Thanks, Tank. I wasn't whacking you for your vote, really. I'm glad you're reading.
My disconnect is that you objected to the premise (quite calmly and rationally, I must add) on the basis that "(your) Superman doesn't kill." That's why I responded as I did. You and Ray both took the position that the story was invalid because Superman will never kill, and you both phrased it the same way: "my Superman doesn't kill."
If the sum total of Superman mythos had been that Superman could not, would not, ever take a life, then this story (and its predecessor) would be totally out of character, and I'd be as wrong as a man with his feet hanging from his earlobes.
But, as Dandello mentioned, that's not the case. You couched your 'guilty' vote on the basis that 'your' Superman doesn't kill...period...and not on the basis of the law, which is what each of us should be judged by in any court of law. Whether it was your intention or not, you projected your own preconceptions onto my story and found that part of it wanting. That's the only part to which I object; not that you dislike a portion of the story, but that you judged it according to your standards, not the ones set up within the framework of this narrative.
Thank you for your comments about my writing. They make me smile for minutes on end, especially given your own achievements and talents. And I agree that Clark has been the idiot in this B-plot. I plead guilty, but offer the affirmative defense that his latest actions are logical continuations of his actions in the first story, and that I wanted to have one more stealth bomb to throw into the mix. I ask that the jury (you, the readers) withold a verdict until all the evidence (the last chapter) has been presented. Thank you.
And I also agree with Tank that a lack of emotional response from the readers is probably the worst response any writer can get. After all, we sure don't do this for the money.
