|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,200
Top Banana
|
OP
Top Banana
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,200 |
 Ok, so what do you think? Do I need to go any further? Cause the implication of what will happen is little ambiguous, I know. Will Lois figure it out? Or will the plot just play itself out as we know it? Do you like the ambiguity or do you need a satisfying conclusion? And as for Tempus, well, I figure he'd make his appearances as he normally would... though I'm not sure about the finger issue... Thinking as I write here, I could extend it a bit further and have the finger be the thing that clues Lois in, I suppose... what do you think? One more chapter, or leave it there?
Reach for the moon, for even if you fail, you'll still land among the stars... and who knows? Maybe you'll meet Superman along the way. 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,823
Pulitzer
|
|
Pulitzer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,823 |
I like the ambiguity. Very nicely done. She was cuttingly incisive when looking at others, but could be terribly wide of the mark when looking at herself. So she was entirely capable of not seeing the truth, even if it was out there in plain sight lying in a closet or even, staring at her every day behind a pair of glasses. This is excellent. "Television is such a marvel, you know. Though it is dangerous. One can hardly get any writing done when distracted by constant chattering in the background," Herb said, not looking up as Superman entered. Ah, yes! I had to laugh when I read that.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 397
Beat Reporter
|
|
Beat Reporter
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 397 |
very nice! I enjoyed reading it. 
LOIS:I don't like you.
MAYSON: Really? Oh god, that is such a relief - I don't like you either.
LOIS: That makes me feel so much better
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,058
Pulitzer
|
|
Pulitzer
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,058 |
Interesting twist. Nice job. Laura
Clark: “If we can be born in an instant, and die in an instant, why can’t we fall in love in an instant?”
Caroline's "Stardust"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,371 Likes: 1
Top Banana
|
|
Top Banana
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,371 Likes: 1 |
Hi mozartmaid  Well, this chapter took me completely by surprise. With all the connection that they felt in Africa I thought that whatever happened, they'd be together quickly. This is an imaginative approach, but I found myself scratching my head. If Lois stayed in her same time and never time-shifted, why did she lose the memories of that time. (If she has that Pulitzer in the closet, she must have stayed. And if she time shifted directly to 1993, her sudden reappearance would have resulted in a very different time line anyway.) And where did Clark go? If he went forward to 1993 would that mean that there were 2 Clarks in that world? And If Clark's parents were killed all those years in the past, why did events in 1991(?) change something that happened in 1970? Too many questions make my head hurt. Now, all that said, I believe you have an effective story. As a lover of WAFF, I am a little dissatisfied with the end. As a writer, I like the ambiguity. So, I think this was a good effort, but I don't feel completely satisfied. Sorry. At my work everyone knows that you don't ask Bob what he thinks unless you want the truth. Bob
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,200
Top Banana
|
|
OP
Top Banana
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,200 |
Originally posted by bobbart: Hi mozartmaid
Well, this chapter took me completely by surprise. With all the connection that they felt in Africa I thought that whatever happened, they'd be together quickly.
This is an imaginative approach, but I found myself scratching my head. If Lois stayed in her same time and never time-shifted, why did she lose the memories of that time. (If she has that Pulitzer in the closet, she must have stayed. And if she time shifted directly to 1993, her sudden reappearance would have resulted in a very different time line anyway.) And where did Clark go? If he went forward to 1993 would that mean that there were 2 Clarks in that world? And If Clark's parents were killed all those years in the past, why did events in 1991(?) change something that happened in 1970?
Too many questions make my head hurt.
Now, all that said, I believe you have an effective story. As a lover of WAFF, I am a little dissatisfied with the end. As a writer, I like the ambiguity.
So, I think this was a good effort, but I don't feel completely satisfied.
Sorry. At my work everyone knows that you don't ask Bob what he thinks unless you want the truth.
Bob I appreciate your input. They are definitely the same Lois and Clark! I am not an expert at time travel *g*, but my idea was arriving 'between' their two times as set up by Tempus (Lois two years ahead of hears, Clark three years behind his) at the moment of their original destined meeting, that somehow things would shift a bit and undo Tempus' plots (at least the ones that hadn't happened yet). I couldn't bear to leave Clark without his parents, so I thought by bringing L&C to that moment, it could bring Martha and Jonathan back as well (why not?). I too pondered how the Pulitzer would have happened exactly, but since she got the story in before they left, you could say time 'continued' a while and she got the prize in her absence (or rather, while they were traveling to the future). Time travel makes my head hurt, and especially working out the whys and what-ifs.  My overall point was two things: 1.) Lois and Clark will be together no matter what, whether it's instantaneous or over time 2.) When put in their 'normal circumstances', they would inevitably fall into their habitual patterns: Clark hiding the whole truth, and Lois being blind to what is right under her nose.
Reach for the moon, for even if you fail, you'll still land among the stars... and who knows? Maybe you'll meet Superman along the way.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 9,066 Likes: 31
Boards Chief Administrator Nobel Peace Prize Winner
|
|
Boards Chief Administrator Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 9,066 Likes: 31 |
I, too, was surprised at the ending. Or, rather the means of it. Because I don't mind them having to work through stuff afterwards Anyway, you said it yourself, time-travel is a tricky beast. As far as I'm concerned, the previous displays of time-travel and temporal mechanics shown on LnC as well as other works of fiction (Star Trek, Back to the Future, etc) have formed a pretty solid picture of how it could work. To me, at least  It's basically a point of reference thing. If you go into the future, nothing you do can effect your starting point so you can change things at random and still get back to your own time. That's what H.G.Wells is doing. With one caveat. What happens if an older version of you goes back less far into the future and changes events in a way that your own memories become invalid? Maybe it doesn't matter because you take them back into the past  /gently hands slightly damaged FDK thread back to author after highjacking it for an impromptu presentation of one's view on time-travel/ Michael
|
|
|
|
