I thought when you loved someone, you accept them for who they are, faults and all, but I’m thinking about “Lana Lang” and “Chloe Sullivan”. not so much “Chloe” as “Lana”. I think at some point, even before “Chloe” truly found out his secret, she learned to accept “Clark”. It’s ashamed too, because I think “Chloe” was a better fit for him anyway, so it’s not surprising he ended up with her cousin “Lois Lane”, who was a lot like “Chloe” in many ways.
“Lana” on the other hand, she was always blowing him off. My take, “Clark” may not have always been there when you wanted him to be, but he was always there when you needed him to be. How many times did “Clark” save “Lana” and “Chloe?” Is it true, no matter how much good you do for someone, they always focus on the negative? What’s up with that?
Look, I don’t care how many secrets you have, if you are pulling my ass out of a fire, or saving me from going ‘splat’ from a long fall time and again, I don’t care. You don’t have to explain anything to me. I’ll worship the ground you walk on. I was always told never to sock a gift horse in the mouth.
My apologies to all “Lana Lang” and “Chloe Sullivan” fans. I’m not saying I didn’t like them, as a matter of fact, I had a lot of respect for “Chloe” and in some ways even “Lana”. I’m just venting.