Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Lois & Clark Fanfic FDK: Rebuilding Superman 19/20

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 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:

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 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:

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

Hi,

Great part!


Love it.


Love is in the air.

I rarely quote because I'm a lazy butt. Still, this quote is particularly problematic for me. it seems a bit jarring considering the psychology of the fic as I've read it so far. Clark has spent a number of parts beating himself up and now all of a sudden he's "convinced" that he's not guilty? By others? It baffles me and I need more explanation. If I stretch my imagination, the only thing that ocurrs to me is that perhaps at the approach of the verdict, it is simply easier to fall back into a believe of innocence. But that can't be enough. There's got to be something more going under the surface.

I don't know. It kind of disappoints me-- as does Lois giving him a chance without taking her own inch of skin from him. Just as I don't believe in a perfect Clark, I don't believe in a perfect Lois who will just let him get away with what he put her through. Once more, this is just not enough for me. I feel like the core conflicts as I (I suppose mistakenly) saw them have been quickly passed over. I hold hope for the last part to show the intensity I'm looking for.

A very good episode!
I'm pleased our hero got aquitted.

I'm looking forward to the last part to see the romance go on and on.

Regards,

SNL

I didn't particularly like that line either, Ann, but in response to yours and alcyone's reactions, I have to say that I found a more believable way to take it. I don't think he's saying that he's made his own moral verdict to be not guilty, I think he's saying that in light of the case presented, he now believes that according to the law he shouldn't be found guilty of second degree murder.

The line seems to say to me, "you've convinced me I should receive a not guilty verdict." That's why he wants to win, because he now believes that is just. Personally, I agreed with the verdict.

Now, to do some normal FDK. Terry, Great idea with the nightmare. I so did not see that coming. Also, I don't think I've anticipated any line more in any story than the reading of the verdict. And the post-verdict glee? I found it interesting that you had all three women plant one on Superman. Another skin-tingling part. Can't wait to see how you wrap this up. Wait. There's only one more part? NOOOOO.

Hey there woody! I just want to distinguish my own response from Ann's, because I think we differ considerably. My issue is not about "making his own moral verdict." I've never cared about Clark's guilt or innocence, wanting one or the other to win out, but rather his struggle itself.

Because of this, basing his final judgement (if this is it) on others "convincing" him, feels a bit of a let down. This is just me though probably misreading the fic. I thought having him figure out his guilt or innocence himself was as much part of the fic as the actual trial. To me the trial emphasized that opposition between public and private, and I was actually hoping that if a trial called him not guilty, he'd feel empty and realize that it's up to him and him alone to decide without anyone else making it easier on him.

This "convincing" seemed much more about external forces than internal ones, is probably a better way to put it. For that reason it loses some of the punch for me. But maybe that's the point--to showcase that sometimes the law normalizes judgement to the point that we assimilate standards outside of us. That rings rather tragic in a way, but interesting. Still as always very interesting and thought provoking. I, too, dread the end of this fic.

alcyone

Sorry to seem generalistic, alcyone, but I wasn't really referring to your reaction, rather the fact that you reacted to the same line that Ann did. That's the only reason I mentioned you. I thought that giving my take on it might help to explain that line better for both of you. If I'm even close to what Terry intended with the line.

I love Lois marshalling her troops to cover the verdict.

I actually thought he'd be guilty.

Go, Blair! And Connie, and Melanie. Heck, I wish I had been in that courtroom, I'd have claimed one, too!

I didn't get a chance to leave FDK on 18, but I liked it a lot, too, Terry. I loved Jonathan putting Clark in his place.

Ann wrote:
You're basing a lot of venom on an assumption, Ann. The article (which you correctly identified as an editorial piece) was more about Tony Blair's successor and his/her problems in leading Britain and keeping the US as a friend while not appearing to be a US puppet.

I can't speak to the specific incident, nor can I speak to the apparent reluctance of the British military to confirm to a young widow just how her husband died. But I can speak to your lack of knowledge of how the military chooses its targets in time of war and why live weapons are fired when they are fired.

Some friendly fire episodes are mistakes on the part of the shooters. They see a target, guess at whether or not it's friendly or hostile, and shoot. Many, however, are the fault of the ones being fired upon. The article states that the British had orange panels laid out for identification, but it does not say whether or not the Brits were where they were supposed to be. It does not address the question of whether or not the Iraqi forces were using the same type of identification to keep from being shot at. It does not say if the order to shoot was passed down along the chain of command or if the pilots in question pushed the button on their own. It does not say whether or not the Brits had laid out their ID panels correctly, or if they had reported their position to the proper authorities.

I'm not trying to defend anyone or accuse anyone involved in this incident. I don't have enough information. All I'm saying is that you, Ann, don't have enough information to condemn anyone either. But that's exactly what you did.

And I'm sorry you felt so let down by the verdict. Connie and Blair convinced the jury - and their client - that Superman was not guilty of second degree murder on the basis of the evidence presented during the trial. Have you read the statute yet? If not, maybe you should do so. Then, and only then, might you be able to determine whether or not Superman was guilty as charged.

You say you think that Superman comes across as self-satisfied and that he's completely happy with what he's done. I don't know where you get that. You're still judging Clark/Superman by a moral code which you yourself cannot define and reacting to your feelings about what should or should not happen instead of looking at the facts of the case and how the law applies to the facts.

You also wrote:
That's excessively harsh. And it's not why I wrote the story. Just because someone died doesn't automatically mean that someone else is guilty of murder, irrespective of your personal feelings. Your condemnation of the US justice system has been relentless in the feedback you've posted, and I don't like it. No system of justice is perfect, not Sweden's, not Great Britain's, not Canada's, not France's, and certainly not America's. But we can no more try a French defendant in a French court by American laws than we can try Superman in an American court by Swedish laws.

You say that there has been no justice done in this story and that the people are happy about it. But you're holding Superman up to a legal standard which exceeds the standard which other Americans must live up to. If I had burst into Bill Church's underground office and killed him for what he'd done in successfuly murdering over forty people and trying to kill more than a dozen others, I might not even face a trial. I'm not saying that I'd be right in doing so, but the legal system might (and let me emphasize 'might') not charge me with anything. And if I did face a trial, it probably wouldn't be for second degree murder. (Although it would depend on the jurisdiction and the surrounding circumstances. Nothing guaranteed in the legal system.)

You have every right to believe that Superman was guilty. You have every right to state your opinion on the matter. And you have every right to bring in all the off-topic stuff you want to bring in to buttress your case. But I don't have to take it lying down. I have no desire to start a fight over this, and I may get my digital hand slapped by the moderators, but I will not remain silent while my country is slandered.

I will not address any more off-topic issues in this feedback thread. And if anyone is offended by my statements, I'm sorry. But if I'm not supposed to offend people in this forum, I think it only proper that others not offend me. Not everybody will like everything written in this forum. I've found stories that I didn't like, but I don't go after the author or the central idea of the story with a club. And I feel like I've been clubbed.

Okay, I'm done ranting. That's out of my system now. And I hope everyone reads the last chapter and the epilogue anyway. Thanks again for reading and for posting.

Actually I didn't take Superman's attitude as self satisfied. I took it that Superman doesn't now believe that he, by the definition of the law, committed second degree murder. What I did take out of this is that he learned that he is not perfect, but a flawed creature like every other living being on the earth, and that he can make mistakes that are not, however, necessarily evil. I think that the law and the people of Metropolis will forgive Superman long before he will completely forgive himself, if that ever can happen, and that he has learned that there were better ways to stop Bill Church than by killing.

Now I hope that he and Lois can work out some kind of understanding.

Waiting for the last part, Terry.

Nan

Ditto for me, Nan. That's what I got, too.

Oh, and Ann, you have every right to dislike Connie and Blair, but I don't think they automatically accepted that what he had done was the right thing, but since they were hired to defend him, they had to look at it a certain way. He told them to work for justice, but to do their job competently, they had to assume the standpoint that he was innocent and try to prove their case for it, because they had to balance out the prosecution trying to do the opposite. Regardless of their personal beliefs, it became their job to present him as innocent and they have to think that way to do their job best.

This is the reason why, morally, I could never be a defense lawyer. Sooner or later, you're going to be asked to represent someone who IS guilty, but because of the way the American justice system is set up, (which I believe is necessary to ensure that the innocent are not falsely imprisoned), your job as a defense lawyer is to represent him the best you can and force the prosecution to convince the jury that your client did it. If they can't, the defendant goes free. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. It isn't always pretty, especially when evidence turns up after the trial, proving the guilt of the defendant. It comes down to which evil you consider to be more tolerable, guilty men and women going free or innocent men and women being falsely imprisoned, and the American justice system chose the former.

I feel the need to define my own moral code when it comes to killing others, Terry.

1) It's wrong to kill others when it is not necessary.

2) If you have killed another person even though it was not necessary, you should be punished by the law.

3) When is it necessary to kill another person? If you are a policeman, an upholder of the law and a protector of the public, you may find yourself in a situation when it is necessary for you to kill another person. Similarly, if you seve in the military and find yourself in an actual war, you may very well find it necessary to kill very often.

4) If another person is very seriously and immediately threatening you, your family or even a stranger, you may find it necessary to kill that other person in order to protect yourself, your family or a stranger.

5) If you have killed because you deemed it to be necessary, I think you should be tried at court. Here, you would have to explain why you deemed it necessary to kill, and the jury would have to decide if they agree that it was necessary. If you serve in the military, you should be tried if you have mistakenly killed an ally, or if there is evidence suggesting that you killed people who were not parts of the conflict.

6) If the military court decides that the soldier's mistake was fully excusable, it should publish its reasons for its ruling. If the jury at a non-military court agrees that the killing committed by a non-military person was necessary, then the defendant would be fully acquitted. If the jury decides that the defendant severely misjudged the situation, he or she should receive some sort of punishment. For example, a policeman who killed because he severely misjudged the situation should have to undergo some sort of rehabilitation and pass a test before he was allowed to serve as a policeman again.

7) If a person claims that he killed in self defence, but the circumstances show that the defendant panicked and killed for no good reason, he should definitely receive some sort of punishment. For example, if a home owner claims that he killed an intruder in self defence, but the intruder was found outside the house, unarmed, facing away from the house, lying on his belly on the pathway leading away from the house and shot in the back, then there is no way that this is a legal case of self defence. Or, more precisely, there is no way that a lone unarmed person on his way away from a homeowner's property can constitute a serious, immediate threat to the homeowner, and therefore it can never be necessary for the homeowner to kill the intruder in order to protect himself. Therefore, the law should not accept this killing as self defence. Instead, the home owner should have his weapon confiscated and be sentenced either to psychiatric treatment or to prison.

8) If a society doesn't have a law that allows it to punish a person who killed in red-hot anger, when the killing wasn't necessary to remove an immediate threat to the lives of others, then I think that the law of that society does not take a firm stand on the killing of others. If a person's own (justified) anger is sufficient reason not to punish a person who kills in anger, then that society doesn't take a firm stand on killing.

Perhaps, Terry, you would call this ethics and not morality. All right. I have an underlying belief which is at the root of my ethics. As a non-religious person, I believe that there is no life after death. I believe that this life is the only life we get. I believe that the sum and totality of a person can be summed up as that person's living body, and what that living body has experienced. Destroy that person's living body, and you destroy everything that is him or her. To me, the killing of another person is the worst crime you can commit. Of course it is worse to kill many persons than to kill just one. And of course it is worse to deliberately try to destroy the survivors' ability to scrape out a living than to "just" kill one person. But, basically, I think that the stealing of a human life is the worst crime you can commit.

So how bad is it to kill someone like Bill Church, then? To me, the question is twofold. How valuable is someone like Bill Church? Not very, because he is a mass murderer. How bad is it to take a human life, any human life? In my opinion, that is always a bad thing. But sometimes it is necessary. Take the police officers who killed the crazy young gunman in that shopping mall in Salt Lake City recently. To me those officers are heroes, because they stopped that gunman from killing more people. Even so, even so... the fact that they killed at all is, to me, some sort of blot on their moral characters. Don't get me wrong. They totally had to kill, and the fact that they saved many others that were in mortal danger is a stronger mark of heroism than their killing of the gunman is a moral blot on their characters. Even so, that moral blot is there, and they will have to carry it for the rest of their lives. But those police officers had no choice, so to me, they are tragic heroes.

Superman, on the other hand, didn't have to kill. At least I don't think your fic showed me that he had to. Therefore, the moral blot on his character is there, but it is not outweighed by the necessity of the killing.

And personally, I think that Superman's emotional state when he killed Bill Church offers no moral justification for his killing of that arch-criminal. I also think that his emotional state when he killed Bill Church shouldn't be sufficient reason to acquit him of breaking the law.

What about the fact that Superman was tried for second degree murder, but it was found that his killing of Bill Church couldn't be summed up as that particular crime? In my opinion, if he was tried for breaking a law that doesn't fit the nature and description of his killing, then I think the prosecutor, whose job it is to find the law that was challenged when someone committed a specific killing, did a very bad job. If there exists no law which can be used to describe Superman's killing of Bill Church in such a way that it comes out as a crime, then I think that the law itself is insufficient, and it may reflect the morals of a society that doesn't necessarily take a firm stand on killing.

Many years ago, I listened to a radio dramatization of a mid-European play from the 1920s or 30s. In this play, a man discovered his wife in bed with her lover, and he responded by killing her. What was so interesting about the play was the ruling of the court when the man was tried for murder. The court unanimously accepted that because the man had been so justifiably upset, no one could blame him for killing his wife, even though it was technically against the law. It was not possible to fully acquit the man of breaking the law, but it was possible to rule that the husband's justified anger at his wife's adultery meant that he would receive no punishment at all for killing her.

I don't believe in a society that acquits its angry killers solely because of their anger.

However, Terry, if the court had ruled that Superman's killing of Bill Church was in fact necessary - because if Superman had just brought Bill Church to court, then the law would have been unable to stop this crime lord by purely legal means - then that would have been another accusation of the shortcomings of the legal system, but Superman's killing would have been something that had to be accepted because it was seen as necessary to stop Bill Church. That way, Superman would become a tragic hero who killed primarily to save others, not someone who killed because he couldn't control his temper.

All right, but for all of his being Kryptonian, Superman is, really, only human. Can't he be pushed beyond his own breaking point? Can't he be put in a situation where his control snaps, and he kills?

And if that happens, can't there be any forgiveness for him?

Yes, that can happen. And yes, there can be forgiveness for Superman, even if it does happen. But to me, that forgiveness has little or nothing to do with Superman being acquitted at court of second degree murder.

Finally, Alcyone. In a previous FDK thread, I mentioned a comic book arc from the 1980s where Superman killed because he himself deemed that it was necessary. Afterwards, he suffered from severe traumas of guilt, and at least a full year - at least twelve consecutive issues of the Superman comic book, in other words - were devoted to exploring how Superman dealt with his own guilt, and how he tried to find a way to forgive himself and find a way to be Superman again.

I would like to see something similar here.

Ann