![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Let me say right out that I enjoyed the episode, I truly did. I saw Lana's role as that of Symbol rather than Lex's true love/motivation for turning evil, and it worked very well for me. There's just a few things that made me pause (actually, since I believe this was all Lex's fantasy rather than a true visitation, they're easily understandable as dream logic, so you can consider this simple commentary):
1. Lionel got control of the company back ... how? Lex walked away without taking his fair share? Good Lex gave up on LuthorCorp as unreformable, thus gutting his ability to engage in Bill Gates-style philanthropy and as a bonus ensuring that a powerful corporation would be a force for evil? Good really is stupid! I mean, I'm willing to try the idea that Lex knew he had to remove himself from the temptations of money and power to stay good, but in this great country of ours surely there is a potential CEO who is not, you know, Satan. I hear there's this guy at CostCo, just for instance. Maybe Good Lex could have gotten the board to install somebody like him before jumping ship.
2. So Smallville has a big homeless problem? Seriously, homelessness as Lex's cause makes sense in the vision, since this Lex is all about sticking close to home, the illusion of security created by a small-scale, familiar world.
3. What's up with Lillian, aka brother-murdering spirit guide, showing Lex a depressing happy future? (And how perfect is it that Oedipal Lex gets Lillian as his Beatrice?) Possibilities: (a) she has such a powerful belief in giving Lex full information that she shows him the downside of choosing well (unlikely, since full information would include showing him the alternative, bombs going off and all); (b) she is seeking revenge on Lionel, trusting Lex to come through for her as he did before by driving him to choose money and power (not enough information about her to evaluate, since we only ever saw her in the depths of postpartum depression and through Lex's treasured anecdotes); or (c) she just has really, really bad judgment. If she's just Lex's fantasy, I guess that makes her something between (b) and (c).
4. I think we were being deliberately teased with Chloe/Clark -- the way it was done made it easy to read them as friends or as lovers, though Clark's still unwilling to commit. Indeed, Clark's dream-life is evidence to me that this is Lex's fantasy, since he's lacking crucial information about the real future (Lois, who should at least be at the party, not to mention Clark-as-hero needing to run off every minute). I don't think Clark would have told good-Lex the truth, since he hasn't bothered to tell Lana, so I can't say that Lex's continued ignorance is the product of his own present state of mind as in The Spike's "The Butterfly Effect," but I did feel that Chloe and Clark were creatures of Lex's mind even more than Lana was.
4. Relatedly, even Good Lex had to know (and suspect) many things about Clark that should have led him to ask Clark for help, but if he had, the dream might not have been able to come to its inevitable conclusion. Lex would rather be the only superhero around, and if he's no longer larger than life, Clark can't be either. And Lex has stopped relying on Clark for help, even when he's willing to go to his father.
5. Pure squee: Lex, even you know your poor little rich boy anecdotes grow old with repetition! Awww! Seriously, Michael Rosenbaum and Kristen Kreuk nailed that scene -- I suspected he told that heartfelt story every year even before she said so, and I found it perfectly plausible that he'd tell it both as magically-transplanted-to-the-future Lex and as Good Lex.
1. Lionel got control of the company back ... how? Lex walked away without taking his fair share? Good Lex gave up on LuthorCorp as unreformable, thus gutting his ability to engage in Bill Gates-style philanthropy and as a bonus ensuring that a powerful corporation would be a force for evil? Good really is stupid! I mean, I'm willing to try the idea that Lex knew he had to remove himself from the temptations of money and power to stay good, but in this great country of ours surely there is a potential CEO who is not, you know, Satan. I hear there's this guy at CostCo, just for instance. Maybe Good Lex could have gotten the board to install somebody like him before jumping ship.
2. So Smallville has a big homeless problem? Seriously, homelessness as Lex's cause makes sense in the vision, since this Lex is all about sticking close to home, the illusion of security created by a small-scale, familiar world.
3. What's up with Lillian, aka brother-murdering spirit guide, showing Lex a depressing happy future? (And how perfect is it that Oedipal Lex gets Lillian as his Beatrice?) Possibilities: (a) she has such a powerful belief in giving Lex full information that she shows him the downside of choosing well (unlikely, since full information would include showing him the alternative, bombs going off and all); (b) she is seeking revenge on Lionel, trusting Lex to come through for her as he did before by driving him to choose money and power (not enough information about her to evaluate, since we only ever saw her in the depths of postpartum depression and through Lex's treasured anecdotes); or (c) she just has really, really bad judgment. If she's just Lex's fantasy, I guess that makes her something between (b) and (c).
4. I think we were being deliberately teased with Chloe/Clark -- the way it was done made it easy to read them as friends or as lovers, though Clark's still unwilling to commit. Indeed, Clark's dream-life is evidence to me that this is Lex's fantasy, since he's lacking crucial information about the real future (Lois, who should at least be at the party, not to mention Clark-as-hero needing to run off every minute). I don't think Clark would have told good-Lex the truth, since he hasn't bothered to tell Lana, so I can't say that Lex's continued ignorance is the product of his own present state of mind as in The Spike's "The Butterfly Effect," but I did feel that Chloe and Clark were creatures of Lex's mind even more than Lana was.
4. Relatedly, even Good Lex had to know (and suspect) many things about Clark that should have led him to ask Clark for help, but if he had, the dream might not have been able to come to its inevitable conclusion. Lex would rather be the only superhero around, and if he's no longer larger than life, Clark can't be either. And Lex has stopped relying on Clark for help, even when he's willing to go to his father.
5. Pure squee: Lex, even you know your poor little rich boy anecdotes grow old with repetition! Awww! Seriously, Michael Rosenbaum and Kristen Kreuk nailed that scene -- I suspected he told that heartfelt story every year even before she said so, and I found it perfectly plausible that he'd tell it both as magically-transplanted-to-the-future Lex and as Good Lex.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
The way I'm fanwanking this is that despite vision!Lana not conveying it to us when she was otherwise playing Exposition McSpouty, Lionel actually wrested control of Luthor Corp away from Lex somehow seven years prior and then disowned Lex on top of that. Like I told Sarah, it even works within S5 continuity because present-day!Lionel is obviously trying to undermine Lex's political campaign (assuming Jonathan and Chloe were telling the truth about his actions in Splinter, and there's no reason to think they weren't); it's not that much of a leap to think he'd also be plotting a hostile re-taking of Luthor Corp.
So. I'm telling myself that what happened and that's how Lionel has control of LC in the vision, but it's not because Lex just handed it over to him or didn't try to fight him for it.
Pure squee: Lex, even you know your poor little rich boy anecdotes grow old with repetition!
He even knows that his body language as he tells them is repetitive, because notice, vision!Lex turned his back to Lana when he started telling the story in the same way regular!Lex often does. Which actually makes me smile, because I like thinking that particular piece of blocking *is* a result of conscious decisions from MR and/or the directors; I like the idea that it's one of Lex's physical 'tics' and that MR and/or the directors intend for it to be read that way.
From:
no subject
Now, of course I'm mushing together several levels of Lex, so I'm not saying that he's making the actual choice for good or gray reasons. But if Lionel's our alternative, and if we don't know for sure that Lex is headed to global thermonuclear war -- well, the objective merits of his choice are at least debatable for a utilitarian like me.
From:
no subject
Hmm ... I'm not sure I agree that Lex's goodness is dependent on him being the shield between Lionel and the rest of the world, though. Like, I don't think the vision is supposed to be about Lex as capital "g", heroic Good; if it were, then he most definitely would have been Kansas' version of Ben Carson in that vision rather than being an ordinary family man with an ordinary life. Maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems like you're rejecting the idea that Lex could be good even in the absence of vanquishing Lionel in some way, that vision!Lex's goodness is only good if in turning away from Lionel Lex also made it somehow possible for Lionel to no longer have any power, either. And I don't think the two things are related, necessarily. I think Lex could break from Lionel, could walk away from the Luthor life and still end up a good man without having to break Lionel *in addition to* breaking *from* him.
I agree that Harold & Co. should have taken care to explain why Lionel regained power of Luthor Corp. But there a lot more right choices present!day Lex could be making than just "walk away from Lionel"; there are a number of significant things about Lex himself, and how he views the world and how he views and treats other people, that would need to change, too, in order for him to be a truly good person.
From:
no subject
Hm, do you not think that the situation places certain responsibilities on Lex? If he has the capacity to stop Lionel, whom he knows to be evil, and is placed in such a way that it's a reasonable possibility, does he have the responsibility to act on that power?
If he doesn't, does Clark have a responsibility to use *his* powers for good?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
As for Lex in this episode, what I was reacting to was the idea that if Lionel somehow wrested control of Luthor Corp from Lex - even if Lex had put up a pretty strong fight - but Lex still then went on to do good and be good as a person, his goodness is somehow still less than good because he didn't manage to vanquish Lionel in the bargain (which is how I (possibly mis-)read Rivka's first paragraph in response to me). Something about the idea that Lex's goodness, as presented in the vision, is hollow or somehow lesser because he wasn't able to defeat Lionel just doesn't seem like a particularly fair reading to me, especially in the absence of knowing how Lionel wrested control (or knowing if Lex did or didn't put up a fight).
Basically, what it comes down to me is that there needed to be some explanation for how Lionel is in power in the vision; him somehow regaining control of Luthor Corp seemed the most plausible explanation for it. But I don't think Lex not being able to defeat him thus means the good man Lex is supposed to be in the vision isn't really so (which answers your first question: yes, I would think Lex should actively have fought Lionel in a takeover scenario, but his loss doesn't somehow preclude his goodness post-battle). Yes, Lex lost, but does that have to mean the good he manages despite that is always and forever undercut by the loss? I don't think so.
In other words, superheroes don't always save everyone/defeat every villain, but those failures don't make them less heroes, or less good. I'd think the same is true of an *ordinary* good person.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
First, in the words of Lawrence of Arabia, Lex isn't an ordinary man. He's extraordinary. So, yes, turning his back on that is deciding to be less than he could be -- that doesn't make his life hollow, but it means he has unrealized potential. (This is all mostly in reference to the "didn't put up a fight" scenario.) Maybe Clark could be a good man without deciding to fight evil (though I have my doubts; I think all that unutilized power would wear at him in harmful ways) but he's a better man when he does.
Second, I agree that losing a hard-fought battle doesn't make vision-Lex not good or invalidate his other good deeds. If he did lose, though, I'd expect the loss to haunt his otherwise good life. He really was in as good a position as anyone to stop Lionel, and I'd think it would trouble him.
From:
no subject
First, in the words of Lawrence of Arabia, Lex isn't an ordinary man. He's extraordinary. So, yes, turning his back on that is deciding to be less than he could be -- that doesn't make his life hollow, but it means he has unrealized potential.
Oh, sure. I'd agree that unrealized or untapped potential is wasteful, but I still think people can be happy (content) and good even when they're not meeting or realizing their full potential.
Having said that, though, I think that's people in a general sense. Lex *specifically*? Not so much. Not so much *at all*. Lex wants to be *great*. We've known this about him since *first season*. I really do think that a few more days or weeks of living that vision!life, and he would have gotten restless and questioning and wondering how he didn't manage to go on to do Great Things despite not having the Luthor money/influence/power, etc. I mean, look at how quickly -- despite his professed happiness - he discounted everything that life represented the *minute* it stopped being blissfully happy. I think your point that it's hard to judge this because we only see one day of Lex in that life is a good one, but if I were a betting woman, I'd be willing to bet that Lex would get really restless with his fairly mundane existence if he'd somehow gotten trapped in it. Eventually, he would have gotten to the point where he was thinking "Is that all there is?"
Maybe Clark could be a good man without deciding to fight evil (though I have my doubts; I think all that unutilized power would wear at him in harmful ways)
It's hard to say for sure, but I don't know that this is the case. Clark seemed -- *has seemed* -- pretty content with using his powers when a situation arises where it makes sense for him to do so, but he's really *not* out there regularly trying to actively fight evil. And he *doesn't* seem particularly troubled about it either consciously or subconsciously. S4, while painful and in many respects best forgotten, is a good example of this. Other than Run, when he tried to show Bart that having powers didn't mean one should feel comfortable abusing them, was there any time in S4 when Clark *actively* sought to make a difference via his abilities? I can't think of one. Clark's fights against badness on the show have still largely been reactive rather than proactive. He fights bad when bad presents itself in the form of the Thug or Kryptovillain of the Week, but he's not out there trying to track it down, and he doesn't ever seem to evince any kind of nagging sense that perhaps he *should* be. Now, I expect that that's part of *his* journey in this season, so I'm reserving judgment in saying that he wouldn't ever get to the point where not utilizing his powers in such an active way is troubling to/harmful for him. But right now, I actually don't see this in the Clark they've presented so far.
Second, I agree that losing a hard-fought battle doesn't make vision-Lex not good or invalidate his other good deeds. If he did lose, though, I'd expect the loss to haunt his otherwise good life.
I agree with this. I think I'd just note that based on the non-existent information in the ep re: how the power-shift happened at Luthor Corp, I'm not prepared to criticize Lex as though he *didn't* put up a fight (because we don't know that he didn't) and given the internal time-constraint of the episode -- Lex only got one day of this vision!life, and it was clear he was really new to it as he was moving through it -- I think it is, as you pointed out, hard to say for sure that if vision!Lex really does exist in an alternate future, that he *isn't* haunted by the loss.
He really was in as good a position as anyone to stop Lionel, and I'd think it would trouble him.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
This was my strongest reaction to the episode: That's what would make Lex happy? They must be joking! Yes, he wants to be loved and accepted by the community, but he also wants power and fame (which I don't see as de facto immoral). I don't think he could learn to live happily in the bounds of rural family life, and the overspending may be evidence that he knows that even in his dreams.
From:
no subject
While I agree with