I thought that Clark would do something stupid in order, say, to save his Dad (who was killed by humans, not Kryptonians), or to go really Hamlet, and try to get Lionel... but he does nothing like that. I did not really see him actively joining the rebellion, because after the alien invasion, he really was caught between two worlds.
As for second part... I feel that Lex, that sees only the results, would have endorced genocide. More importantly, I feel that the rest of the resistence would have endorced genocide.
I seem to disagree with characterisations, because I expect both Clark, and Lex to be more... sociopathic. More inclined to belive that their actions are correct, whatever the applicable morality, or reality.
Hmm, interesting. I can absolutely see Clark doing something stupid, but I like to think he's occasionally capable of thinking something through and not acting on impulse.
Endorsing genocide: I think Lex is confident of his own judgments; he doesn't feel constrained by conventional right and wrong. But in this case, the conventional wisdom might have been exactly what you said -- kill them all, let God sort them out. He took a risk -- risking the rest of the world along with himself -- by letting them live, because he has very strong motivations to believe that the children don't have to become their fathers.
And certainly there were plenty of people who agreed that they should all be killed, like Judy, who killed 18 kids who trusted her. I don't think there was unified opinion in the resistance by any means, but Lex is the guy in charge. Sure, he's about half sociopath, but the other half is capable of surprising generosity.
When you write your own, I'll be interested to see your take.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From:
Re:
I thought that Clark would do something stupid in order, say, to save his Dad (who was killed by humans, not Kryptonians), or to go really Hamlet, and try to get Lionel... but he does nothing like that. I did not really see him actively joining the rebellion, because after the alien invasion, he really was caught between two worlds.
As for second part... I feel that Lex, that sees only the results, would have endorced genocide. More importantly, I feel that the rest of the resistence would have endorced genocide.
I seem to disagree with characterisations, because I expect both Clark, and Lex to be more... sociopathic. More inclined to belive that their actions are correct, whatever the applicable morality, or reality.
Yes, I know. I should write my own. :)
From:
no subject
Endorsing genocide: I think Lex is confident of his own judgments; he doesn't feel constrained by conventional right and wrong. But in this case, the conventional wisdom might have been exactly what you said -- kill them all, let God sort them out. He took a risk -- risking the rest of the world along with himself -- by letting them live, because he has very strong motivations to believe that the children don't have to become their fathers.
And certainly there were plenty of people who agreed that they should all be killed, like Judy, who killed 18 kids who trusted her. I don't think there was unified opinion in the resistance by any means, but Lex is the guy in charge. Sure, he's about half sociopath, but the other half is capable of surprising generosity.
When you write your own, I'll be interested to see your take.