Meta-Smallville Twist
Synopsis
Byline
-- Webmaster,
Our Universe, December 24, 2006 (with subsequent edits)
(To
again give credit where it's due, the
poster named "Khyla" on the Kryptonsite Message Boards came up
with this genius premise, which she originally posted in a brief
"fanfic".)
The following
Synopsis is in point form, followed by some explanation and elaboration on each point. Feel free to skip the detail on any of the ten points that don't interest you. The nature of
the Meta-Smallville Twist or MST, like any speculation or ending that's being suggested as possible, is that common questions or nitpicks
often arise and one tries to address those upfront. It's a balance between additional length, versus not being detailed enough to cover what in many cases
has to be covered eventually. So here goes...
1. This is NOT a "Dream" Theory or ending.
The Smallville series we've been watching, some of us for almost 5 1/2 seasons now, and WHATEVER else we see for the rest of the way, is as much as 95%-99% based on "true" events within the story. That is,
the MST does NOT relegate the series to a "Dream" of any kind. It isn't Bobby waking up in the shower in Dallas, or St. Elsewhere being the dream of an autistic child. But there is a major twist to it and it's summarized in #2.
2. The series is based on Lois Lane's book "Smallville".
Expressed another way, the TV series we've been watching is the TV series adaptation of her book. It's effectively an autobiography -- again, as much as 95%-99% of the EVENTS are true within the story. Lois actually experienced these events, or she and Clark had knowledge of them. Publicly, however, the book is NOT perceived as a mostly true autobiography, for the reason described in #3.
3. Lois's motivation in writing the book is to PROTECT Clark's
secret.
In the Smallville future 5-to-7 years later, where notionally the last hour of the series is set, Lois Lane is about to hold a press conference on the release of her book "Smallville". At that time, she's either married or engaged to Clark Kent. She knows his secret (i.e., that he's Superman), and they both want to protect that secret. Despite some very persuasive and successful steps to protect it, there remains lingering speculation in some quarters that Clark Kent and Superman are indeed one and the same. And so Lois Lane's motivation for writing "Smallville" is to openly mock or parody the Clark=Superman speculation, to the point of burying it for good. [Note: This has been referred to as the "Lois Motivation Amendment" that I added to Khyla's genius premise; she's since agreed it works better, for reasons that are brought out when the whole scenario is analyzed.]
4. Lois's technique: the WHOLE, INCREDIBLE TRUTH...
Lois uses the often seemingly absurd, yet actual truth, plus a story twist involving her own character, to further convince the press, public and her readers that the Clark = Superman idea is absurd. It's already been "proven" to be absurd in other ways, such as Lois & Clark arranging for Clark and Superman to appear together in public (lots of ways to do this in SF -- Martian Manhunter is a shapeshifter and he could help). But the truth helps seal the deal. Everything from the meteor freak Alicia Baker exposing Clark to Red K and teleporting off to Vegas to marry him, to Lois learning Clark's secret when she saw him catch a car also courtesy Alicia, to Clark having to use his only time travel crystal after he proposed to Lana only to see her die, to evil Brainiac almost tricking Clark into destroying his Fortress until Lois Lane saved the day -- well, despite the truth of it, it all has the press cackling, as Lois works in a snort or snicker from the podium while recounting some of this stuff at the press conference. The twist in #5 is the additional, final coup de grace that permeates her book.
5. ... but with a TWIST involving her OWN persona being split into two
characters.
As described in #4, it was indeed LOIS LANE who experienced those "unbelievable" (but ironically, true) events in her book. It was NOT Chloe Sullivan. Lois wanted to give the book an extra mocking, satirical flourish. Something that would send this whole wacky "Clark has a secret identity or alter ego and it's Superman" theory into permanent oblivion. What more elegant way than to treat her own persona in a similar way? So she split her OWN character into two, for purposes of her book ONLY. Factually, in this Smallville incarnation, her experiences and journalistic achievements were virtually exactly like Chloe's.
In the "Smallverse" version of the story, people know, for example, that Lois moved to Smallville in Grade 8 and ran the Torch, that she interned at the Planet and got a front page by-line there at the age of 19 and so on. But people don't believe all the other super-exploits in the book, in part because Lois has given herself these FACTUALLY false "dual identities" within the story. The second character, the one NAMED Lois Lane, has the name and the family tree (e.g., the father General Lane and the sister Lucy). But Lois makes her a kind of Clark-Kentish version of the young star reporter that she actually was, but has renamed Chloe Sullivan. From Lois's point of view, the "muffin-peddling college dropout" and other self-deprecating humor in her book also helps sell the whole package to the public and her readers.
6. "Meta" elements within the book work for Lois's readers within the story, but for different reasons are even more effective -- IMPENETRABLY so -- for we the viewers of this
fiction.
Passages of the book where "Chloe" reads the letter to Clark in "Fever", or does the voiceover in "Thirst", or goes conspicuously unnamed in the "Lexmas" future -- all of those strongly support this premise but in a revelatory way with this ending. It was Lois Lane, the writer, offering nods to her readers that, yes, Chloe Sullivan is her main proxy character here, the eventual Pulitzer Prize-winning Lois Lane who's now married or engaged to her by then fellow Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent. But of course to the viewership out here in Our Universe watching the show, it's just another version of the fictional Superman story. Our "surprise" if you analyze it conceptually, stems from this Meta development WITHIN THE STORY working impenetrably well from our point of view as well. The nature of this premise is such that ANYTHING that happens the rest of the way in this TV series will not be able to preclude this ending approach and framing of the series. Feel free to try, whether it's killing off Lois or Chloe, or using a Meta development LIKE this within the story. The top-level ending trumps and frames it, because it's simply Lois writing the book. The last 20% of the book (i.e., the remainder of the series) might intentionally skew to outright fiction on Lois's part. She might just let completely loose, to really mock the Clark=Superman speculation in the last 1/5.
7. Lois's book is a huge best-seller, and it will win her a Nobel Prize for Literature, to go along with her Pulitzer.
:-)
The book and its motivation/objective (mocking Clark=Superman) fit SO well with the splitting of her character into two, the SF creativity is so "out there" and similarly supporting the satire, the fact-based personal perspective and biographical elements being there, the iconic nature of Superman within the series, Lois's and Clark's and the Daily Planet's connection to Superman... it all makes for a huge best seller that's universally (literally! :-)) acclaimed. It wins her that Nobel to go with the Pulitzer (there's an allusion here to that scene with Kidder at the beginning of Superman II). Ironically, though, the events within the book happened just as we've seen to this point in the series, to as much as a 95%-99% truthful telling of it.
8. There's wiggle room on the percentage "truth" content.
Don't like how Clark willingly shot up on Red K and robbed banks at the end of season 2? Well, maybe that's part of the 5% or so that Lois fudged on. Her objective is, after all, to make people DISBELIEVE that young Clark is the future Superman. For the most part she doesn't need to make Clark look bad to do that, but maybe she fudged a bit in a few spots. It might also be that the whole "Reckoning" events were altered for tragic effect, as a respite from any perception of unrelenting Clark=Superman mocking or parody. It may be that after Clark proposed to Lana, BOTH Lana and Jonathan died, but both deaths were reversed. It would therefore be possible for Jonathan Kent, played by John Schneider if they did this ending now (as opposed to 25 years from now :-)), to just matter-of-fact reappear in the story's 5-to-7-years-later future. A few lines of private dialogue after the press conference, between Lois & Clark, would allude to his "death" and the Chloe/Lois character split as being the only major departures from the truth within the book.
9. Smallville remains unique, but perfectly set up for its own "Metropolis" movie series should they choose to do
that.
This possibility may seem even more fanciful than the MST itself, but nevertheless the effect of this, in the 5-to-7-years-later future, is to provide as perfect a "conventional" Superman landscape as Smallville is capable of providing. The incredible contrivance of this extremely Lois-like "cousin Chloe Sullivan's" nature and experiences, simply merges into the One True Lois Lane character herself. Same with the named version played by Durance. The apparent impossibility of Clark ever being able to protect his secret is inherently addressed in the premise as well. And yet the uniqueness of the new Smallville take on the backstory is otherwise preserved.
10. The MST offers alternate casting possibilities, and potential broad appeal to all viewer
constituencies.
The theory is offered not as the definitive or only possible interpretation of Smallville. Many may come to view it as the best one, but no matter when it's done it's probably best viewed as an alternate "Khyla Smallville Cut" or the like. If you prefer whatever they end up giving us for the main Smallville ending -- just leaving it at that -- then fine. This optional nature makes it much more a "market decides" scenario. If someday (whether through these Powers That Be or not), the concept of framing the Smallville series in this way proves popular enough, then there might be a movie sequel, or a series remake perhaps that uses it. If they did this as an optional ending NOW, however, there could be three casting versions of the Lois press conference (Lois isn't seen before that in the last hour). This theory has "Chlois" roots and I believe both Khyla and I advocate Allison Mack play Lois in the "main" top-level ending and in any movie. But Erica Durance AND Kristin Kreuk could (and assuming this were offered as an optional ending should IMO) play the Lois Lane role in alternate versions of the press conference and later dialogue. If you sense some Fourth Wall-breaking in this alternate ending casting, yes it has that potential but it needn't. The Lois Lane who looks like Kristin Kreuk could simply have got herself cast to play Lana Lang in the series, just as an additional hoot. :)
Yes, Khyla's premise is mind-blowing, but iconically so and really what better shot at series greatness does Smallville have at this point? Kudos again to Khyla for coming up with the concept. Her original brief fanfic post on
Kryptonsite, with a few minor additions or edits, can be found
here. Her
original scenario had Clark Kent's secret identity already having been
made public and therefore abandoned. Superman adopted another
secret identity, Jordan Elliot. This part of it was a nod to Alan
Moore's Silver Age wrap-up story in the comics titled "What Ever
Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" Khyla has since agreed the Lois
Motivation Amendment that your webmaster proposed works better, and her
core premise -- Lois Lane having written the book
"Smallville", on which the series is based -- is the key
genius here.
