The Problem w/ Clark’s Reveal (or, The Problem w/ Lois and Clark)

[Britas15]

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

[Candice]

I frankly don't understand the necessity of Clark needing to flat out reject Lana for Lois or put them in comparative terms. I don't need Clark to say that Lois is better than Lana or that Lana is in the past and she means nothing to him or anything else about Lana. Clark saying Lana wouldn't be there was all there needed to be said, because that was the truth. She wasn't coming, she's not there. The end. Why the need to bring up the past?

Personally, all I need for Clark to do is 1) tell Lois he loves her (he did that in Homecoming), 2) be honest with Lois (he did that in Isis), and 3) be happy together (the seemed quite happy post-reveal).

And I don't agree that Clark was being selfish in terms of his secret. He's kept his secret away from Lois for the same reason as he kept it from Lana, Chloe, Pete, etc. He was afraid for them. That was always his number one concern, and sure his human part feared rejection and that may have led him to hesitation in prior instances but once he knew that Lois would literally be safe, he told Lois the truth, twice.

[FWvidchick]

I frankly don't understand the necessity of Clark needing to flat out reject Lana for Lois or put them in comparative terms. I don't need Clark to say that Lois is better than Lana or that Lana is in the past and she means nothing to him or anything else about Lana. Clark saying Lana wouldn't be there was all there needed to be said, because that was the truth. She wasn't coming, she's not there. The end. Why the need to bring up the past?

Personally, all I need for Clark to do is 1) tell Lois he loves her (he did that in Homecoming), 2) be honest with Lois (he did that in Isis), and 3) be happy together (the seemed quite happy post-reveal).

And I don't agree that Clark was being selfish in terms of his secret. He's kept his secret away from Lois for the same reason as he kept it from Lana, Chloe, Pete, etc. He was afraid for them. That was always his number one concern, and sure his human part feared rejection and that may have led him to hesitation in prior instances but once he knew that Lois would literally be safe, he told Lois the truth, twice.

I completely agree. The above letter I can't agree with at all. And I am kinda sick of the Clark bashing.. actually I am sick of character bashing in general. I don't love every character and some I actually dislike but they all are who they are and I don't think i'd change them.. imperfect characters are better anyway.

[Audrey229]

I frankly don't understand the necessity of Clark needing to flat out reject Lana for Lois or put them in comparative terms. I don't need Clark to say that Lois is better than Lana or that Lana is in the past and she means nothing to him or anything else about Lana. Clark saying Lana wouldn't be there was all there needed to be said, because that was the truth. She wasn't coming, she's not there. The end. Why the need to bring up the past?

Personally, all I need for Clark to do is 1) tell Lois he loves her (he did that in Homecoming), 2) be honest with Lois (he did that in Isis), and 3) be happy together (the seemed quite happy post-reveal).

And I don't agree that Clark was being selfish in terms of his secret. He's kept his secret away from Lois for the same reason as he kept it from Lana, Chloe, Pete, etc. He was afraid for them. That was always his number one concern, and sure his human part feared rejection and that may have led him to hesitation in prior instances but once he knew that Lois would literally be safe, he told Lois the truth, twice.

I agree.

I'd actually like to take some time to respond to every single point in this post because I can honestly say that I disagree with pretty much every word and I'm willing to back up why I disagree with my own examples from the show canon. However, I have guests coming over that I need to cook for. But I'll be back at some point to respond to this further.

All I'm going to say for now is....I love Clark. I believe he has made some mistakes throughout the course of this show and I believe he has made some mistakes in this relationship with Lois. That being said, I understand why he made those mistakes and I believe his heart has always been in the right place. Do I think Clark has been occasionally selfish with Lois? Umm..yes. Do I think that in any way makes him some kind of jackass who doesn't deserve her? No. I think he's been honest about the fact that he feels selfish wanting something and someone for himself and that he feels selfish going after what he wants. Furthermore, I think that, in general, being a bit selfish about the people we love is a normal, human emotion. It's something that I think many people struggle with and can be a very real part of loving and desiring someone.

I thought the reveal was beautiful and sincere. I appreciated Clark's honesty and I did not fault him one way shape or form for expressing how he was feeling and speaking from his own perspective. I believe he cares deeply about Lois and though I don't believe he has always gone about it the right way....I believe he is ready to take the next step and move on to the next phase of openness and honesty in their relationship. I do not fault Lois one bit for expressing her joy at the end of the episode and not holding this over his head. I believe that when two people love each other--the way I believe Lois and Clark do---that forgiveness and acceptance is often part of the glue that holds two people together. People make mistakes. Period. Clark is going to make mistakes. Lois is going to make mistakes. They might make BIG mistakes with each other. That is a part of life. People who love each other very much make mistakes and hurt each other. People can choose to walk away due to those mistakes. And some people do....hence why the divorce rate is sky high in this country. And sometimes...people are jusitified for walking away from a relationsihp. But sometimes people can choose to look inside someone's heart, forgive them and stay to work it through. Sometimes, the love that we feel for another person, is enough to overcome mistakes and hardships and start over again with a new sense of love and commitment. Sometimes, it's better to accept someone and love someone than to dwell in the past. I thought Lois' reaction to Clark's reveal was pitch perfect. It's very clear to me that she loves him deeply and only wanted him to know that she knew him and loved him no matter what---that it didn't MATTER to her who or what Clark was hiding---that she loved him and would stand by him. I was proud of Clark for finally finding the courage inside himself to tell Lois the truth. I know he was terrified to do it. I know it's always been his instinct to hide who he truly is. He seemed truly scared and vulnerable in that last scene and I know it was difficult for him to fight against his instincts and open himself up. I do not believe his desire to open up to Lois is cheapened at ALL by the potential future that Clark saw in "Homecoming" as it was clear to me that he was very nervous opening up to Lois.

I also have no desire nor need to hear Clark reject Lana in order to reaffirm his love for Lois. I have never felt that the way Lana left the show in any way impacts Clark's ability to love and commit fully to Lois for the rest of his life with the utmost sincerity and joy. Relationships end. Sometimes they end badly. Sometimes they end with anger, tears and suffering. People die or they move away. We make choices that affect our lives each and every day. But people grow up and move on. Very few people wind up marrying their "first love." Ive known people who swore up and down that they would never love another---that their heart would be broken FOREVER after a lover left them or moved away etc. And lo and behold....they moved on and found a greater love somewhere else and they thanked their lucky stars that life turned out the way it did. Hell, I was one of those people. Life has a funny way of working out sometimes. Sometimes live gives us what we need at a times when we aren't even aware that we need it. We grow up. We move on. If we're lucky we find an even GREATER love that fulfills us and completes us in ways that we couldn't even have imagined in our youth. You can call it kismet. You can call it fate. But live has a way of interfering to lead us to where we are supposed to be. And I believe that was true ten times over with Clark and Lois.

As corny as it sounds...I've always felt that the lyrics to "God Bless the Broken Road" say it pretty perfectly.

I set out on a narrow way many years ago
Hoping I would find true love along the broken road
But I got lost a time or two
Wiped my brow and kept pushing through
I couldn't see how every sign pointed straight to you

Every long lost dream led me to where you are
Others who broke my heart they were like Northern stars
Pointing me on my way into your loving arms
This much I know is true
That God blessed the broken road
That led me straight to you

So no....I don't need to ever hear Clark dismiss what he had with Lana. I don't need reassurance that he loves Lois more than he's ever loved anyone nor do I ever feel that the way Lana left the show (as unfortunate as I believe that choice was) takes away from Clark's decision to be with Lois now.

And now...I'm off to make a cake.

[Candice]

On another note, Lois may have needed flat out verbal reassurance that Lana was in the past and that she wouldn't come between her and Clark (especially after what happened in Bride) at some point during Homecoming, but by the end of the episode, Clark's actions spoke louder than any words. The man recreated an entire dance just for Lois. Words could never have the same weight or beauty of those actions. And for the viewers, we saw Clark float and we understood the major significance of that moment, it said to us: Clark is free. He has done what BrainIAC encouraged him to do - he let go of his darkness, and he has done what Kara instructed him to do - he has found something in his life and made it his entire world. And Clark flew.

The implications of Clark's actions, of his desire to show Lois how much he loved her and then his body's reaction to the moment were beautiful and sufficient for me to know that Lois is the one.

If the tables were turned and Clark hadn't recreated that dance for Lois, and he hadn't told Lois he loved her, and he hadn't floated but he had said to Lois at the start of that episode something like, "Lana isn't here, Lois, and you don't have to worry about her. She isn't more important to me than you are." If this is what we would have gotten, I would have been disappointed. Clark saying something like would, IMO, have been meaningless. They would have been mere words. And tell me, what do those words mean to me when I saw how much Clark loved Lana, when I saw Clark leave Lois in the dance floor years before for Lana? Those words would have carried little weight.

But to see him do something special for Lois, something he's never done for anyone else, and then for him to tell her he loved her, not because the world was ending, not because they were being forced apart, not for anything other than he "missed her" (his words) and he loved her. That is special, that is memorable, that is what Lois and Clark needed.

We often say we need this series to SHOW and not TELL us. Well Clark did just that repeatedly in Homecoming. He showed us he loved Lois and he showed us that Lois's love was a freeing agent in his life.


Then in Isis, Clark showed us that once he knew Lois would be safe with his secret, that he had no reason not to tell her, that his ONLY reason had been her safety. In fact, he uttered that to her against during the second reveal. Lois stated that Clark would never tell her and he said not if it meant her being in danger. He didn't say, "Not if it means you rejecting me." It was all about Lois and his primal fear of losing someone who isn't invulnerable, someone who is human, has human frailties and can be taken away and lost like so many people in his life.

Many of us may be frustrated right now with Clark and find his reasoning illogical. We may want to scream, "Enough! Lois is in danger anyway, just tell her!" but the fact is that if someone you loved could be lost, fatally lost, because of something you were about to tell them, and this had happened to you repeatedly in the past, I doubt many of us would take such a decision to open up so lightly. Because in the end, losing a person to love, or having them out of your life, doesn't compare to losing them to life itself, to have them completely robbed and to know that they no longer exist. Death is something that Superman cannot conquer and he knows that and he is humbled by it and many times overcome by it. I don't blame Clark. I understand him. The human fear in me to be humbled by death knows where he is coming from.

[Crouching Lurker]

I frankly don't understand the necessity of Clark needing to flat out reject Lana for Lois or put them in comparative terms. I don't need Clark to say that Lois is better than Lana or that Lana is in the past and she means nothing to him or anything else about Lana. Clark saying Lana wouldn't be there was all there needed to be said, because that was the truth. She wasn't coming, she's not there. The end. Why the need to bring up the past?

Personally, all I need for Clark to do is 1) tell Lois he loves her (he did that in Homecoming), 2) be honest with Lois (he did that in Isis), and 3) be happy together (the seemed quite happy post-reveal).

And I don't agree that Clark was being selfish in terms of his secret. He's kept his secret away from Lois for the same reason as he kept it from Lana, Chloe, Pete, etc. He was afraid for them. That was always his number one concern, and sure his human part feared rejection and that may have led him to hesitation in prior instances but once he knew that Lois would literally be safe, he told Lois the truth, twice.

Excellent post Candice!

[amalie]

I couldn'y disagree with your interpretation of events more.

[FWvidchick]

On another note, Lois may have needed flat out verbal reassurance that Lana was in the past and that she wouldn't come between her and Clark (especially after what happened in Bride at some point during Homecoming), but by the end of the episode, Clark's actions spoke louder than any words. The man recreated an entire dance just for Lois. Words could never have the same weight or beauty of those actions. And for the viewers, we saw Clark float and we understood the major significance of that moment, it said to us: Clark is free. He has done what BrainIAC encouraged him to do - he let go of his darkness, and he has done what Kara instructed him to do - he has found something in his life and made it his entire world. And Clark flew.

The implications of Clark's actions, of his desire to show Lois how much he loved her and then his body's reaction to the moment were beautiful and sufficient for me to know that Lois is the one.

If the tables were turned and Clark hadn't recreated that dance for Lois, and he hadn't told Lois he loved her, and he hadn't floated but he had said to Lois at the start of that episode something like, "Lana isn't here, Lois, and you don't have to worry about her. She isn't more important to me than you are." If this is what we would have gotten, I would have been disappointed. Lois saying something like would, IMO, have been meaningless. They would have been mere words. And tell me, what do those words mean to me when I saw how much Clark loved Lana, when I saw Clark leave Lois in the dance floor years before for Lana? Those words would have carried little weight.

But to see him do something special for Lois, something he's never done for anyone else, and then for him to tell her he loved her, not because the world was ending, not because they were being forced apart, not for anything other than he "missed her" (his words) and he loved her. That is special, that is memorable, that is what Lois and Clark needed.

We often say we need this series to SHOW and not TELL us. Well Clark did just that repeatedly in Homecoming. He showed us he loved Lois and he showed us that Lois's love was a freeing agent in his life.


Then in Isis, Clark showed us that once he knew Lois would be safe with his secret, that he had no reason not to tell her, that his ONLY reason had been her safety. In fact, he uttered that to her against during the second reveal. Lois stated that Clark would never tell her and he said not if it meant her being in danger. He didn't say, "Not if it means you rejecting me." It was all about Lois and his primal fear of losing someone who isn't invulnerable, someone who is human, has human frailties and can be taken away and lost like so many people in his life.

Many of us may be frustrated right now with Clark and find his reasoning illogical. We may want to scream, "Enough! Lois is in danger anyway, just tell her!" but the fact is that if someone you loved could be lost, fatally lost, because of something you were about to tell them, and this had happened to you repeatedly in the past, I doubt many of us would take such a decision to open up so lightly. Because in the end, losing a person to love, or having them out of your life, doesn't compare to losing them to life itself, to have them completely robbed and to know that they no longer exist. Death is something that Superman cannot conquer and he knows that and he is humbled by it and many times overcome by it. I don't blame Clark. I understand him. The human fear in me to be humbled by death knows where he is coming from.

Amen to it all! Wonderfully written..!

[Audrey229]

On another note, Lois may have needed flat out verbal reassurance that Lana was in the past and that she wouldn't come between her and Clark (especially after what happened in Bride) at some point during Homecoming, but by the end of the episode, Clark's actions spoke louder than any words. The man recreated an entire dance just for Lois. Words could never have the same weight or beauty of those actions. And for the viewers, we saw Clark float and we understood the major significance of that moment, it said to us: Clark is free. He has done what BrainIAC encouraged him to do - he let go of his darkness, and he has done what Kara instructed him to do - he has found something in his life and made it his entire world. And Clark flew.

The implications of Clark's actions, of his desire to show Lois how much he loved her and then his body's reaction to the moment were beautiful and sufficient for me to know that Lois is the one.

If the tables were turned and Clark hadn't recreated that dance for Lois, and he hadn't told Lois he loved her, and he hadn't floated but he had said to Lois at the start of that episode something like, "Lana isn't here, Lois, and you don't have to worry about her. She isn't more important to me than you are." If this is what we would have gotten, I would have been disappointed. Clark saying something like would, IMO, have been meaningless. They would have been mere words. And tell me, what do those words mean to me when I saw how much Clark loved Lana, when I saw Clark leave Lois in the dance floor years before for Lana? Those words would have carried little weight.

But to see him do something special for Lois, something he's never done for anyone else, and then for him to tell her he loved her, not because the world was ending, not because they were being forced apart, not for anything other than he "missed her" (his words) and he loved her. That is special, that is memorable, that is what Lois and Clark needed.

We often say we need this series to SHOW and not TELL us. Well Clark did just that repeatedly in Homecoming. He showed us he loved Lois and he showed us that Lois's love was a freeing agent in his life.


Then in Isis, Clark showed us that once he knew Lois would be safe with his secret, that he had no reason not to tell her, that his ONLY reason had been her safety. In fact, he uttered that to her against during the second reveal. Lois stated that Clark would never tell her and he said not if it meant her being in danger. He didn't say, "Not if it means you rejecting me." It was all about Lois and his primal fear of losing someone who isn't invulnerable, someone who is human, has human frailties and can be taken away and lost like so many people in his life.

Many of us may be frustrated right now with Clark and find his reasoning illogical. We may want to scream, "Enough! Lois is in danger anyway, just tell her!" but the fact is that if someone you loved could be lost, fatally lost, because of something you were about to tell them, and this had happened to you repeatedly in the past, I doubt many of us would take such a decision to open up so lightly. Because in the end, losing a person to love, or having them out of your life, doesn't compare to losing them to life itself, to have them completely robbed and to know that they no longer exist. Death is something that Superman cannot conquer and he knows that and he is humbled by it and many times overcome by it. I don't blame Clark. I understand him. The human fear in me to be humbled by death knows where he is coming from.

Candice, I agree with every word. Beautifully said.

[ginevrakent]

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?

It wasn't a one-to-one analogy. The essential component was the idea of risking everything for love.

Kind of like how disappointing and tragic experiences in one’s past more or less amount to “darkness” at heart?

The show is obviously using the term darkness to denote anything that weakens one's spirit or weighs heavily on one's heart. Darkness is like depression, and depression is often linked to past tragedy, present guilt, and hopelessness regarding the future. Carrying around such negative feelings - negative not evil - makes someone like Clark his own worst enemy.

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.

Clark reassured Lois that Lana wasn't coming because Lois' concern was not for herself, but for Clark in that moment. Lois may have been insecure about Lana, since she did mention what happened in Bride, but she talked about how she she should have known better and later apologized for bringing Clark to the reunion it was because she didn't realize the bad memories the experience could stir in Clark.

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.

Clark has been moved on since Rabid last season as far as I am concerned. And Lois did not get Clark by default. Clark has the ability to make his own decisions. If Clark truly could not let go of Lana or his love for her, he would be in the same state he was at the start of Season 9. Clark's attempt at leaving everything and everyone he cares about behind proves he is willing to live a life without love or companionship of any kind. If no one could ever rival Lana in his heart, Clark could choose to live such a life. He didn't. Not only could he literally not stay say goodbye to Lois, he essentially chose to come back to life because he understood how much he needed her in his life.

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.

What you call settling, I call maturity.

This Clark has had this Lois signed, sealed, delivered, and served up on a silver platter right from the start.

If that were true, Lois and Clark would have been "signed, sealed, delivered" as a couple long before the fifth episode of the final season.

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.

The emotional exposure in Committed was rendered meaningless for everyone but the audience by the end of the episode. Clark was utterly unsure of Lois' feelings and his own when the elevator doors closed so no assurances there, IMO. The interesting thing about Lois' emotional exposure in Persuasion is that it also forced Clark to expose himself emotionally. Clark had to search his heart to honestly tell Lois they would be together always and forever; he would always be her home. Pandora did not offer Clark any reassurances either, I believe. The Lois that Clark witnessed in the future was not the same Lois who he had to convince to begin a relationship with him. Lois, in the future, was a woman forced by circumstance, including Clark's own emotional honesty, to open herself up to Clark and the love she felt for him. When Clark approached Lois about being couple at the end of Pandora, he had no way of knowing Lois would be similarly receptive to his advances.

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;

So what? People unconsciously reveal their true feelings all the time. Plus, ultimately this one moment didn't matter in the slightest. Once Clark blew it with Lois at the end of Infamous, he could not be confident Lois would ever feel that way about him again.

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.

This is true, but I believe it was directly addressed in last week's Homecoming. Clark was holding back in his relationship with Lois because he was trying to protect her (and himself) after what happened to Lana. Clark has seen and has recognized the inequity and wrongness of this imbalance. He then deliberately chose to take steps to rectify the imbalance by making it clear to Lois where she stood in his life. Clark took the risk to openly confess his love first without knowing Lois would reciprocate in return.

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.

The future Clark saw was anything but reassurance. Clark was told that future was only a possible future; that he would have to make difficult choices and take risks every day in order to possibly get there someday. At no point was it ever suggested that "all roads lead to happily ever after." Clark in this very episode pointed out the risk involved with telling Lois based on a "too good to be true" future when he referenced the first time he told her in Infamous. In Infamous, Clark told Lois his secret and came out to world based solely on the Legion's vague promise that Clark would enable Earth to accept aliens. This decision backfired big time just as telling Lois his secret based on an impossibly perfect and mutable future had the potential to backfire. The future offered hope, but no assurances. Clark still had to take a leap of faith in Isis.

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.

Clark isn't allowed to have feelings? This is his secret. This is a secret Clark has seen destroy lives. It's a big deal for him and it is a big hurdle for him to overcome. Indeed the primary reason Clark continued to keep his secret was concern for Lois and her well-being. Clark is allowed to be afraid, especially when every experience his ever had with someone learning his secret has ended badly in one way or another.

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?

Yes, in a way, it is. You know what, though? I don't care. I don't believe for a second that even the greatest relationships don't include selfishness on the side of one partner from time to time. Last season, Clark was struggling with a lot of things, and he needed Lois. However, by the end of the season, Clark paid the price for his actions. Not only did Lois break up with him, but it was the dual relationship he created with her that ultimately doomed them. This season, Clark continued to follow his mother's advice: tell the truth or let her go. As Clark said in Isis, since there was no one else he'd rather share his life with, he had to tell her the truth.

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.

Clark and Oliver aren't even remotely comparable in this situation. When has Oliver ever had to face revealing his secret identity to the one he loves? Lois found out by accident and Chloe figured out Oliver was Green Arrow simply by putting two and two together. Furthermore, what exactly has Oliver lost as a result of letting people into his superhero life? Clark's secret, at least in Clark's mind, has destroyed lives. Can Oliver say the same about his secret? Chloe's predicament this season, for example, is a first a consequence of her involvement in Clark's life and second a consequence of her own independent role in a fledgling superhero society. Clark and Oliver are nothing alike.

For example, he thought he was protecting Lois by lying to her. How’d that work out with Lana, Clark?

Lana ended up as radioactive poison personified because she believed the only way she could be with Clark without causing him worry was to be like him and because Lex targeted her as his greatest weakness. Hardly an endorsement, don't you think?

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”?

Lois may have had a perfect reaction to learning the truth in Infamous, but the truth that was told to her has changed. When Clark told Lois he was The Blur in Infamous, he hadn't maintained a romantic relationship with her as Clark and a confidante relationship with her as The Blur. He couldn't expect Lois to react the same as she did nearly two years ago, not after so much about their relationship has changed.

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”)?

Clark is overprotective. His fears about Lois being in more danger knowing his secret are/were irrational. Fear is rarely rational.

[Audrey229]

Libby, thank you for once again saying everything that I wanted to say. Now, I can go cook. Brilliant post. I agree with everything you said.

[SVFancross]

1) Does Clark have to reject Lana to make his relationship with Lois right?
a) IMO In the real world - absolutely. In the real world if you have an old flame, you need to put that old flame aside. If you sense any doubts in your spouses mind, you make sure you leave no room for doubt. If you are still somewhat attracted to that old flame, you avoid them and don't put yourself in a compromising position that allows any issues to occur.
b) In the Comic world - apparently not. For some versions of Superman in the comics Lana is still a problem. Now to me, that makes Clark (in those versions of the comics) a jerk -- but that's me applying a real world standard. So --- if it's part of the mythos that Lana is still a relationship conflict drama for Superman then I guess this version of Homecoming is consistent with it. If Lana is in no way in any recent comic book releases an issue for Clark, then I think the Smallville writers are on their own for making Clark look bad for not telling an obviously insecure Lois that there is NOTHING that is going to change even if she showed up and he wouldn't want it to.

2) Did Lois let Clark off the hook for not telling her?
Yes, but he made it so clear that this was something he had a real problem with because of fear of past mistakes, so I think she did the right thing.

3) Could the producers have done better?
Absolutely. But they seem to thrive on drama and angst and interpret-ability. They always have one foot on the dock and one foot on the boat. It is one of my major issues with SV.

JMO, of course

[asha14]

Well as usual Alex, you struck a nerve I don't agree with every thing you wrote which mostly has to do with season 10, however I missed your essay's because they always have something interesting to say.

[Ella]

If Lana is in no way in any recent comic book releases an issue for Clark, then I think the Smallville writers are on their own for making Clark look bad for not telling an obviously insecure Lois that there is NOTHING that is going to change even if she showed up and he wouldn't want it to.

You kind of missed the part where Clark did reassure an insecure Lois about her place in his life, only not with words but with actions.

[asha14]

1) Does Clark have to reject Lana to make his relationship with Lois right?
a) IMO In the real world - absolutely. In the real world if you have an old flame, you need to put that old flame aside. If you sense any doubts in your spouses mind, you make sure you leave no room for doubt. If you are still somewhat attracted to that old flame, you avoid them and don't put yourself in a compromising position that allows any issues to occur.
b) In the Comic world - apparently not. For some versions of Superman in the comics Lana is still a problem. Now to me, that makes Clark (in those versions of the comics) a jerk -- but that's me applying a real world standard. So --- if it's part of the mythos that Lana is still a relationship conflict drama for Superman then I guess this version of Homecoming is consistent with it. If Lana is in no way in any recent comic book releases an issue for Clark, then I think the Smallville writers are on their own for making Clark look bad for not telling an obviously insecure Lois that there is NOTHING that is going to change even if she showed up and he wouldn't want it to.

2) Did Lois let Clark off the hook for not telling her?
Yes, but he made it so clear that this was something he had a real problem with because of fear of past mistakes, so I think she did the right thing.

3) Could the producers have done better?
Absolutely. But they seem to thrive on drama and angst and interpret-ability. They always have one foot on the dock and one foot on the boat. It is one of my major issues with SV.

JMO, of course

I agree with most of this, however in the comic world Lana is not a problem for Clark or Lois so Smallville is on its own here.