Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Lois & Clark Fanfic FDK:Rebuilding Superman-Part 18

Hi,

Great part!





More ASAP, please.

MAF

If it weren't for the emotional disturbance, I might vote guilty. But because as Clark, he saw the woman he loved get blown up before his eyes, and as Superman, heard of numerous deaths ordered so callously by Church, I believe he had the emotional trauma that makes it less than second degree murder.

A very emotional installment.

I wholeheartedly agree that Clark has been treating Lois very shabbily and deserves any upbraiding he gets from his folks or Lois. Jonathan was right on. They are his parents and will always love him unconditionally, but Lois can't be expected to take hit upon hit and keep coming back. Clark has to decide if her 'really' does love her or not. If he can walk away, then it isn't really love.

On the other hand, I'm going to probably go against the general feeling of the fic and say that Superman is guilty. My Superman doesn't kill... period. I've always liked that in the past, it's been presented that Superman knows that because of his special gifts that he had to be held to a much higher standard than others. He has the power 'find another way' and he should never, under any circumstances, stoop to 'their' level when dealing with the bad guys. Superman doesn't have a badge, or any official standing which would allow him to use lethal force to stop a foe. Nor was he ever in any mortal danger which would justify self-defense.

One could say that Superman acted to 'save' the lives of others, but that was no longer a factor. Once he'd broken in on Bill Church, his capture of the man would have just as effectively stopped any further killing as had his murder of the man.

Since the story has not left the actual deed in doubt, only the motivation, I can only say that Superman is guilty of murder. Now I haven't checked into the reading of the actual statute for second-degree murder, and I'm sure the wording there is what you are counting on to provide the escape for the Man of Steel. I still believe in the absolute concept. Superman committed a murder.

Tank (who says that doesn't mean that he doesn't think that extenuating circumstances shouldn't allow Superman to get off with a greatly reduced or altered sentence)

Tank. I won't argue with your idea of Superman's guilt, but as to whether or not killing Church would be more effective than taking him to prison, I believe Superman's actions were the most effective. Taking someone to jail can do some, but usually they can still post bail, or if not, they have lawyers who can get them off easy, plus they can still run their organization through communication with henchmen. By killing Church, Superman did send the message that their plans were over. Their leader is dead, and anybody who might take over is in jail. Therefore they would have immense trouble figuring out who would next lead the organization, if they tried at all.

Thank you, Tank, for expressing my own feelings so perfectly.

I, too, haven't checked out what the legal description of second degree murder in New York really is. Let me put it like this. If somebody kills another person, and the prosecutor asks that the defendant should be found guilty of a crime that doesn't fit the description of the killer's deed, and the defendant therefore has to be found not guilty, then that still means that there has been no justice. The way I see it, if you have killed, unless in very specific situations in the line of duty or in very clear-cut cases of self-defence, then you have killed, and you should be found guilty.

On the other hand, like Carol pointed out in a previous FDK thread, in a way it doesn't matter to me if the court finds Superman guilty or not. What matters to me is that to me he is guilty of murder, whether it is first, second or third degree murder, or even manslaughter. I can easily see that there are mitigating circumstances, and personally I wouldn't sentence him to jail. But I have said that so many times already, so repeating it won't do much good.

I very, very much liked Jonathan's talk with Clark. It's interesting that Clark may listen to Jonathan in a way that he'll never listen to Lois, or even to Martha. There is something about male authorities which make people listen to them in a way they'll never listen to females.

How interesting, by the way. How do we know what is right or wrong? I'm convinced that most of our beliefs and most of our conscience is really our anticipation of what other people would say about our actions, if they knew about them. What is right or wrong, then, becomes simply a question of what others think. Particularly, it becomes a question of what the most important authorities in our lives think.

I saw a TV documentary about a Mormon man in Utah, one of those Mormons who insist that a man has the right to have many wives. (Yes, I know very well that the official Mormon church forbids polygamy, and the overwhelming majority of Mormons consider polygamy to be wrong.) Anyway, this man had six wives and twenty-nine children. In the beginning of the documentary, one of the twenty-nine children was interviewed, an unbelievably charming circa eleven-year-old boy. When asked what he wanted to be when he grew up, the boy replied, with sparkling eyes, that he wanted to have many wives, just like Daddy. My point? We learn our values from those who are most important to us, particularly from imposing male authorities. Well, the world ought to be a better place if Jonathan Kent was the authority that most people listened to.

Right now, I'm not too interested in whether Superman will be found guilty or not guilty. Just as in the O.J. Simpson case, the legal verdict seems so much less important than what the defendant actually did (although of course O.J. was acquitted of the actual taking of human lives). What interests me now is to see how Clark will find his way back to Lois. If indeed he does.

Ann

I think what made Clark listen was because of three things. One, as Ann pointed out, he is Clark's dad, and the male authority. Two, he is male, and therefore relates to Clark's side more than Lois'. But three, because Jonathan agreed with Lois' threat to print it, even though he was the strongest advocate of protecting the secret, arguing against telling Lois at the beginning (not of this story, of the series.) Clark would expect his mom to agree with Lois, being a female and not being so vocal about protecting the secret. But his dad is the one he'd least expect to say those things, and to criticize him so openly. Martha voices her disapproval with some of Clark's decisions quite often, but Jonathan is usually more laid back in relationship matters, so it probably took him more by surprise.

It doesn't sit well with me to give Superman the human range when it comes to positive emotion and some godly self control when it comes to negative emotions. It's too easy and convinient to endow Superman with *just the right amount* of humanity. The only way it makes sense to me is if I think about Superman leading life being extremely guarded about _everything_. So, if Superman can't kill because of his supernatural restraint, I don't think he can love without that supernatural restraint. It simply doesn't ring real for him to be so controlled without being limited in his person. That would be way worse than moral bankcruptcy. It's boring. But I'm being repetitive yet again

Speculations and generalities aside and more related to Ch 18-- I'm calling it a not guilty due to the emotional disturbance thing. Is he morally guilty? Damn right. No one can question that and he will live with that burden. Is he guilty in the eyes of the law? No, there was no intention--Superman said that in his testimony. So unless he's lying and knowing him and his desire for justice, that's not in line, he's not guilty under the LAW which is what the trial is about to my understanding.

alcyone

As Terry knows, I agree with Tank. My Superman doesn't kill, EVER! It was not his place to be judge, jury and executioner. He had Bill Church in the same condition as he did the other Intergang executives but in this one case he treated him very differently.

Ms. Hunter tried to make us believe that Superman didn't over react because he didn't harm any of the other bad guys but I see that act as proof of guilt rather than extentuating circumstances.

While I feel he should be found guilty I also feel his good deeds could modify his punishment. However, as Clark himself said, a guilty Superman can't be trusted. He killed Bill Church because Superman didn't trust the criminal justice system to punish Church so he did it himself, and that's just wrong.

Ray

As Freud might say (between puffs on his cigar), "Zis iz a most innntersssting dizcussion."

Woody and Alcyone have voted not guilty. Tank, Ann, and Ray all vote guilty, but both Tank and Ann have confessed that they haven't read the statute and therefore don't know what Superman is really charged with. Ann's argument that Superman should be guilty of something is one she has made most eloquently a number of times, and one which I have also wrestled with. Tank and Ray have both stated that "my Superman doesn't kill," and I must assume that their meaning is that the Superman they envision is required to refrain from taking any human life irrespective of the provocation. (By the by, Ray, I’m glad you’re reading, even after you told us you wouldn’t.)

The problem with their possessive statements is that this is not "their" Superman. He isn't mine, either. We don’t own him. I'm sure we're all aware of the standard disclaimer that says, among other things, that "the characters in this work are not my property," a disclaimer which adorns most, if not all, the works on the archive site. This disclaimer points towards Clark Kent, Superman, Lois Lane, and the other major characters in our stories, save those whom we ourselves invent (Blair Collins, for example).

You, like myself, must recognize that these are not "our" characters. I can envision Superman taking a life with sufficient provocation. Others cannot. On the one hand, Alcyone pointed out that supernatural control of one's negative emotions can't be compartmentalized and must spill over onto one's positive emotions. On the other, the point that an uncontrolled super-being is many times more dangerous than a normal uncontrolled human is also quite valid. Superman is, and has always been, a delicate balancing act, one which has grown more difficult as the years have brought a more complex socio-political background against which he must be presented.

If we want Clark to be passionate about Lois, we have to allow him to be passionate about law and order. I don't want to write about a super-vigilante, but I also don't want to write about a Superman who's emotionally hamstrung and unable to fully express himself. I don't want Superman to kill lawbreakers willy-nilly, but I also don't want those lawbreakers to get away with their evil deeds.

It's a quandary for me, and it's a puzzle for each of you, too. Believe me, I know. It was one of the reasons I wasn’t sure I should write this story. But any refusal to entertain possibilities puts us, as writers, in a box. There are types of stories which appeal to me more than other types, and others which I simply won’t read for various personal reasons, but that doesn’t mean that I think that those other types of stories are bad or evil or invalid, or that the authors are flat wrong and should have spent their time in more useful pursuits.

The discussion of whether or not Superman is capable of killing has been done to death (oops) in another thread. I’ve stated my position, others have stated theirs, but while many have been given valid points to consider, I doubt that anyone’s mind was changed in either direction. But I believe that flat, dogmatic statements about what certain characters would or would not do in certain situations aren’t valid. For example, I know of a story where one character is tempted to succumb to an “indecent proposal,” and I know which way I’d take that plot line. But I didn’t write that story. Whether or not the character should do what I would have that character do is immaterial. It’s that writer’s choice, and I wasn’t consulted. (Nor am I upset because I wasn’t consulted.)

If you don’t like this story because “your Superman doesn’t kill,” then I must point out that this is NOT “your” Superman, either within this story or within the larger context of fandom. I don’t demand that you read my stuff, and I have no intention of boycotting or trashing any author’s work who might not like what I’ve written. I welcome intelligent and civilized feedback, so please keep posting it.

And, as always, thanks for reading.

I agree the argument as to whether ot not Superman (in any incarnation) is capable of killing has been done nearly to death.

But DC Comics (the owners) did tackle it a while back and came to the conclusion that if the provocation was great enough, even Superman would kill. (He killed Zod.) He then would have to face his own demons at his failure to live up to the standards he'd set for himself.

Which, to me, seems to be what this particular story is about - having done the deed, how does he and those around him deal with the demons that have been unleashed.

Terry, you asked for our opinions as to what we thought the verdict, would or should be. I answered. Please don't take my comments as a negative on your story in any way.

Actually, I'm more annoyed with Clark over his treatment of Lois than I am with the fact that he killed Bill Church.

You spoke of 'my' Superman, and 'your' Superman and that he really doens't belong to any of us. Technically that is true, but as the author of a story, the character (even if he/she is borrowed) is 'yours' for that period of time. You utilize the traits and characteristics you want to to facilitate your story. This is fiction, and there are no absolutes, with that I agree.

You are a terrific writer, and I will read most anything you write (except maybe Lois and babies). I don't have to agree with every part of your story, or even like it, to be able to enjoy it. I'm along for the ride and am looking forward to how you resolve the situation you've placed our favorite characters in.

Tank (who reminds all writers that you want your readers to have an emotional response to your story be it positive or even a bit negative... the worst case is an indifferent reader)

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.

Don't have time now, but even so....

In the Superman comics in the very late eighties, there was a story arc where Superman killed. He didn't kill in a fit of fury, blinded by emotion, but he killed deliberately, methodically. He killed the three Kryptonian criminals that we saw in "Superman II": Zod, Ursa and that ape-like goon whose name I have forgotten. Superman believed that these three were dead set to destroy the Earth, and since they were three and he was only one, he didn't trust himself to be able to stop them. So he lured them into a trap and exposed them to gold kryptonite, which robbed them of their superpowers. After that, he exposed them to green kryptonite and killed them.

(Personally, I strongly objected to the fact that he killed the three Kryptonians after he had robbed them of their powers and supposedly rendered them harmless. But Superman believed that they might find a way to regain their powers, and I have to admit - in the world of the comics, it seems impossible to keep a good criminal down. We need them as churners-out of more A-plots and super-brawls.)

Anyway. Some time after Superman had killed the three Kryptonians, a strange vigilante turned up in Metropolis. I believed he was called Gangbuster. He showed himself only at night, he seemed to have little or no respect for the law when it came to protecting the rights of suspects, and he was generally scary. He broke up a lot of gangs and scared the pants of many criminals. No one knew who he was.

Then it turned out that this Gangbuster was in fact Superman. But Superman had not been aware of these extra-curricular activities of his. He had been more or less "sleep-walking" when he was being Gangbuster, somehow giving vent to his frustration at killing his Kryptonian enemies and his general, growing hatred of criminals, or else he was just generally going slowly crazy.

After finding out that he had been Gangbuster without being aware of it, Superman deemed himself a menace to society. He sentenced himself to exile from the Earth, and he spent many long months in space, before he had finally managed to come to terms with what he had done, so that he was ready to return home and be Superman again. Interestingly, very soon after he had returned, he began dating Lois Lane for real, setting up the long arc that eventually led to Clark and Lois's comic book wedding.

It should be noted that comic book Superman was not tried at any court for killing the three Kryptonians. However, he sentenced himself to an exile in space which probably lasted, comic book time, at least a year. For comic book Superman, what he had done had everything to do with morality and little or nothing to do with legal matters.

Anyway, comic book Superman promised never to kill again. I noticed that Terry's Superman made the same promise to the court. However, comic book Superman made that promise to himself, which might make it more compelling and perhaps honest. After all, isn't there a difference between saying "If you don't punish me I'll never do that again" and saying "I'll never do that again"?

In my opinion, if Superman has killed, the real questions will have to be about morality, not about legality.

Ann

Ann wrote:

Ann also wrote:

These two statements cannot be reconciled logically. If what is right and wrong (which is, after all, the basis of the meaning of 'morality') is determined by a community preference, then there is no way to determine what is right and what is wrong without holding an election every time such a question comes up. And if you know recent history, then you'll know that such a process won't work in the long run.

For example, the Jim Crow laws in the American South during the early and middle 20th century held black people down and limited their freedoms, yet they were passed by and supported by the majority of voting citizens. Does that make them right? If a majority of the people in a society decide that capital punishment is an acceptable option, does that end all reasonable debate on the subject? If a community decides that a man who cheats on his wife should be congratulated but a woman who cheats on her husband should die, is this right?

My response to each of these questions would be a resounding 'no.' The actions of any society must be judged by a common standard, which is what 'morality' is. Do we all agree on what is and what is not moral? No, but if we use the term, we must apply it properly.

Morality isn't something that's subject to personal preference or community standards. Ethics are flexible and change with the times and according to the situation. Morality is an absolute. And it is an absolute because it does not originate from those under its code but from outside those under its code.

We can't assume a moral position that on the one hand Superman doesn't ever kill, and on the other hand declare that right and wrong are determined by community consensus. If that were the case, then we could hold a vote and declare either Tank's postition or my own to be invalid and kick one of us out of the community.

I don't want that. But I also abhor sloppy thinking. Ann, you are usually very clear and orderly in the presentation of your position, but this time you've stumbled. I'm posting this because I consider you to be an intelligent and thoughtful person, and because I think highly of your positions. You defend your viewpoints reasonably and with restraint, and I have yet to see you personally insult anyone. I thank you for that.

And I don't want to insult anyone either. I only want to point out this inconsistency, one which seems to infect a number of people today in seemingly all walks of life. The application to this discussion is this: if it's wrong for Superman to kill under any circumstances, then it's always wrong to write about it. And I'm convinced that's not what the FOLCs in this feedback thread are saying.

Thank you all for your clear-headed and reasonable discussion of this issue. And I will also tell you now that this discussion has caused me to make some changes to the last chapter of this epic. I hope they are well-received.

It could be that this is the point where you and I disagree the most, Terry. Because I don't believe that there is such a thing as an absolute morality. I don't know where that morality would come from. From God? Well, if you are a non-religious person like me, the assertion that there is a God who has given us an absolute morality isn't going to sound too persuasive. However, even if you really are a religious person, understanding what this God-given absolute morality actually decrees is close to impossible. Why else would different societies supposedly founded on the same Christian faith and the same Scripture have defined right and wrong so very differently? How, for example, do we interpret the fifth commandment (never mind that the Bible doesn't explicitly say that there are ten commandments or that one particular commandment is the fifth), namely, Thou shalt not kill? We could take that to mean that the taking of another person's life is always wrong, in which case Superman sinned against the fifth commandment when he killed Bill Church. On the other hand, we can argue that the fifth commandment is partly negated by the Bible's words about an eye for an eye, in which case we could argue that Superman had the right to kill Bill Church to punish him for ordering the killing of Superman's fiancée (and many other people too, of course). We could almost certainly also find Biblical support for the idea that we have the right to kill evil people, and we could easily argue that Bill Church was evil. On the other hand, we could argue that Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, which probably means that it is always wrong to kill.

So, Terry, I don't believe there is such a thing as an absolute morality, because I don't understand who would give us this morality - or, for that matter, who would give us this laid-down-in-stone interpretation of the Bible.

So how do I know what I myself should believe in, then? How do I know that my own moral compass faithfully points to the north all the time? Frankly, I don't know what is absolutely right, all the more so since I don't know that there is an absolute right in the first place. I don't know that what I believe in is "the most right thing", compared to all other possible positions on morality. But I try to understand moral questions, and I try to understand the underlying foundations for various ethics. That way I can at least understand what my own basic moral principles are, why I adhere to them, and why I might still not cling to them in absolutely every situation. For example, I have said many times that I think it is morally wrong to kill another human being. Okay, but I still think it is sometimes right for an officer of the law to kill in the line of duty. And I still think it can be right to kill an attacker to protect your own life, or to protect someone else. In other words, I don't always think it is wrong to kill another person.

All this means that there are going to be situations when I don't know if I think that an act was morally right or wrong. I will not always be able to say if I think that the taking of a human life was wrong or if it was justifiable. Hopefully, however, I will be able to explain why I am in doubt, and why I don't know what I should think about a certain act or a certain situation.

Ann

That's an interesting statement, Ann, because it's a moral statement. And if you don't believe there can be such a thing as an absolute morality, then this statement is false because it falsifies itself.

More importantly (at least to this thread), it means that your protestations against a possible 'not guilty' verdict for Superman also hold no weight, because you have been advocating some kind of legal punishment on moral grounds. You stated earlier that:
and if you don't believe in an absolute morality, how can you possibly judge Superman for his actions on a moral basis?

I would not have brought this up had you not done so, but let me respond to this statement.
In the English of the time of Shakespeare (which was the same time period when the King James version of the Bible was translated), the word 'kill' meant what we mean today when we say the word 'murder.' If someone took a life on the battlefield or while defending himself, the King James translation (or Shakespeare's dialogue) would render that term 'slay,' a term which few English speakers would use today. (An exception would be in TicandToc's excellent WIP "The Girl Next Door," where her Lois has dedicated her life to 'slaying' her metaphorical dragons.) So the commandment is not "Don't ever take a life," but instead is "Don't murder." This is also the position taken by those who read and speak Hebrew.

My point to all of this is that if Superman is in the wrong, you must clarify how you are determining that wrong. If the 'moral compass' can't be read reliably, all we have to go by is the law. And if the law says that Superman was justified in his actions, then we have to accept that verdict. Similarly, if the law says that Superman was not justified in his actions, we must accept that verdict also.

Thanks for reading and commenting. Hope you stay with the last two installments!

I can see this going off topic now, Terry. Let me just say that I believe that there definitely is such a thing as morality. Only there is no absolute yardstick telling us what the "true", perfect morality is. Of course we absolutely need a law laying down the rules of what should be regarded as right and wrong within a society, or at least what is unlawful and what is not. But we must also be allowed to discuss the law and argue that it should be changed it if we disagree with it. Of course, if we do, we must be able to explain what it is we object to, and what we want to have instead.

Ann

I'm going to stay out of the debate, mostly because I honestly haven't managed to decide between guilty and not guilty, but I wanted to drop by and let you know that I've really been enjoying the story.

I usually end up losing my interest when there's too much A-Plot, or just skimming and not really reading, but I've been printing out the different story parts of Rebuilding... just so I could read them calmly and with no distractions. You have managed to keep me hooked all through the trial. I must admit, though, that what Im' really looking forward to is that conversation between Lois and Clark.

Hope to find a new part posted soon

Thanks to all who've read, and additional thanks to all who've posted. The next part (with the verdict) is coming up soon.

I knew that the subject of this story would engender some controversy, and that not everyone would like it. No problem. Each of us has a right to our own ideas, preferences, and opinions, and I respect that right. However, if I am asked a question in a feedback response, I feel that I should respond. If someone makes a statement with which I disagree, I believe I have just as much right to respond as the person who made the original statement had to say whatever he or she said, as long as no one gets personal.

And no one has gotten personal in these threads, for which I thank all of you. Your courtesy is duly noted and greatly appreciated, even when we have disagreed.

I am currently writing an epilogue which will address a couple of the questions which have been asked in the various feedback threads but won't be answered by the end of chapter twenty. Thank you for your constructive comments and those very questions, which have made a definite impact on this story even as it was being posted.