I'm not at all sure you want to hear more from me now, Anonpip, but I'd like to explain what you need to do to make me think of your Clark as a lovable lunkhead instead of pond scum.
You need to show me that your Clark loves Lois.
Oh, you don't need to show me that your Clark wants Lois to forgive him. That's clear enough. And you don't need to show me that he feels bad about the current situation, or that he has always been scared of being outed and dissected like a frog, or that he was wounded and scarred by his past rejections at the hands of his former girlfriends, or that he was tragically fooled by Lana. I believe all of that, too.
No, the problem is that I don't believe that your Clark loves Lois. Yes, I can accept - just barely - that he would not contact Lois for ten years, because he had managed to convince himself that it would be best for her if he didn't. I can see him telling himself that since Clark Kent is officially dead, then Clark and Lois can never officially be together. And, Clark might be telling himself, since Clark and Lois can't be together, it is probably better to let Lois grieve in peace and then get over Clark after a while and go on with her life.
That's a lunkhead's argument, but when Clark is being a lunkhead, he is still lovable. Because lunkheaded Clark loves Lois. I can be unbelievably irritated with him for his lunkheadedness, but I can't dismiss him or despise him for it. Lunkheaded Clark is a man who loves Lois and makes mistakes when he wants to show her his love. Lunkheaded Clark is never short on love for Lois.
But in my opinion, your Clark isn't like that. There is a very severe flaw in his line of reasoning, according to which it would be better for Lois if Clark didn't come and see her. I don't necessarily blame Clark for believing that it might be better not to contact Lois. But here's the rub. If he loved her, why didn't he regularly check on her, without actually contacting her, to see how she was doing?
If Lois's life was going to hell for ten years and Clark did nothing to try to help her, there can be only two explanations. One, he did check on her to see how she was doing, but it didn't bother him that she was going to pieces with grief over him. Or two, he didn't check on her, not once, for ten years. Is that it? He completely ignored her for ten years?
Is it possible to completely ignore a person you love for ten years?
Let me explain what I think of as the reason for Clark's behaviour. I think that Clark actually drew strength from Lois's grief. I think it comforted him that she was mourning for him, because that proved to him that she loved him enough to miss him all the time.
I think that in some respects, Clark was like a deadbeat Dad. (Or like a deadbeat Mom, since I told you about such a Mom in my comment on the previous part of your story.)
A deadbeat Dad is a person who draws strength from the sheer knowledge that he has kids. Having kids means that his own flesh and blood will live on after him. But at the same time, a deadbeat Dad will do nothing to nurture and take care of his kids. He dumps the care of his kids on someone else, getting satisfaction from the knowledge of his kids' existence, and giving his kids nothing in return.
Clark was like a deadbeat Dad who had "planted the seed of love" in Lois's heart. That seed of love kept growing in her heart. But when Clark abandoned her, Lois didn't get the care and nurturing that she needed to do well as the seed of love grew within her. Instead her love drained her, drawing her life force from her like a parasite. But like a deadbeat Dad, Clark could bask in the knowledge that Lois's love was there for him all the time. It was a completely one-way kind of love, with Lois giving and Clark receiving love all the time. And given this satisfactory arrangement - satisfactory for Clark - why should he try to change it?
But when Lois found out that Clark was alive and had been ignoring her for ten years, her love for him died. That way her love stopped draining her, and she started doing better and could look ahead in her life. So now Lois was doing much better, but Clark was doing much worse. For him the loss of Lois's love was a catastrophe. He could no longer bask in her love, drawing strength from her like he drew strength from the sun.
So now he wants her back? Because he wants her love back? For ten years he got that love for nothing, like an endless free lunch. Now he is willing to plead, cajole, grovel and look at her with puppy dog eyes to get his lunch back?
As you can see, I think of your Clark as an utterly selfish person. No, correction: I must admit that a person who is willing to dress up in colorful spandex and fly around the world to help people isn't utterly selfish, no matter how you look at it. But yes: I do think he has been utterly selfish in his relationship with Lois.
Let me add that I don't think you have portrayed Clark inappropriately or wrongly. The reason why I so easily get angry at Clark is precisely because I can remember so many stories from the sixties, seventies and eighties where I really thought that Clark was very cruel to Lois. Sadly enough, I have no problem believing that Clark can be heartless and egoistical in his dealings with Lois. So it's not wrong to portray Clark like that, but I certainly don't like him that way.
But is there a way to make me like your Clark better? Maybe there is. Convince me that he loved Lois during those ten years when he didn't contact her even though she was going to pieces with grief over Clark's death! Find a good reason for him not to have tried to find out how she was doing, not even once, for ten years!
Ann
P.S. I realize I made this sound like a challenge. But you have no reason to write your story simply to please me. So think of it, perhaps, as a question: How do you know that your Clark loves Lois?
