norwich36 | SV "What If" Game

SV "What If" Game

Edited to rename my game now that it is famous all over teh internets, since "an SV Game/Poll Thingy" doesn't scan quite as well.

I have one of those extremely tedious projects at work that require, for sanity, an lj break every half hour or so, so it seems like a good time to play a game.

So here's the premise: the SV fairy has appeared to you and offered you the opportunity to travel to the SV-verse, temporarily, to improve Smallville and/or the lives of the characters in any way you see fit. There are rules, however. You can either (1)have one conversation with one character (and only one character), time length up to one hour, at any point in the timeline OR (2) you can change one event, but not speak to anyone.

--If you choose the conversation, you can talk to anyone at any point in their timeline, but you have to be yourself (mysterious stranger); you can't, for example, be Clark to talk to Lex. You can, however, be a mysterious stranger who knows the future; you just can't hang around more than an hour to show that your predictions were accurate.

--If you choose changing an event, you have a fair amount of power--let's say the limit of your power is that of a meteor mutant--but you can only change one event, and you can't speak to anyone. So, for example, if your goal was to prevent Jodi from becoming a fat-sucker in "Craving," you could either magically prevent her father's greenhouse from being salted with kryptonite OR you could have a conversation warning her, but you couldn't do both. If you wanted to save Jonathan's life in "Reckoning," you could have a conversation with Clark or you could blow up the Fortress of Solitude (if you think that would help) OR you could puncture Jonathan's tires so he never has the encounter with Lionel, but you could only do ONE of those things, not all of them. If you want to redirect the meteors in the first meteor shower to squash Lana, you can do that, but you can't then talk to Clark to get him to wait on Loeb bridge so he saves Lex's life even though he no longer has Lana to moon over and so he may not end up there on his own.

SO:

What is your goal?
What are you going to do to accomplish it, given the constraints on your powers?
What do you think the effect of your change will be?
What might be the unintended consequences?

For example, here's mine.

What is your goal?
I want Lex NOT to become an evil monster whose sociopathy exceeds Lionel's. It turns out I want that even more than I want Clark and Lex to get together.

What are you going to do to accomplish it, given the constraints on your powers?
After much thought about this, I think what I would do is appear to Lillian a couple days before she kills Julian and HEAL HER with my magical kryptomutant powers.

What do you think the effect of your change will be?
Even though I don't get to talk to her, my hope is that healing her would cover both her post-partum psychosis (to which I am attributing her desire to kill Julian) AND her heart condition, so she would live and continue to be a countering influence on Lex. I think by the time Lex gets to Smallville it's really too late for him to really change; he's too fucked up already. My hope is that if Lillian is not sucked down into despair because of her mortal illness, she would actually be able to support Lex in not becoming like his dad. And Lex would still have a little brother, who he clearly loved a lot, so that would give him motivation to try to be a good person and set a good example.

What might be the unintended consequences?
Well, Lillian might already be so damaged that she would still kill Julian, and maybe this time Lionel would catch her and she'd go to prison or be locked in an asylum, which probably would NOT make things better for Lex. Or maybe she wouldn't be caught, but she'd live, and instead of being Lex's dead model of goodness, she'd be the psycho-mom he was protecting, and that could get ugly and he might go evil earlier. Or maybe none of that would happen but instead Lionel would succeed in molding Julian to be the heir he wanted Lex to be, and instead of Lex being the evil genius he'd be locked in an eternal struggle with his brother the evil genius.

So, does anyone else want to play, or did I make the rules too complicated?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I want to play this game about ten times over, but I'll stick with my first plan...

What is your goal? Remove Jonathan's influence over Clark
What are you going to do to accomplish it, given the constraints on your powers? Strike him dead in the first meteor shower. POW!
What do you think the effect of your change will be? Clark would have been brought up with Martha's nurturing influence but without J's heavy-handed paternalism. I think Martha would still have been just as eager to have Clark hide his secret. But she would have been more open to the Clex friendship, thereby allowing Clark to make his own decisions about whether he shared his secret with Lex (possibly at an early enough stage that Lex didn't spiral into destructive obsession). It would also have meant that Jonathan wasn't around to fly into suspicious rages when reporters came snooping, and it would mean that Clark had a Daddy-shaped hole to fill. And who could fill that hole? JOR-EL!!! *twirls* Clark would have embraced his destiny a lot earlier--he would have craved connection with the only father figure in his life and therefore he could have averted the whole Zod disaster far earlier with his kickass training.
What might be the unintended consequences? Mionel. Dude. So would have happened.

Feel free to play 10 times, if you can come up with 10 different scenarios.

If Jonathan died in the first meteor shower, the first Clark-Lex meeting would probably have been quite different, since Martha would have almost certainly returned to Metropolis. For one thing, she would have needed her father's help to adopt Clark.

Actually, if Jonathan was killed in the meteor shower, do you think she still would have actually adopted Clark? Or would she have unconsciously (or consciously) blamed him for her husband's death? Regardless of how the viewers feel about Jonathan, Martha clearly loved him--had he been killed by the meteors I really wonder if she could bear to adopt the alien baby who came with the meteors. I *seriously* doubt she would have been up for rescuing Lex--if anything, she would have been rushing Jonathan to the hospital, maybe with Clark on her lap, but she wouldn't have stopped for Lionel. So she would have needed her father's help to adopt Clark.

But I expect she would seriously resent having to go to her dad because he hated Jonathan so much. Hmm. I don't know, I think there are lots of unintended effects to killing Jonathan off in the first meteor shower that would really affect Martha's ability to nurture Clark.

Damn! You foil we with your logics. :-)

What if Lionel 'accidently' killed Jonathan shortly after the meteor shower--like ran him over with a car. :-) It has nice cross-generational parallels, and I totally believe that Lionel would have given Martha a whopping big payout, grovelled and begged her to stay on the farm. He's the master manipulator--he could totally spin that. I could make Lionel do that by... oh, I don't know... kidnapping him and making him do it! He could hardly say 'an evil girl from the future made me do it' to them, so he would have genuine guilt about the death which would make his grovelling all the more convincing.

So Martha's already adopted Clark, she doesn't blame him for the death of J and she can stay on the farm. YAY!

That works better for me, because I think it's important that Clark's arrival not be directly connected to Jonathan's death, or else it will eventually create huge problems between Clark and Martha.

And as long as you're being "evil girl from the future," you could always make Lionel conceal the fact that he was responsible for Jonathan's death, but since he's already "helped" Martha once, he could show up and offer to help her out, strictly on a friendly basis, but in a way that would definitely lead to Mionel.

However, as I said to

juxtoppozed, I think, somewhere in this thread, I'm not completely sure that Martha without Jonathan is the moral paragon we all think she is, or that she's likely to be more open to Jor-El.

Why, exactly, do you think it would have been a good thing for Clark not to be influenced by Jonathan? I'm not sure I've ever heard your opinions on that.

I'm not completely sure that Martha without Jonathan is the moral paragon we all think she is, or that she's likely to be more open to Jor-El.
Oh, I agree, but I don't think it matters. I think the fact that she's not a moral paragon would allow Clark to develop his own morality earlier, and I think Clark's craving for a father would take care of her resistance to Jor-El. We saw him seek out contact with Jor-El despite her feelings in Season 2--I think that urge in him was very very strong. I don't think it would be the easiest family dynamic in the world. But I think it would ultimately teach Clark more and make him more of an independent adult at a younger age.

Why, exactly, do you think it would have been a good thing for Clark not to be influenced by Jonathan? I'm not sure I've ever heard your opinions on that.
1. Anger management: Clark's anger mirrors J's so perfectly I can't help but feel that he imprinted on this behaviour pattern at an early age. He's reckless, he flies into rages without thinking things through, and he sees violence as a solution--all VERY unhealthy things for a future Superman to learn.
2. Prejudice: Jonathan accepts the surface as truth--we see this most clearly with the Luthors. He has one fixed idea of them and he denies any complexity in the picture, even when there is some. This is still Clark's failing today. Clark doesn't uncover the real truths of Lex's evilness because he's been too busy throwing accusations that aren't completely accurate. The Luthors are not black and white--they justify what they do, they act out of multiple motives, sometimes it would pay to work with them. But thanks to Jonathan, Clark's forever stuck in open adversary mode. He'll have to rely on others to sneak under Lex's radar and find out the real truth.
3. False moral superiority and self-righteousness: Again, learnt from Jonathan. Apart from the obvious limitations of these attributes, I think there's a subtler issue for Clark: he finds it very hard to accept personal failure. Jonathan did nothing to teach his son that failure is part of life, that sometimes you can't control fate. He was so smug and felt so entitled to being viewed as a good man, that he made Clark fear admitting you're not, admitting you make mistakes.
4. Football. Partly Clark's drive for it came from his ridiculous idealisation of his father as high school football hero.

That enough? ;-)

I don't know that I can argue with you about 1 and 3. It's hard to be an American boy in a small American midwestern town and not get sucked into football, though, especially because it really is a huge social status thing in high school. And it would still be a marker of "normal" for Clark reagrdless of whether his dad was a football star or not.

I'm a little waffly on #2, though. Jonathan had very good reason to suspect Luthors bearing gifts, and much as I love Lex, most of his interactions with the Kents in season 1 (when he was the least shady) were still pretty weighted with ulterior motives. I do agree that Clark and Jonathan both need to learn shades of gray, however.

most of his interactions with the Kents in season 1 (when he was the least shady) were still pretty weighted with ulterior motives
Oh, I totally agree, but I don't think Martha would have welcomed them all with open arms either. I don't think removing Jonathan from the picture would have meant that Martha didn't bring Clark up to be cautious, and I think he would have learnt that Luthors may have ulterior motives for himself by seeing that with his Dad. But I don't think he would have judged the son by the father. I don't think there was anything innate in Clark (or Martha) that would do that. They would be wary but not ridiculously suspicious--a far healthier attitude towards Lex at that time. I think Martha would be necessary as a guide for Clark in navigating that friendship while he was still so young, and I think she'd be good at letting Lex close but not toooo close, until Clark was ready.

Why, exactly, do you think it would have been a good thing for Clark not to be influenced by Jonathan?

Ooh! Can I put in my $0.02 on this?

Of course! I'm interested in hearing what you think.

I've had problems with Jonathan for a long time. Since Hothead, in fact. Well, actually, he kinda put me off with his reaction to Martha's longing for a child in the Pilot, but I digress.

In retrospect, I think that Bo's narrow-mindedness and, well, stinginess of spirit is keeping Clark from his iconic place in this universe. Clark should be the first and the best. He should *not* be getting trained by ~~Bruce Wayne~~Ollie Queen.

Are you spoiled for upcoming eps?

Nope. Or, only to the extent that titles are spoilers, and I've seen the preview they ran after Subterranean.

I don't really see him as being trained by Ollie, though--rather the reverse.
After all, he's the one teaching Ollie that killing is wrong, mkay, and that using drugs is wrong and that vigilantism is not always right. Sure, Ollie is one person encouraging him to take responsibility beyond his immediate circle, but it's not like that's what's pushing Clark out into the world--he was already moving in that direction as a result of his sense of responsibility for Black Thursday and releasing all those Phantom Zone inmates.

Really, the only thing keeping Clark from his iconic place in the universe is the fact that there's probably going to be a season 7, and they have to leave some plot developments for then. :D But I think he's been coming along by leaps and bounds this season.

You think? I mean, Martha's great love for Jon hasn't stopped her from rubbing all over Lionel (metaphorically), so I can believe she'd find Clark to be a sufficient silver-lining for the meteor shower causing Jon's death. Especially given that it's really not at all right or fair to blame Clark for that, first of all, and second, because she wanted a child so much. I could see Martha buying into the idea that God gives with one hand and takes away with the other, so I don't know ... I don't have difficulty imagining her still taking Clark in even if the meteors killed Jon.

But I expect she would seriously resent having to go to her dad because he hated Jonathan so much.

Nah. Martha's really pragmatic and again, canonically, she seems to have gotten over Jonathan's death just fine. She might not be chipper about going to her dad, but she'd do it if she had to and they'd probably eventually reach some kind of rapproachment with each other.

I can believe she'd find Clark to be a sufficient silver-lining for the meteor shower causing Jon's death
So can I, actually, but I'm happy enough to alter my scenario to suit... Although I agree that Martha's pragmatic and likely to buy into the romance of god 'giving with one hand, taking away with the other'.

You think? I mean, Martha's great love for Jon hasn't stopped her from rubbing all over Lionel (metaphorically), so I can believe she'd find Clark to be a sufficient silver-lining for the meteor shower causing Jon's death. Especially given that it's really not at all right or fair to blame Clark for that, first of all, and second, because she wanted a child so much

Yes, but it's the TIMING I think is crucial. If Jon died in the meteor shower, presumably it's when the meteor hit the truck, and so in my head she's freaking out and trying to get him to the hospital and the kid shows up. Now, maybe she just scoops up the kid and takes him with her, but if she goes and investigates and finds the ship first....I think that even if it's not logical or fair, she's still likely to associate this alien kid with Jon's death.

Though the "God giving with one hand and taking with the other" is another possible response, I suppose. But I still think she might view Clark as a mixed blessing--like she made a wish to fairy Lana, and the price of her beautiful son was her beloved husband.

Maybe I just have a darker view of Martha than everyone else?

Maybe I just have a darker view of Martha than everyone else?

Possibly, but I'm just thinking about how Martha reacted to the loss of the baby back in Exodus/Exile/Phoenix. I remember back during that summer between Exodus and Exile, a big question for a lot of people was "How does Martha feel about Clark's role in the baby's death?" Because it certainly looked like Jonathan blamed him for it, but we hadn't heard Martha's thoughts. And I remember there were people who thought it would be really interesting, if dark, character development if she had blamed Clark for it, particularly given that there was such a clear line of causation between Clark's volitional conduct and her miscarriage -- had Clark not blown up the storm cellar, in part because of a failure on his part to even contemplate the foreseeable possible consequences of trying to destroy the ship, Jonathan and Martha wouldn't have gotten caught in that shockwave and the shockwave is what caused the truck to flip and Martha to miscarry. There were an almost equal number of people who thought it would be terrible for Martha to blame Clark because while yes, his conduct caused the situation, his intention was not to cause that level of destruction/damage.

Phoenix made it clear that Martha did not blame Clark for it. Even though she could have. Even though the line of causation was direct enough she wouldn't have even been irrational OR unfair had she done so. So for me, the fact that she didn't blame him for something that she would have been within her rights to do so because it was the direct result of his volitional conduct strongly suggests that she wouldn't hold something against him that, as a toddler, he clearly had no control over.

Now, maybe it's a backwards way of looking at it because as of Phoenix Clark had been her son for 14 years and he was a stranger to her in the Pilot, but still. He was a toddler; he couldn't possibly be held accountable for the meteor shower. Even if she investigated and found out he came with the meteors, I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of her blaming him for it.

Now, maybe it's a backwards way of looking at it because as of Phoenix Clark had been her son for 14 years and he was a stranger to her in the Pilot, but still. He was a toddler; he couldn't possibly be held accountable for the meteor shower. Even if she investigated and found out he came with the meteors, I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of her blaming him for it.

I'm not sure she would have to *consciously blame* the little alien toddler for Jon's death, you know, for Jon's death to affect the way she treated Clark. If a puppy ran across the street and your husband swerved to avoid it and died, you wouldn't blame the puppy, but you might not want to take it home and adopt it, either.

But even assuming she doesn't blame Clark *at all*, and ends up adopting him--that doesn't mean she wouldn't feel that deranged sense of responsibility people often feel when their loved ones die, and that perhaps somehow by wanting a child so much she was responsible for Jon's death, because she only got Clark via the meteor shower.

I can't remember the Martha-Clark scene in Phoenix very well--do they actually talk about the miscarriage, or does Martha just issue blanket forgiveness for everything (Clark running away, what Jonathan had to do to bring Clark back, etc.)?

I can't remember the Martha-Clark scene in Phoenix very well--do they actually talk about the miscarriage, or does Martha just issue blanket forgiveness for everything (Clark running away, what Jonathan had to do to bring Clark back, etc.)?

Clark starts to bring it up to apologize -- I think he even gets as far as saying something about "the baby" -- and she cuts him off with something along the lines of "We never blamed you." I remember it because it was kind of a Thing in the fandom at the time because after the ep aired, there were quite a few ep reviews where people were basically all, "Um, Jonathan sure as hell did!"

A behind-the-scenes anecdote: Apparently, there was talk amongst the creative team of going for the darker version, where Martha did hold Clark accountable and Annette O'Toole was appalled at the suggestion; she didn't think that was at all true to the Clark-Martha dynamic. So Annette is kind of responsible for how it goes down in Phoenix. She was apparently quite adamant that Martha not be portrayed as blaming Clark in any way for the loss of the baby.

Yay for AOT! Believe me, the Martha I would *like* to believe in is the all-forgiving Martha of "Phoenix"--I wonder how much my own doubts about Martha are based on some of her inexplicable decisions in seasons 5 and 6.

Oh, p.s. That icon is HILARIOUS!!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

SV "What If" Game

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject