Last week, there was an article in the Observer about how some American reservists on their first mission in Iraq back in 2003 opened fire on British soldiers, believing them to be the enemy. The incident in itself, while certainly horrible for the British soldiers and their families, was not very surprising. After all, these things happen at war. I read somewhere, probably in New York Times, that soldiers are trained to "kill people and destroy property". No wonder they kill the wrong people sometimes. Read about this particular incident here:
American friendly fire kills British soldier What's interesting about this case is not so much what the American soldiers did, but how the highest American and British military leaders reacted to the incident. According to the Observer,
The senior officer was subsequently promoted to colonel, awarded the bronze star and now trains other American pilots in ground-attack.
The Pentagon obstructed the inquest into the death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull.
The Ministry of Defence appeared unwilling to stand up to its American counterparts and dissembled about whether video footage of the attack existed.
The judgemental tone of this article can't be seen as perfectly objective, but some facts seem clear enough. American soldiers opened fire on British soldiers and killed one of them. The Americans soldiers in question were not tried for this very grave mistake at any kind of court. The senior officer was promoted.
To me, the interesting question is why no American soldier was tried for this very grave mistake. The answer that I myself find the most likely is that America, the world's hands down greatest superpower, will not easily take its own soldiers or heroes to task for making mistakes, even deadly ones, in the good fight against enemies. (However, just a few days ago I saw a news item about an American soldier who was sentenced to eight years in prison for killing an innocent Iraqi man. While eight years in prison is not a very severe punishment for killing an innocent person, the jail sentence certainly shows that America doesn't routinely let American soldiers get away with everything.)
However, if I am right about my assumption that America tends to acquit its heroes of criminal charges, would it have made sense if Superman, this icon of truth, justice and the American way, had been found guilty of second degree murder and sent to jail for killing arch-criminal Bill Church?
No. That would not have made sense at all. In fact, if the jury in this story had found Superman guilty of second degree murder, I would have said that your story painted a most improbable scenario, Terry. For me to find your story believable, Superman
had to be found not guilty.
That doesn't mean I like Superman's acquittal. I felt a particularly sour taste in my mouth at this:
He smiled back. “I do want justice. But you’ve convinced me that I’m not guilty of murdering Bill Church.”
To me, this line reeks of self-satisfaction. It seems to me that Superman no longer blames himself at all. He appears to be completely happy with what he has done, in no way needing to do any soul-searching, to accept that he has done a very bad thing and needs to learn from his mistake and forgive himself, make himself new promises and make a new, fresh start in his life. It's like that senior American officer who was ultimately responsible for that deadly attack on British soldiers. Rather than being punished or taken to task for what he had done, he was promoted and given a bronze star. As if he had nothing to feel sorry about, nothing to make amends for.
It was, therefore, impossible for me to share in the festive celebration of Superman's acquittal. How interesting. This story is full of likable, sympathetic characters, people I very much like and approve of, at least most of the time. I guess that two of the people I like the least in this story are Connie and Blair, because they so completely accepted the idea that Superman did nothing wrong when he killed Bill Church. But for the most part I like everyone here... everyone, that is, except Superman. Clark Kent. The person who is at the very center of the story. I don't like him here. I don't like him for killing Bill Church, I don't like him for taking his anger and guilt out on Lois, I don't like him for being so smugly convinced in the end that he didn't do anything wrong when he killed Bill Church - and I don't think he deserves being with Lois.
I liked Lois's anger at Clark in the last part of this story. But, depressingly enough, I wasn't happy when Lois relented and apparently wanted Clark back. I guess that ultimately,
I wouldn't have wanted this Clark back myself. And because I wouldn't have wanted him, I can't identfy with Lois when she wants him.
Ultimately, I didn't believe Clark when he said this to Lois:
He stepped up beside her but didn’t touch her. “Despite what you might think – and I know I’ve given you plenty of reason to think otherwise – I still love you. I also know I’ve made some really stupid mistakes and I’ve hurt you deeply. I’m so very sorry. I’m asking you to give me another chance.” She didn’t face him, didn’t say anything. “Please.”
He loves her? Words are cheap, Clark. Deeds speak so much louder than words. I know which of the two of you has shown love for the other one in this story.
Well! That was an incredibly negative review, wasn't it? I don't mean it to sound like that. Your story has been very, very well written, as always, Terry. The portraits you've painted of many of the characters here, particularly of Lois and Cath, have been terrific. But I love your portraits of Jonathan and Martha, too, and there have been so many other likable and memorable characters here - Jack Reisman, Judge Fields, even Mr D'Angelo - it's been such a pleasure to meet them all. And your story has been full of delightful humour and often warmth, as in this little incident in the beginning of this part:
“I need a shower. I just realized how sweaty I am.” Lois wiped perspiration from the back of her neck. “Wow. I’d forgotten just what hard work dreaming can be.” She sniffed her hand. “Eww. I stink.”
Martha stood up in mock horror and backpedaled to the bedroom door. “In that case, dear, please bathe thoroughly before you come to the table!”
The pillow slapped into the wall millimeters from Martha’s nose. Lois’s laughter finished the job of chasing Martha down the hallway to the dining area.
So delightful.
It's just that I'm left with the feeling that in this story, there has been no justice. And worse, in this story people are happy that there has been no justice. To me, this is a story about a society celebrating itself for retroactively granting Superman the right to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Ann
