can live with that since Clark has been lying all the time to cover up his secret.
Second, and this isn't about Clark, but about Perry.
“I’m sure he is,” Perry said. “But you’re right. No matter how we spin it and what we write, there will be some reaction to him saving you and the looming possibility of others expecting the same thing to happen if they or their loved ones get shot. No… we’ll go with the other story,” he said, resolutely.
I find it hard to believe that an editor-in-chief as honest and honorable as Perry would knowingly print a lie even if it meant covering up for Superman. Perry's the one who's after "facts, hard facts" when he prints a story, and everything must be corroborated. In this case, he's printing fiction that even Clark doesn't corroborate.
I think there must be a way to print the story without making Superman's job more difficult than it already is, and without Perry acting in an unethical and uncharacteristic way.
Something to think about.
Otherwise, the story has kept my attention and interest.
gerry
