![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(Subject line stolen! Blatantly stolen! from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
serrico.)
Well.
Okay, could I just ask very nicely that SV at some point poke fun at its own sex-negativity? I know that's expecting Buffy/Angel-like self-consciousness, but with all the anvils dropping, self-awareness has to be at least possible for the show.
I found the opening sex scene fairly unerotic -- it seemed like a scripted music video. This is consistent with the idea that Lex isn't dealing with these women as fellow human beings, but it made me think that Lex probably found the encounters ultimately unsatisfying, because there were no connections -- as Thamiris says, he was looking for someone else's face.
Jayne says that Lex is unlikely to adopt Lionel's tactics voluntarily, which is a great point. I think it might make more sense than it seems at first, though. Bear with me: first, I think it's clear that Lex told no lies and made no promises in these encounters, which were one-night stands. I imagine that this is in sharp contrast to how his father's seductions worked, see, e.g., Rachel Dunleavy, Martha Kent. Thus, I don't think Lex would see himself as following in his father's path (God, there's just no way that doesn't sound wrong) with women -- at least not until he accepts Smallville's condemnation of his careless behavior. Second, Lex doesn't think he's worth anything outside of his money. For him, the earrings may seem like an acceptable thank-you, because he's unlikely to believe that the women wanted a real connection with him, the man underneath the billionaire. So I can see him sending gifts -- but it is harder to explain why he'd send the same gifts his father chose, unless he was (a) trying to show he could indulge in even grander excess than Lionel, sending the same gifts to his one-night stands as Lionel did to his longer-term projects or (b) subconsciously emulating Lionel out of a conviction that they are, in fact, the same. I can see (a) starting when he was slightly younger -- he's still so young! They make it easy to forget, but twenty-four is barely the age of reason! -- and just continuing on out of habit.
So here's the quibble I haven't seen elsewhere: Clark, do you think that when Lex said "it was one of those nights that never happen," he could possibly have been speaking metaphorically? I know Lex never uses metaphors or analogies, so it's a stretch. But when I heard that, I assumed he meant "never happen" in the Data-Tasha Yar sense of "This never happened" rather than "Dear Penthouse, this kind of thing never happens to me ..." They're one-night stands; they're erased from his memory in the morning; we know that's how he sees it. When Clark said Lex had lied to him, I actually rewound and watched that initial Clark/Lex scene again, because I did not hear that. Clark's interpretation came as a total shock to me. I don't think Lex lied -- when Lex lies, he is usually more directly challenging about it. I think Lex, in his blue-state morality, said one thing in complete sincerity and Clark, red-state to the bone(head), heard another thing. And, in their grand tradition, told everybody but Lex that he'd understood the statement to be a lie. This is not a defect in characterization -- it's all too consistent. I just fear, as many others have said, that the show's perspective is Clark's and Clark will never be called to account for his judgments.
Am I alone in interpreting Lex's statement as not a lie but a turn of phrase?
serrico.)Well.
Okay, could I just ask very nicely that SV at some point poke fun at its own sex-negativity? I know that's expecting Buffy/Angel-like self-consciousness, but with all the anvils dropping, self-awareness has to be at least possible for the show.
I found the opening sex scene fairly unerotic -- it seemed like a scripted music video. This is consistent with the idea that Lex isn't dealing with these women as fellow human beings, but it made me think that Lex probably found the encounters ultimately unsatisfying, because there were no connections -- as Thamiris says, he was looking for someone else's face.
Jayne says that Lex is unlikely to adopt Lionel's tactics voluntarily, which is a great point. I think it might make more sense than it seems at first, though. Bear with me: first, I think it's clear that Lex told no lies and made no promises in these encounters, which were one-night stands. I imagine that this is in sharp contrast to how his father's seductions worked, see, e.g., Rachel Dunleavy, Martha Kent. Thus, I don't think Lex would see himself as following in his father's path (God, there's just no way that doesn't sound wrong) with women -- at least not until he accepts Smallville's condemnation of his careless behavior. Second, Lex doesn't think he's worth anything outside of his money. For him, the earrings may seem like an acceptable thank-you, because he's unlikely to believe that the women wanted a real connection with him, the man underneath the billionaire. So I can see him sending gifts -- but it is harder to explain why he'd send the same gifts his father chose, unless he was (a) trying to show he could indulge in even grander excess than Lionel, sending the same gifts to his one-night stands as Lionel did to his longer-term projects or (b) subconsciously emulating Lionel out of a conviction that they are, in fact, the same. I can see (a) starting when he was slightly younger -- he's still so young! They make it easy to forget, but twenty-four is barely the age of reason! -- and just continuing on out of habit.
So here's the quibble I haven't seen elsewhere: Clark, do you think that when Lex said "it was one of those nights that never happen," he could possibly have been speaking metaphorically? I know Lex never uses metaphors or analogies, so it's a stretch. But when I heard that, I assumed he meant "never happen" in the Data-Tasha Yar sense of "This never happened" rather than "Dear Penthouse, this kind of thing never happens to me ..." They're one-night stands; they're erased from his memory in the morning; we know that's how he sees it. When Clark said Lex had lied to him, I actually rewound and watched that initial Clark/Lex scene again, because I did not hear that. Clark's interpretation came as a total shock to me. I don't think Lex lied -- when Lex lies, he is usually more directly challenging about it. I think Lex, in his blue-state morality, said one thing in complete sincerity and Clark, red-state to the bone(head), heard another thing. And, in their grand tradition, told everybody but Lex that he'd understood the statement to be a lie. This is not a defect in characterization -- it's all too consistent. I just fear, as many others have said, that the show's perspective is Clark's and Clark will never be called to account for his judgments.
Am I alone in interpreting Lex's statement as not a lie but a turn of phrase?
Tags:
From:
no subject
And really, I wanted to throw something at Clark when he said "What else do I not know about you?" all accusatory-like. o_O
From:
drive-by icon admiration
From:
Re: drive-by icon admiration
From:
Re: drive-by icon admiration
Man, I knew I was missing out when I stopped watching TV regularly!
(Lust lust lust!)
From:
Re: drive-by icon admiration
From:
Re: drive-by icon admiration
From:
Re: drive-by icon admiration
From:
Re: drive-by icon admiration
:-D
From:
Re: drive-by icon admiration