Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Lois & Clark Fanfic FDK ==> Whisper From The Dying - Pt 7

You're officially heading towards horror fic with L&C, congrats!

*thunk* Well, now *there's* a revelation.. what shall our dynamic duo do?

Ah, so many people think that Clark is dead. Can't they see that Lois will be soooo happy to have Clark back, that she'll collapse, sobbing on his chest, and forgive him anything and everything?

Yeah. I wouldn't believe it, either. *snicker*

Can't wait to read the rest of this.

*sings*
He is dead, so dead, so dead, so very very dead...
*end singing*

Well, but knowing this writing duo, Lois might just take it back and say, that 'Kal' in this shirt looked for a moment like Clark... And then we continue with Clark digging a hole for himself that's REAL deep.

On the other hand, this just might be 'the' revelation. And then, well, he's dead. More dead than he already is.

Sira - I want more! Please!!!!!

PS: It just cracks me up to read comments like: Well, that happened in the first part, I believe... After all, that's what all this is about! LOL :p
Sorry, I couldn't resist...

Yep, he is so dead. But I bet he keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper. Ah, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. And Clark is deceiving himself as well as Lois.

Artemis

Lois give up all that good lovin'? I dont think so.
Both individuals are emotionally dense obviously, but neither wants intentional harm to the other.Deception may have been the result, but not Clark's intention. And intent has to stand for some thing.
What we have here is a lesson in gross time mismanagement: sooner or later your mistakes come back to bite you on the butt.Damn that shirt.

There seems to be a trend among you, beloved readers...



Kathy, thanks for sticking with us even though you don't agree with Clark's behaviour. We have to reassure you and everybody else: neither do we. We both believe that Clark's actions are flawed and that he should indeed have told her. We also believe he made a big mistake by starting a relationship with her as Superman. But we think that from his point of view, there was nothing left for him to do as Clark. Clark Kent was well and truly dead, and his only chance at a relationship with Lois was as Superman. Yes, he was deceiving her, but was he truly aware of that? He was only Superman. Clark Kent didn't exist any more. Anyway, his reasoning is of course flawed - but we definitely believe he could have gone through that.

So... you all seemed to enjoy where we left it off. Let's see if you enjoy the next section then.

Wendy and Kaethel

Believeability in the course of character actions is VERY important to me. I won't read stories where I don't feel that the behaviors make sense.

This being said, the behaviors up til now have made plenty of sense to me.

Do I think he was SMART? No. But he's reeling from pain - the pain of losing himself, of losing her (because he did - he lost the life with her he wanted...), and he's blinded by that, staggering through this crushing grief - as is she, for different reasons...

I believe everything up to this point could happen for these characters. But I also think - this is WAYYYY harder to get out of then the normal revelation where yes, she's mad, and blah blah blah, but honestly - he's an alien on a planet that doesn't exactly welcome "strange" and he had every reason to keep his identity secret. Is it his fault that he also happened to work with the woman who had such a huge crush on him? Is it his fault he fell in love with her?

So what I'm saying is - I like this and please more!

Leela, what you're pointing out here is exactly what we were going for with this story. It's a huge compliment to us that it comes across to you the way we intended it to. Thanks!!

W & Kae

Absolutely! Leela, thank you very much indeed! You've seen exactly what we intend, and you're interpreting Clark just as we do here.

Anyway, I see Kae's posted part 8, so read on to see if Clark really does get torn into little strips of dead Kryptonian...


Wendy

Now with all due respect, I completely disagree.

No one has been able to explain WHY this is believable.

Yes, there is pain. This isn't a normal resolution.

Yes, there may even be trauma. This isn't a normal transfiguration.

Combine them and you still don't end up with this scenario because it's one word - SUPERFICIAL.

--

The more pain, the more trauma you add on top of it, the more it becomes hog-wash, really.

Not just in my opinion, because I have experienced severe pain in my life. I went through emotional agony where I almost died, and I thought I might even take my life. The support of my family has made me able to overcome that.

I was never in danger of taking my own life, but anyhow, as a result I went to a psychologist, several therapists. And yes, I still suffer from occasional trauma. What you two are describing here is not trauma.

In fact, people suffering from trauma have a hyperactive imagination and tend to relive the same events over and over again. Using trauma as an excuse for these two is almost insulting.

What I'm trying to say here is that I, perhaps in a less desirable fashion, understand pain on a much more directly applicative basis.

The only way Lois and Clark would behave in such a manner is if the only trauma caused to them was being hit over the head repeatedly with a baseball bat, after the said event.

That's pretty much the only scenario I can imagine where they would unfold in this fashion. I don't believe I'm being short sighted here, but I can thoroughly absorb their character without changing it. Because I don't apply myself. Period.

Lois and Clark is largely therapeutic for me. (I'm no longer the writer I used to be - I'm still recovering.)

Superficial is the word here.

--
Have you two ladies even researched what the effects of trauma are, beyond cases where the individual is clinically defined as unstable?

Again, this isn't a discussion on the fiction itself but on an issue that arises from the fiction. A mis-comprehension of human emotions.

I also know a lot more about psychology than your average person, so really, this kind of thing just doesn't fly, to me.
--
But I've probably said enough already. I don't want to sound mean, because I'm not. It's just a side issue that we end up treating problems so superficially only to convey our version of events. It just doesn't work that way.

We end up with emotional voids for these characters. Really, I gotta ask, where is the love. Because it's a contrast between fictional love and real love, that these (fictional) characters do (really) convey. I do believe this is just taking advantage of that and will in the long term just dry up the well of fiction-dom.

Then again, this is yet another TOGOM remake. What do I know.

Dundan, without trying to dismiss your experience and knowledge, I'd have to add that all individuals are different and react to events in different ways.

We know that you don't buy the events in this story as we're telling them. That's fine. You're entitled not to like the story or accept the characterisation. Equally, we're entitled, having read your posts and responded to them, to carry on writing the story as we wish if we don't agree with you. That's not saying that we don't respect your point of view; of course we respect it. But do you respect ours? :rolleyes:


Wendy

Yes, they quite do. I completely agree with that statement. Yada, yada, yada, we disagree on how the characters would react.

Again, that's fine. (Although that's a very ambiguous and generalised statement.)

I believe I have stated, my problem with this story isn't with the story, but with the superficial manner in dealing with its criteria.

Believe it or not, this is exactly the kind of story that touches on issues that go beyond any sort of genre that it relies on. Stories that deal with issues about drugs, etc. This IS one of them, although the subject is much more obscure.

This is sort of like attacking the mentally ill for one, and saying the events are fiction.

Who cares about the events? You're talking about things like MJ Thompson titled as, "Second Stages of Grief". Although I must admit I haven't read her story, this labels a clinical condition that doesn't exist as "normal". It isn't.

I wasn't necessarily referring to the events anymore, but to the causes that are so treated underneath.

Where's the respect in that?
--
Anyhow, if I have infringed any forum rule of etiquette I apologize for that, but it seemed to me like my point wasn't really clear.

I also believe that's not your point of view, with your focus being mainly on the story. I was merely suggesting that you pay more attention not on the action of the characters but on the subject matter being used.

This story is great, I like it lots, enough to stay late at work to catch up. Keep going ladies; there are those of us out here that are reading just for the enjoyment of reading without analyzing the hell out of it all.

TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEJ