A/N: (1) If the following matters have already been discussed elsewhere, I apologize. (2) The following is presented as an open letter because I felt it was the most useful format. (3) As always, the following is just my opinion.
***
The Problem w/ Clark’s Reveal (or, The Problem w/ Lois and Clark)
Dear Smallville Writers and PTB:
Oy vey…
Let me get this straight: Murdering for the person you love is more or less the same as taking a super-leap forward in terms of honesty with the person you love? Kind of like how disappointing and tragic experiences in one’s past more or less amount to “darkness” at heart?
Really? Really?!
Because it’s that kind of writing that assures me of the real problem with Clark’s Reveal in particular and with Lois and Clark in general: Y. O. U.
Disagree? Let me point you to “Homecoming,” wherein Lois expressed to Clark her insecurity regarding Lana, and the best Clark could come up with in response was: “She’s not coming.” Not, “That was a long time ago. And anyway, she’s not coming.” Just, “She’s not coming,” which suggests that Lois can be assured of Lana not being a problem only as long as Lana is out of the picture. Not that Clark has resolved his feelings for Lana and for the terms under which he lost her, and that, around or not around, Lana’s a non-issue.
And that’s just disappointing. Because I’d almost gotten over the fact that, technically, Lois only got Clark by default. I’d almost convinced myself that though Clark was forced into not being with Lana, it doesn’t mean that he hasn’t gotten over it and moved on. But when Lana’s name finally comes up between Lois and Clark, and Clark can’t -- someway, somehow -- say with confidence that Lois has nothing to be worried about in terms of his first love, I have to wonder whether he really did resolve all that at some point in Offscreenville. I have to wonder how Lois is gonna feel once she's made aware of the real circumstances under which Lana and Clark parted. Because, quite frankly, as healthy as it may be, there's a name for learning to love what's good for you as opposed to continuing to pursue the love you have for what's bad for you: settling.
And what that really comes down to is just bad writing.
Which brings me to something that’s bothered me ever since the beginning of Season 8:
This Clark has had this Lois signed, sealed, delivered, and served up on a silver platter right from the start.
In “Committed” and “Persuasion,” Lois was emotionally exposed against her will; in “Infamous” and “Echo,” she was emotionally exposed without her knowledge; and in “Pandora,” she was emotionally exposed against her will and without her knowledge. And thanks to all the things Clark’s learned from Lois’s forced exposures, he’s hardly ever made a step forward with their romance without being assured of a favorable response from her. Hell, he went for that kiss in “Bride” after she mistook Jimmy’s vows to Chloe for some kind of love confession from Clark to her; and in “Charade,” he even found out from Chloe that he’s “the man [Lois] loves” before Lois could tell him herself. Meanwhile, Lois has been left confused, uncertain, and in the dark about Clark, Clark’s regard for her, and Clark's belief in them -- never having the access to him that he’s had to her.
So you can probably imagine my frustration when, in “Isis,” Clark resolves to reveal himself to Lois only after having seen and experienced an ideal future with her -- only after having been assured, if not of a favorable immediate reaction from her, of the fact that all roads lead to a happily-ever-after with her.
Call me crazy, but wouldn’t it have been nice(r) for Clark to take that leap of faith, to make that gesture of trust all on his own? (For that matter, wouldn’t it be nice for Clark to accomplish one damn thing all on his own, without someone else instructing/urging/guilting him (pretty much every main cast member) or setting an example for him (namely, Kara and Oliver)?) Because that Clark couldn’t get to that place without a guarantee of the future severely undermines the most significant step he took towards it, and, more importantly, undermines his professed belief in and desire for him and Lois making things work. Because, well, he already knows they will (or, at least, can) make it work.
And that brings up a long-held gripe of mine: Clark’s selfishness.
What I heard from Clark in “Isis” was a lot of “I” or “I”-centric language. Clark’s afraid of being rejected just like Oliver was, Clark’s afraid of Lois’s feelings for him changing, Clark’s afraid of blah, blah, blah… What I scarcely ever heard was Clark’s concern for Lois’s emotional well-being. And that only underscores the seeming disinterest he’s long had in whether his actions are fair to her. After all, he entered Take One of their relationship with no intent to ever be honest with her about who he really is. Did he ever even consider whether that was fair to her? Did he ever even consider that maybe she deserved someone who could give all of himself to her? Apparently not. Because he forged ahead with that train-wreck, and he did so despite knowing that a relationship with secrets cannot work. Wasn’t it Einstein who defined “insanity” as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result? Why, after 7+ years with Lana, did Clark put Lois in that position? Because she’s “the one [he’s] always needed”? Because he couldn’t be without her?
Well, isn’t that…selfish?
It is beyond me why you choose to write Clark as having the emotional maturity and learning curve of…Oliver Queen, who is apparently Mr. Love-is-all-that-matters these days. It is beyond me why you insist on putting him at such an advantage over Lois, and then have him not even learn a damn thing from that advantage.
For example, he thought he was protecting Lois by lying to her. How’d that work out with Lana, Clark? And didn’t you spend all of Season 8 hearing everyone tell you that Lois could handle knowing the truth about you? Didn’t you yourself once say something to that effect? Didn’t she have a “perfect” reaction to learning the truth in “Infamous”? And hasn’t Lois assured you over and over again about her feelings for you both as “Clark” and as “The Blur”? And didn’t you not telling her the truth really come down to a matter of you protecting you (your identity, I mean), not you protecting her (“Hostage”)? Because wasn’t she already in perpetual danger whether she knew your secret or not, because everyone already knows she’s been in contact with you as The Blur (“Idol” and “Charade”)?
I just don’t get it, PTB. Clark says he would’ve regretted never telling Lois about himself, and that sounds nice, but where (prior to his couple lines of dialogue in “Salvation”) is the evidence to support that he ever really, truly, consciously wanted her to know (and, no, him occasionally looking unenthused about deceiving her does not count ("Persuasion," "Conspiracy," and "Charade")), and that he was willing to trust that they could build a life together with her knowing? And again, where’s Clark’s concern for Lois’s happiness? His concern for being fair to her? His concern for giving her what any person deserves: the honesty and trust of the person who’s chosen to be their “always and forever” romantic partner?
Nowhere, apparently.
Because it took Clark seeing his future for him to finally get on the path to that future.
And in the meantime, despite Clark’s hitherto bungling of their romance, despite his duplicity, despite him treating Lois like Lana (by his own admission in "Homecoming"), Lois’s only reaction to Clark finally committing to being honest with her is…gratitude? How nice -- for Clark. He gets off the hook and all prior offenses or transgressions are swept under the rug just so you can give the viewers (1) what you assume they want, and (2) what asks the least of you in terms of narrative depth and nuance: a cheery, glittery, conflict-free reveal -- something “[t]oo flattering-sweet to be substantial.”
Things didn’t have to be this way, you know. You could’ve done better by the characters, the canon, and the audience.
But, like Clark with regard to Lois, you never really pushed yourself to try.
-- Britas15
The Problem w/ Clark’s Reveal (or, The Problem w/ Lois and Clark)
Oy vey…
Let me get this straight: Murdering for the person you love is more or less the same as taking a super-leap forward in terms of honesty with the person you love? Kind of like how disappointing and tragic experiences in one’s past more or less amount to “darkness” at heart?
Really? Really?!
Because it’s that kind of writing that assures me of the real problem with Clark’s Reveal in particular and with Lois and Clark in general: Y. O. U.
Disagree? Let me point you to “Homecoming,” wherein Lois expressed to Clark her insecurity regarding Lana, and the best Clark could come up with in response was: “She’s not coming.” Not, “That was a long time ago. And anyway, she’s not coming.” Just, “She’s not coming,” which suggests that Lois can be assured of Lana not being a problem only as long as Lana is out of the picture. Not that Clark has resolved his feelings for Lana and for the terms under which he lost her, and that, around or not around, Lana’s a non-issue.
And that’s just disappointing. Because I’d almost gotten over the fact that, technically, Lois only got Clark by default. I’d almost convinced myself that though Clark was forced into not being with Lana, it doesn’t mean that he hasn’t gotten over it and moved on. But when Lana’s name finally comes up between Lois and Clark, and Clark can’t -- someway, somehow -- say with confidence that Lois has nothing to be worried about in terms of his first love, I have to wonder whether he really did resolve all that at some point in Offscreenville. I have to wonder how Lois is gonna feel once she's made aware of the real circumstances under which Lana and Clark parted. Because, quite frankly, as healthy as it may be, there's a name for learning to love what's good for you as opposed to continuing to pursue the love you have for what's bad for you: settling.
And what that really comes down to is just bad writing.
Which brings me to something that’s bothered me ever since the beginning of Season 8:
This Clark has had this Lois signed, sealed, delivered, and served up on a silver platter right from the start.
In “Committed” and “Persuasion,” Lois was emotionally exposed against her will; in “Infamous” and “Echo,” she was emotionally exposed without her knowledge; and in “Pandora,” she was emotionally exposed against her will and without her knowledge. And thanks to all the things Clark’s learned from Lois’s forced exposures, he’s hardly ever made a step forward with their romance without being assured of a favorable response from her. Hell, he went for that kiss in “Bride” after she mistook Jimmy’s vows to Chloe for some kind of love confession from Clark to her; and in “Charade,” he even found out from Chloe that he’s “the man [Lois] loves” before Lois could tell him herself. Meanwhile, Lois has been left confused, uncertain, and in the dark about Clark, Clark’s regard for her, and Clark's belief in them -- never having the access to him that he’s had to her.
So you can probably imagine my frustration when, in “Isis,” Clark resolves to reveal himself to Lois only after having seen and experienced an ideal future with her -- only after having been assured, if not of a favorable immediate reaction from her, of the fact that all roads lead to a happily-ever-after with her.
Call me crazy, but wouldn’t it have been nice(r) for Clark to take that leap of faith, to make that gesture of trust all on his own? (For that matter, wouldn’t it be nice for Clark to accomplish one damn thing all on his own, without someone else instructing/urging/guilting him (pretty much every main cast member) or setting an example for him (namely, Kara and Oliver)?) Because that Clark couldn’t get to that place without a guarantee of the future severely undermines the most significant step he took towards it, and, more importantly, undermines his professed belief in and desire for him and Lois making things work. Because, well, he already knows they will (or, at least, can) make it work.
And that brings up a long-held gripe of mine: Clark’s selfishness.
What I heard from Clark in “Isis” was a lot of “I” or “I”-centric language. Clark’s afraid of being rejected just like Oliver was, Clark’s afraid of Lois’s feelings for him changing, Clark’s afraid of blah, blah, blah… What I scarcely ever heard was Clark’s concern for Lois’s emotional well-being. And that only underscores the seeming disinterest he’s long had in whether his actions are fair to her. After all, he entered Take One of their relationship with no intent to ever be honest with her about who he really is. Did he ever even consider whether that was fair to her? Did he ever even consider that maybe she deserved someone who could give all of himself to her? Apparently not. Because he forged ahead with that train-wreck, and he did so despite knowing that a relationship with secrets cannot work. Wasn’t it Einstein who defined “insanity” as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result? Why, after 7+ years with Lana, did Clark put Lois in that position? Because she’s “the one [he’s] always needed”? Because he couldn’t be without her?
Well, isn’t that…selfish?
It is beyond me why you choose to write Clark as having the emotional maturity and learning curve of…Oliver Queen, who is apparently Mr. Love-is-all-that-matters these days. It is beyond me why you insist on putting him at such an advantage over Lois, and then have him not even learn a damn thing from that advantage.
For example, he thought he was protecting Lois by lying to her. How’d that work out with Lana, Clark? And didn’t you spend all of Season 8 hearing everyone tell you that Lois could handle knowing the truth about you? Didn’t you yourself once say something to that effect? Didn’t she have a “perfect” reaction to learning the truth in “Infamous”? And hasn’t Lois assured you over and over again about her feelings for you both as “Clark” and as “The Blur”? And didn’t you not telling her the truth really come down to a matter of you protecting you (your identity, I mean), not you protecting her (“Hostage”)? Because wasn’t she already in perpetual danger whether she knew your secret or not, because everyone already knows she’s been in contact with you as The Blur (“Idol” and “Charade”)?
I just don’t get it, PTB. Clark says he would’ve regretted never telling Lois about himself, and that sounds nice, but where (prior to his couple lines of dialogue in “Salvation”) is the evidence to support that he ever really, truly, consciously wanted her to know (and, no, him occasionally looking unenthused about deceiving her does not count ("Persuasion," "Conspiracy," and "Charade")), and that he was willing to trust that they could build a life together with her knowing? And again, where’s Clark’s concern for Lois’s happiness? His concern for being fair to her? His concern for giving her what any person deserves: the honesty and trust of the person who’s chosen to be their “always and forever” romantic partner?
Nowhere, apparently.
Because it took Clark seeing his future for him to finally get on the path to that future.
And in the meantime, despite Clark’s hitherto bungling of their romance, despite his duplicity, despite him treating Lois like Lana (by his own admission in "Homecoming"), Lois’s only reaction to Clark finally committing to being honest with her is…gratitude? How nice -- for Clark. He gets off the hook and all prior offenses or transgressions are swept under the rug just so you can give the viewers (1) what you assume they want, and (2) what asks the least of you in terms of narrative depth and nuance: a cheery, glittery, conflict-free reveal -- something “[t]oo flattering-sweet to be substantial.”
Things didn’t have to be this way, you know. You could’ve done better by the characters, the canon, and the audience.
But, like Clark with regard to Lois, you never really pushed yourself to try.
-- Britas15
Comment