![[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
Well, the point of the story wasn't "choose this and you can be happy!" but rather "happiness is still worthwhile, even if you can't hold onto it forever. Being open to life's vicissitudes brings pain, but also joy." If it's a simple matter of Lex "choosing life!" and being happy, then the choice seems almost forced. If it's a matter of Lex choosing to give up control over his life so that he has to experience more pain as well as more joy, it's a much harder question.
("...a life of pain?!?" "No, a life of love.")
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
The thing that bugs me most about AlMiles' vision of the world is that I think they really believe that. That's why their Clark isn't the super-student he was in the old comics canon, and why he never seems to learn. Good=stupid, to be intelligent is morally doubtful. Wealth is also morally doubtful, of course.
I tend to favor your theory that Dream!Lillian is just a construct of Lex's mind, not an actual independent entity come from fanficland, except for the parallel between Lex's vision of Lionel's role in Dream!Lana's death, and waking to the reality of how Lionel played with his own.
If Dream!Lillian is an entity, she's Medea IMHO -- though it's an open question whether TPTB intend us to remember that. If Dream!Lillian is Lex undermining his own dreams, then he knows too much about what's happening while he's unconscious.
Either way, I'm not sure the story actually shows Lex freely choosing the life of wealth and power over the life of happiness and love.
From:
no subject
And remember, in the real world no-one cares about Lex, Clark etc. do not mention his near-death. There is no real-world evidence that Lex is turning away from acceptance, love, and happiness. At the beginning of the series I had expected that we'd see the Kents, etc., offering Lex acceptance that he just can't see or believe in, but in the event that's not what they've shown us.
From:
no subject
Maybe the problem I have is that I don't think Lex's happiness/contentment/whatever should be the deciding factor at all, so I think vision-Lillian's project is corrupt from the start.
Moreover, when Lillian fails to show him the alternative (which the guy in It's a Wonderful Life knows, since he's living it) she is allowing Lex to guess about the amount of happiness, control, security etc. he will have under Choice 2. Maybe that's part of the point -- Lex believes that control will get him what he wants, even though we know it won't; maybe Lex also believes that if he tries to control events and fails, he'll deserve the bad the way he didn't deserve to have vision-Lana die.
Your comments have convinced me that what Lillian shows Lex (and what he can't accept) is that it is possible for Lex to turn his back on the man he's becoming. But she doesn't give him a reason to do so; she relies on his discomfort with who his father wants him to be and with some of his past choices. As it turns out, that's not enough. It was a good way to get him to fish or cut bait. It was also deeply incomplete, and that makes sense to me if it's Lex's self-defeating vision.
From:
no subject
Well, but he's living that life now. Is he happy? Will he be? He's a good 26 years old by now; he has the data, and the life experience, to be able to judge whether most people find happiness by walling themselves off from and conquering mankind. It's *pride* rather than *lack of information* that makes him think he can do better.
Also, the limiting factor on the war-future is that, frankly, the DCU with Lex as president *didn't* experience nuclear apocalypse. That *can't* be the guaranteed future, the supertext says.
From:
no subject
Since I don't believe in completely free choice -- men make their own histories, but not under circumstances and conditions of their own choosing -- I definitely wouldn't say that Lex makes a free choice between wealth/power and happiness/love. Rather (
From:
no subject
Even without reference to the Hourglass/fear-serum visions, I'd have been equally thrilled if he'd had a comparison vision of himself in the White House, alone and miserable and not starting a war. (Which reminds me that Lex does canonically have a fear about who he'll become in the future if he stays the course of power and money. If he chooses knowing that he's risking becoming a world-killer, it's an even weightier decision, and again one that I can't see having much to do with happiness.) For that matter, I'd have loved a vision of Lex torturing Superman (or someone who just bothered him), self-satisfied and unable to see his own corruption, his younger self horrified by what his mature self clearly finds the height of fulfillment. Comparing the future to the present doesn't seem smart for a visitation from an entity that wants to give advice, especially if the theory is that, at present, he still has freedom to choose.
From:
no subject
On the other hand, I may be attributing too much subtlety to SV writers. They *are* SV writers.
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
But I suspect at this point that I'm simply imposing my worldview on the story. I see Lex as choosing the epic life, happiness or no, rather than contenting himself with what the rest of the world deigns to give him. In my interpretation, he's disagreeing with Lillian that a life of love + pain is valuable for him, even if he'd think that it was all right for Jonathan and Martha Kent.
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
Not if happiness requires accepting pain and loss, if love and pain are inextricably intertwined. At the end of the episode, Lex chooses power and money specifically to avoid having to accepting the possibility of future loss, so it's not even as if he thinks he'd still have to accept it, either way.
Set up as "you can be happy for a while, but mediocre, and the happiness will be eclipsed, or be superawesome and be somewhat less happy," I'm really not sure I'd take option A, either (that was my initial reaction last night, actually), but I don't think that's the way the choice is supposed to be framed.
Oh, and I've been thinking about the Joshua option. We don't actually know that Lex is going to end the world; in fact, we don't even have any reliable information indicating that he will. Lex's own vision of apocalypse is a fear, rather than any privileged glimpse into the future, and Cassandra's visions, though as far as we can tell always true, clearly aren't--can't be--all *literally* true (Clark's future's being literally fulfilled strikes me as incredibly improbable), and Lex's future there is clearly presented figuratively--you can't just step out of the White House into a field of sunflowers, nor can is it likely to ever actually rain blood. When I saw "Hourglass," I never thought it meant that Lex was going to destroy the world; I just thought it meant he was going to do horrible and irreversible things to it.
From:
no subject
And can I just apologize for the length of the sentence in the second paragraph? ;)
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
You've convinced me that the main problem is Lex's pride and overconfidence in his`ability to control outcomes if he tries (emotional continuity -- who knew SV could do that?). I see Lex as willing to accept the consequences of his willed actions, good or bad, as long as he's making an active attempt to be in control; he believes he can be satisfied with the results, even if he doesn't get the loving wife and kids. He's probably wrong, but I think he's a little bit right. I'd find it perfectly plausible if, at the end of his life, he looked back and honestly thought he made the right choices.
And I agree about the apocalypse. As I said, I just like saying "global thermonuclear war." How about a nice game of chess?
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
1) As mentioned, his aversion to loving and then losing the loved one.
2) Plus his aversion to Defeat.
The two most intense moments for me were when Lex really couldn't comprehend what Lionel was doing and said, "You must not understand...this is Lana"
Plus:
When Lex had to go back defeated to be there for Lana's death. I am blown away by how much MR showed in there -- how the inner Lex could love -- it's just too poignant.
But, my point is that Lex has always been about winning and this time he couldn't pull a "have her airlifted to Metropolis to the best doctors"-deus ex machina bit. He "lost" in that sense, too...he lost his wife, but he "lost" the battle to get what he desired.
I saw the numbness in MR's face when he addressed Lana on her deathbed. He had nothing to offer her but his love, which he gave freely and in abundance, but that did not heal the defeat he felt, having failed to get help from the MB, and having no resources on his own anymore.
From:
no subject
That Lex's love alone is not enough to save someone is, I think, Lex's ultimate fear. His love couldn't save Julian, Lillian or his family, and he believes he cannot win love without money or power. Even in his vision, we are told that he can't handle living on a budget and continues to overspend. He is still rewarded for this character trait by Lana, when in fact it shows how limited his projection of himself is: he needs to actually recognise that being himself is enough. Although at first it seems that Lex's vision opens up amazing freedom to him, it is still fenced in by some deep parts of his psyche that he can't relinquish, such as excessive generosity.
I too responded very strongly to the scene of Lex returning to Lana's deathbed, defeated. So strongly, that I couldn't write about it immediately. But thank you for articulating how important that scene was. I think it crystalised the reasons for his choice. Yet these reasons are nothing new: they are just a more developed extrapolation of internal fears that Lex has harboured since childhood. I'm fascinated by the fact that there was both choice and no-choice in this episode for Lex: a perfectly Smallvillean paradox.
From:
no subject
I think Lex dismisses his vision for many reasons. In fact he doesn't deeply engage with it - so much of it involves too many imaginative leaps for him ('seven years?', 'no budget?', MR's expressions when Chloe tells him about her book and Jonathan praises him). Lillian, if she is read as a visitation, although I'm not sure I view her that way, fails because Lex is already so sure of what he wants: he wants money, power and 'it all' (control).
From:
no subject
Thanks! I'll await your thumbs up or down before posting.
From:
no subject
For me, this episode worked as Lex telling himself to stop dithering and do what, in his heart of hearts, he thought was the smartest thing to do.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
While I agree with
From:
no subject
I don't think Lex was consciously choosing that, so much as he just wasn't prepared to sacrifice the power for the love. I suspect he still plans to have that future with Lana, just on his terms and with money at his disposal. He thinks he can have it all
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
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
btw, i have written you several times from an AOL screen name, telling you how much i've enjoyed your SV stories. so if i ever comment here and act like i know who you are, but you're wondering who in the world i am, it's not that i'm trying to spook you! my (real) name's Vicki. :)
From:
no subject