It's not fate
I love the word wyrd. It's such an interesting, nuanced word. When you see it translated into Modern English, it's simplified to "fate" or "destiny," but that's not strictly accurate, nor does it explore its philosophical richness.
If you endeavor to translate it more accurately, you might say that wyrd is "the things that happen." Those things are not fixed occurrences that cannot be escaped, put into place due to outside forces. Wyrd is destiny insofar as it is rather inevitable, but it is inevitable because certain actions of free require that other certain occurrences will result. The subject of wyrd is an active participant in his own fate; he interacts with divine providence in writing the story of his life.
And because I apparently cannot have a thought without it in someway not bringing me back around to fandom: I've been dying for someone to use that concept of wyrd in a Smallville fic. I'd love for something similar to come up on the show itself, but that is a pretty blatant pipe dream. I think the biggest thematic failure of Smallville's approach to Clark Kent/Superman is its obsession with destiny. I am not a huge stickler for all points of comic canon lining up in the SV universe; I think so long as you are true to the core elements of the mythos and the spirit of the character, some deviation is interesting. That's why the idea of Lois meeting Clark while he was in high school never bothered me, despite my almost rabid love of the mythos. The focus on destiny does negatively affect the story, however. They pushed it too hard, to the point where it detracted from the innate goodness of the character. In most incarnations, Clark doesn't don the suit because his popsicle father tells him to; he does it because he can't imagine not helping. It's only an obligation to Clark because he is a deeply good, empathic, responsible man, not because he believes that it is an inevitable result of his existence on Earth, regardless of his own hopes and desires.
You might argue that making destiny such a huge part of Smallville's story (especially its early story) gave the character more emotional depth or resonance, because it gave him something to struggle with and against. You might say that adding that element made a god-like character approachable. I'd disagree. The kind of angst that can legitimately coexist with Clark's unselfishness does not deal with Clark's desire to do nothing. Rather, it stems from his wish that he could help without it negatively impacting his life, that he could manage to never let anyone down. He has a very human soul, and like any human, he longs for happiness and freedom from burdens of the heart. But the world isn't perfect, and neither is he. He will let people down from time to time, in his personal, professional and superheroic lives. And he will experience pain and despair as part of his interactions with the world. He remains a hopeful and inspiring character, however, because it doesn't consume him, and he continues to be a righteous crusader for truth and justice.
By way of contrast, in attempting to give Clark Kent a more obvious teenager dilemma, that of a domineering parent and unwanted expectations, Al Gough and Miles Millar undercut the aspects of his character that made him such a paragon. The approach Smallville took made Clark appear petulant and selfish, while it turned Jor-el into a total tyrant. This Clark has been hammered with declarations of his destiny as the Last Son of Krypton. He is made to view his abilities through a lens of obligation, and in true teenage fashion, he balks at the idea. His balking causes Jor-el to retaliate in cold and sometimes violent ways, so that Clark associates his destiny with painful things. Superman becomes something he essentially must do because he has been told that it is his destiny, and running away from his destiny will result in retribution from fate. He still has the morals of the iconic Superman, and is still innately good. But taking up the mantle of the Man of Steel is no longer a pure triumph of his compassion. Even though he acts heroically, and has the same drive to help others, this Clark Kent’s maturation comes coupled with a kind of hopeless submission that runs counter to the character’s core.
Now don't get me wrong. I quite love Smallville's Clark Kent, especially now that he's matured. Unlike many past incarnations, this one does actually explore the inner life of the character beyond just his powers and secret identity. And it doesn't hurt that he is played by the gorgeous Tom Welling. But I think that before the next Superman property launches, the people in charge should take a good hard look at what Smallville did wrong and what it did right. In my opinion, this issue of destiny is one of the most important to consider. It's something of a tempting element to add, I think, and there could be a danger of people mistaking a relatable, conflicted, human Clark with one nearly crushed under the weight of destiny.
You don't need the destiny factor to show a young Clark struggling with the burdens of power and heroism. You only need him to be Clark Kent.
...these types of things are so much EASIER to express on livejournal than twitter, with its character limit, or on a forum, where you have to wait for it to be relevant to the topic at hand. Why did I balk at making a livejournal, again?
If you endeavor to translate it more accurately, you might say that wyrd is "the things that happen." Those things are not fixed occurrences that cannot be escaped, put into place due to outside forces. Wyrd is destiny insofar as it is rather inevitable, but it is inevitable because certain actions of free require that other certain occurrences will result. The subject of wyrd is an active participant in his own fate; he interacts with divine providence in writing the story of his life.
And because I apparently cannot have a thought without it in someway not bringing me back around to fandom: I've been dying for someone to use that concept of wyrd in a Smallville fic. I'd love for something similar to come up on the show itself, but that is a pretty blatant pipe dream. I think the biggest thematic failure of Smallville's approach to Clark Kent/Superman is its obsession with destiny. I am not a huge stickler for all points of comic canon lining up in the SV universe; I think so long as you are true to the core elements of the mythos and the spirit of the character, some deviation is interesting. That's why the idea of Lois meeting Clark while he was in high school never bothered me, despite my almost rabid love of the mythos. The focus on destiny does negatively affect the story, however. They pushed it too hard, to the point where it detracted from the innate goodness of the character. In most incarnations, Clark doesn't don the suit because his popsicle father tells him to; he does it because he can't imagine not helping. It's only an obligation to Clark because he is a deeply good, empathic, responsible man, not because he believes that it is an inevitable result of his existence on Earth, regardless of his own hopes and desires.
You might argue that making destiny such a huge part of Smallville's story (especially its early story) gave the character more emotional depth or resonance, because it gave him something to struggle with and against. You might say that adding that element made a god-like character approachable. I'd disagree. The kind of angst that can legitimately coexist with Clark's unselfishness does not deal with Clark's desire to do nothing. Rather, it stems from his wish that he could help without it negatively impacting his life, that he could manage to never let anyone down. He has a very human soul, and like any human, he longs for happiness and freedom from burdens of the heart. But the world isn't perfect, and neither is he. He will let people down from time to time, in his personal, professional and superheroic lives. And he will experience pain and despair as part of his interactions with the world. He remains a hopeful and inspiring character, however, because it doesn't consume him, and he continues to be a righteous crusader for truth and justice.
By way of contrast, in attempting to give Clark Kent a more obvious teenager dilemma, that of a domineering parent and unwanted expectations, Al Gough and Miles Millar undercut the aspects of his character that made him such a paragon. The approach Smallville took made Clark appear petulant and selfish, while it turned Jor-el into a total tyrant. This Clark has been hammered with declarations of his destiny as the Last Son of Krypton. He is made to view his abilities through a lens of obligation, and in true teenage fashion, he balks at the idea. His balking causes Jor-el to retaliate in cold and sometimes violent ways, so that Clark associates his destiny with painful things. Superman becomes something he essentially must do because he has been told that it is his destiny, and running away from his destiny will result in retribution from fate. He still has the morals of the iconic Superman, and is still innately good. But taking up the mantle of the Man of Steel is no longer a pure triumph of his compassion. Even though he acts heroically, and has the same drive to help others, this Clark Kent’s maturation comes coupled with a kind of hopeless submission that runs counter to the character’s core.
Now don't get me wrong. I quite love Smallville's Clark Kent, especially now that he's matured. Unlike many past incarnations, this one does actually explore the inner life of the character beyond just his powers and secret identity. And it doesn't hurt that he is played by the gorgeous Tom Welling. But I think that before the next Superman property launches, the people in charge should take a good hard look at what Smallville did wrong and what it did right. In my opinion, this issue of destiny is one of the most important to consider. It's something of a tempting element to add, I think, and there could be a danger of people mistaking a relatable, conflicted, human Clark with one nearly crushed under the weight of destiny.
You don't need the destiny factor to show a young Clark struggling with the burdens of power and heroism. You only need him to be Clark Kent.
...these types of things are so much EASIER to express on livejournal than twitter, with its character limit, or on a forum, where you have to wait for it to be relevant to the topic at hand. Why did I balk at making a livejournal, again?