Lex propaganda!
Apr. 22nd, 2007 03:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xparrotScrubs was cute and fun. Supernatural was cute and fun x100 and Sam was looking way yum and Dean's hair was so fluffy in the final scene that I nearly exploded from the need to reach through the screen and tousle it.
In SV news, idly reading a random journal, I think I found myself obliquely accused of being a Nazi sympathizer for my Lex posts. It could have been another post mentioned in their comments...but it sounded a lot like they were referencing our prattle about 33.1 and why it maybe is justified as Third Reich-esque propaganda. I'd be more disturbed by the comparison if we weren't talking about a totally fictional scenario. (If it was my post they were talking about, the person was polite enough not to flame me; they didn't even reference me by name. Such a well-mannered fandom!)
It's wild that Lex-fans are dividing into such totally opposite camps. Half of us think he's a sociopath, willingly marching down the road to Hitler-hood; the other half think he's a victim caught in a terrible and inescapable quandary, being pushed and pulled down into something he never wanted to be. We all think he's awesome (when he's not being pathetic), and the final destination's the same either way...but it's like we're watching two different shows.
And frankly? I wish I were watching the other camp's show. SV's just painful for a Lex-apologist, because it's never going to redeem him, but it keeps giving us supporting evidence. And it's pretty depressing to find oneself rooting for the losing side.
I'm not going to say much about "Progeny", not because we didn't rip it apart at length last night, but because![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
gnine already has gone on about it at wonderfully great ranty length, decrying that Lex was the villain at all. Go, check out her post, comment and discuss. There'll be a few spoilers to the ep here, but the real ep commentary meat's there.
The thing is, while I might agree with some of what Lex is doing, I don't think he's doing the right thing, or a good thing. I don't think imprisoning people against their will is right; I don't think murder is right, ever, under any circumstances.
But I don't think Lex thinks he's doing the right thing - just what's necessary.
The anti-apologists see Lex as having choices, as manipulating for his own desires, as turning on the people close to him for the sake of personal gain. Taking "Lexmas" at face value, selfishly choosing the personal security of money and power over the love of family and friends. All the worse because Lex proved at one time that he had a conscience, so he has to realize he's doing wrong. There's a certain terrifying innocence in a true sociopath's lack of morals; they can't choose the right thing because they don't have the empathy to have a moral sense at all. There is no right or wrong to them. Lex isn't a sociopath (though Lionel might be); he knows right from wrong. He knows hurting people or using people isn't right. And while he might have suffered traumatic abuse all through his life, he's (mostly) sane and mentally competent, so he is still morally accountable for the choices he makes.
The question is what choices Lex has (or sees he has, which ultimately is the same thing.) And it's a tough question to argue either way, because SV doesn't give us that much insight into Lex's head, ever. Seldom are a villain's motivations so opaque. (Though Lex is only one of the crowd here; no one's motivations in SV are ever explored at any length, except when they involve love for Lana Lang. ...Bitter, much? Oh, you betcha!) The show's awfully careful to give fuel for both our campfires. There are a few things he does that are pretty unequivocally Evil. There are about an equal number of things (mostly in earlier seasons, to be sure) that are unequivocally Good. And just about everything else is gray, with a lot of wriggle-room to argue it either way.
In a pulp comic book, the black-and-white photocopy of absolute morality, gray always registers as black. Motivations mean nothing; actions are everything, and the hero's path is a narrow and difficult one. But Smallville is all in technicolor shades of gray - I can't see how it would be satisfying to watch, by such standards, because there would be no hero at all, only villains. Clark puts on the red ring willingly, and has let multiple people die while being fully able to save them; Chloe illegally collects private files and medical records; Aquaman is an environmental terrorist; Green Arrow blows up buildings; Moira Sullivan manipulates her own daughter into being a murderer. And when morality is relative, motivation matters. If an action can potentially be either good or evil, then the why has to count for something.
But we're not talking which moral framework to follow. We're talking Lex's Catch 22. Morality is mattering less and less to Lex; the choices aren't mattering as much, because he's damned either way. He can stop what he's doing. Close 33.1. End his experiments*. Release his captives. Walk away from the whole dirty business.
* (whatever the hell said experiments are. "Experiments" does not automatically mean "evil." I wish SV would be clearer on this point. Human test subjects are a part of much medical and psychological research. The most important ethical concern is that such subjects are informed volunteers, and not all of Lex's subjects are...maybe. 33.1 is holding a lot of mutants, but whether it experiments on all of them, willingly or unwillingly, isn't clear.)
Except that if Lex walks away, more people are going to die. That's not a possibility; that's fact. How many people have died at meteor freak hands already? Meteor freaks kill people. Not all of them, but most of them. Chloe knows it, Clark knows it. Clark doesn't have a perfect track record, not by a long shot. Lex has the capability to stop them, keep them from hurting more people - one of very few people to have the power to do so. It's by morally wrong means; but if his inaction allows others to come to harm, isn't there a moral responsibility there, too? A sin of omission can still damn a soul. He's going to be guilty either way; he's choosing to take the active rather than passive road to hell. There is no road to salvation, not that he can see. By now he might have stopped looking.
--This is not even taking into account the whole saving-the-world-from-aliens aspect of the Lex-nalysis. That's a little harder to argue because Lex's motives are, as formerly whined about, so damn opaque. Except I really wish, just once, the other chars would question why Lex Luthor wants a secret army of super-soldiers. Do they think he's after military profits? Or taking over the world? What?
The two biggest dangers of Lex are firstly, that he is a private citizen, who is taking society's issues into his own hands. He's establishing a private dictatorship. That's probably the biggest problem I have with 33.1, the secrecy of it (and why I have such a problem with the "heroes" handling of it. If Oliver was less petty about wanting to go mano a mano against his old target, he would just blow the whistle on the project, expose it to the world. Chloe doesn't have the clout or the evidence, but Queen Industries and Green Arrow's boy band have both. But Oliver would rather just blow shit up.) If it were public, then it would have to follow social, legal standards, decided by the community that is being threatened. It shouldn't be up to one man. (Though considering how utterly insanely blind said community is to the threat, and the urgency of it, there's a good argument for emergency measures...)
Regardless, Lex has no checks and balances, no limits, not even a trusted adviser. He's navigating very uncertain moral ground without anyone to hold him on course. I have trouble holding him responsible for this, however, because I'm at a loss myself who could possible function as such. There needs to be trust for such a position, and there is no one Lex can trust.
The other danger is that Lex is psychologically unbalanced. Putting aside a past history of schizophrenia, alcoholism, and at least two episodes of psychotic blind rage, he's obsessed. I hesitate to call it paranoid obsession when the threats he fears are very real, but he's definitely unhealthily involved in his various projects. And willing to pay increasingly high moral prices in the pursuit of his goals.
Ultimately, what makes it so hard for me to call him evil, even in the face of the evil he's done, is Lex's motivations. To my mind, evil is a matter of sadism and selfishness, of causing deliberate harm and ignoring the pain of others for one's own benefit. But I have yet seen any evidence that Lex is doing anything he does for himself.
(...er. With the exception of Lana. And can I say grr that we ended up being right after all about the baby being a hoax? Unless Lex is playing an even deeper game...I know he isn't, but man, I wish he were. That bit of soap opera villainy is not only unequivocally evil; it's also stupid, which is far worse. Lex couldn't get to the doctor before he told her the truth? Man. Pathetic. That's all I'll say about that...I know I should be considering Lexana in the grand Lex-nalysis, but any long-term contemplation of teh Lana pains me, so it will have to be left to sturdier spirits than mine...)
That Lex is working toward a greater agenda than his own advancement doesn't make him less scary - a true believer is more frightening than any wicked, petty soul. But I personally don't see such as evil. Misguided, yes; insane, often. And sometimes irredeemable, if they refuse to accept any questioning of their righteousness.
What gives me hope for Lex is that he doesn't seem to think he's righteous. He doesn't believe he's doing the right thing, but the necessary thing. A desperate man; but for now, at least, he's still trying to go for the lesser of possible evils. Doing what he has to, but not proudly or happily (look at his fears with Lana, and how he dreads her learning the truth about him), and not without restraint; there's still lines he hesitates to cross. If Lex thought his ends justified any means, then he would have manipulated Moira in the most efficient way - by bringing in Chloe and putting a gun to her head. She already hated him; what did he have to lose?
And man, I want to know what exactly his ends are. Judging by (our wacky interpretating of) the director's cut for next week's ep, Lex puts his projects above his own life...
For Lex to fully come into his own as the Lex Luthor of comic fame, he's going to have to either give up his higher cause, or give into it entirely, become absolutely assured of his righteousness. The former way he'll declare moral bankruptcy and then I'll comfortably admit to his evil; the latter way makes for a more frightening villain, but one I'd hesitate to call evil; insane, more like, for all that he's damned either way. Maybe it's only a matter of personal definition. But either way, I don't see him as being there yet.
A couple final thoughts about "Progeny" - having watched the director's cuts last week, I was pleased that most of Clark's hesitation in saving Lex from Chloe's bullet was cut. Not really for the Clex. But Clark, for all his stumbles, is still pretty pure morally, and while I don't actually have much problems with him wondering for a moment whether he should let Lex die (I believe he has good reasons to think Lex is evil, even if I don't agree with that judgment, and he still made the right decision in the end, after all) - it bothered me a lot that he would consider letting Chloe become a killer. I know this is SV and no one is ever held accountable for what they do under the influence of whatever, but gunning someone down in cold blood, even if she didn't remember and believed he deserved it - that's not something Chloe should have on her conscience.
Also, I am starting to think Lex is adopting the Subterfuge approach to supervillainy, and is deliberately leading people on in the extent of his evilness because he's realized the advantages of that assumption. He can intimidate with vague threats and insinuations without having to making good on them, because people are frightened enough of him to fall into line without proof. Chloe was terrified of him (without Lex even having to mention that if she possibly managed to get her article published, without evidence, he could sue for libel and she would never work in newspapers again) - so terrified that she didn't even consider that for some bizarre reason he's neglected to sweep her or Clark up into 33.1. And I'm very curious as to the reasons for that. Because he doesn't actually put anyone in 33.1 who didn't first prove themselves dangerous by getting committed? Because he bears some lingering loyalty to their past friendship? Or does he have a more nefarious agenda? And will the show always leave us wondering in doubt about it? (I don't know about you, but I'm inclined to go with the wondering in doubt, myself...)
In SV news, idly reading a random journal, I think I found myself obliquely accused of being a Nazi sympathizer for my Lex posts. It could have been another post mentioned in their comments...but it sounded a lot like they were referencing our prattle about 33.1 and why it maybe is justified as Third Reich-esque propaganda. I'd be more disturbed by the comparison if we weren't talking about a totally fictional scenario. (If it was my post they were talking about, the person was polite enough not to flame me; they didn't even reference me by name. Such a well-mannered fandom!)
It's wild that Lex-fans are dividing into such totally opposite camps. Half of us think he's a sociopath, willingly marching down the road to Hitler-hood; the other half think he's a victim caught in a terrible and inescapable quandary, being pushed and pulled down into something he never wanted to be. We all think he's awesome (when he's not being pathetic), and the final destination's the same either way...but it's like we're watching two different shows.
And frankly? I wish I were watching the other camp's show. SV's just painful for a Lex-apologist, because it's never going to redeem him, but it keeps giving us supporting evidence. And it's pretty depressing to find oneself rooting for the losing side.
I'm not going to say much about "Progeny", not because we didn't rip it apart at length last night, but because
gnine already has gone on about it at wonderfully great ranty length, decrying that Lex was the villain at all. Go, check out her post, comment and discuss. There'll be a few spoilers to the ep here, but the real ep commentary meat's there.The thing is, while I might agree with some of what Lex is doing, I don't think he's doing the right thing, or a good thing. I don't think imprisoning people against their will is right; I don't think murder is right, ever, under any circumstances.
But I don't think Lex thinks he's doing the right thing - just what's necessary.
The anti-apologists see Lex as having choices, as manipulating for his own desires, as turning on the people close to him for the sake of personal gain. Taking "Lexmas" at face value, selfishly choosing the personal security of money and power over the love of family and friends. All the worse because Lex proved at one time that he had a conscience, so he has to realize he's doing wrong. There's a certain terrifying innocence in a true sociopath's lack of morals; they can't choose the right thing because they don't have the empathy to have a moral sense at all. There is no right or wrong to them. Lex isn't a sociopath (though Lionel might be); he knows right from wrong. He knows hurting people or using people isn't right. And while he might have suffered traumatic abuse all through his life, he's (mostly) sane and mentally competent, so he is still morally accountable for the choices he makes.
The question is what choices Lex has (or sees he has, which ultimately is the same thing.) And it's a tough question to argue either way, because SV doesn't give us that much insight into Lex's head, ever. Seldom are a villain's motivations so opaque. (Though Lex is only one of the crowd here; no one's motivations in SV are ever explored at any length, except when they involve love for Lana Lang. ...Bitter, much? Oh, you betcha!) The show's awfully careful to give fuel for both our campfires. There are a few things he does that are pretty unequivocally Evil. There are about an equal number of things (mostly in earlier seasons, to be sure) that are unequivocally Good. And just about everything else is gray, with a lot of wriggle-room to argue it either way.
In a pulp comic book, the black-and-white photocopy of absolute morality, gray always registers as black. Motivations mean nothing; actions are everything, and the hero's path is a narrow and difficult one. But Smallville is all in technicolor shades of gray - I can't see how it would be satisfying to watch, by such standards, because there would be no hero at all, only villains. Clark puts on the red ring willingly, and has let multiple people die while being fully able to save them; Chloe illegally collects private files and medical records; Aquaman is an environmental terrorist; Green Arrow blows up buildings; Moira Sullivan manipulates her own daughter into being a murderer. And when morality is relative, motivation matters. If an action can potentially be either good or evil, then the why has to count for something.
But we're not talking which moral framework to follow. We're talking Lex's Catch 22. Morality is mattering less and less to Lex; the choices aren't mattering as much, because he's damned either way. He can stop what he's doing. Close 33.1. End his experiments*. Release his captives. Walk away from the whole dirty business.
* (whatever the hell said experiments are. "Experiments" does not automatically mean "evil." I wish SV would be clearer on this point. Human test subjects are a part of much medical and psychological research. The most important ethical concern is that such subjects are informed volunteers, and not all of Lex's subjects are...maybe. 33.1 is holding a lot of mutants, but whether it experiments on all of them, willingly or unwillingly, isn't clear.)
Except that if Lex walks away, more people are going to die. That's not a possibility; that's fact. How many people have died at meteor freak hands already? Meteor freaks kill people. Not all of them, but most of them. Chloe knows it, Clark knows it. Clark doesn't have a perfect track record, not by a long shot. Lex has the capability to stop them, keep them from hurting more people - one of very few people to have the power to do so. It's by morally wrong means; but if his inaction allows others to come to harm, isn't there a moral responsibility there, too? A sin of omission can still damn a soul. He's going to be guilty either way; he's choosing to take the active rather than passive road to hell. There is no road to salvation, not that he can see. By now he might have stopped looking.
--This is not even taking into account the whole saving-the-world-from-aliens aspect of the Lex-nalysis. That's a little harder to argue because Lex's motives are, as formerly whined about, so damn opaque. Except I really wish, just once, the other chars would question why Lex Luthor wants a secret army of super-soldiers. Do they think he's after military profits? Or taking over the world? What?
The two biggest dangers of Lex are firstly, that he is a private citizen, who is taking society's issues into his own hands. He's establishing a private dictatorship. That's probably the biggest problem I have with 33.1, the secrecy of it (and why I have such a problem with the "heroes" handling of it. If Oliver was less petty about wanting to go mano a mano against his old target, he would just blow the whistle on the project, expose it to the world. Chloe doesn't have the clout or the evidence, but Queen Industries and Green Arrow's boy band have both. But Oliver would rather just blow shit up.) If it were public, then it would have to follow social, legal standards, decided by the community that is being threatened. It shouldn't be up to one man. (Though considering how utterly insanely blind said community is to the threat, and the urgency of it, there's a good argument for emergency measures...)
Regardless, Lex has no checks and balances, no limits, not even a trusted adviser. He's navigating very uncertain moral ground without anyone to hold him on course. I have trouble holding him responsible for this, however, because I'm at a loss myself who could possible function as such. There needs to be trust for such a position, and there is no one Lex can trust.
The other danger is that Lex is psychologically unbalanced. Putting aside a past history of schizophrenia, alcoholism, and at least two episodes of psychotic blind rage, he's obsessed. I hesitate to call it paranoid obsession when the threats he fears are very real, but he's definitely unhealthily involved in his various projects. And willing to pay increasingly high moral prices in the pursuit of his goals.
Ultimately, what makes it so hard for me to call him evil, even in the face of the evil he's done, is Lex's motivations. To my mind, evil is a matter of sadism and selfishness, of causing deliberate harm and ignoring the pain of others for one's own benefit. But I have yet seen any evidence that Lex is doing anything he does for himself.
(...er. With the exception of Lana. And can I say grr that we ended up being right after all about the baby being a hoax? Unless Lex is playing an even deeper game...I know he isn't, but man, I wish he were. That bit of soap opera villainy is not only unequivocally evil; it's also stupid, which is far worse. Lex couldn't get to the doctor before he told her the truth? Man. Pathetic. That's all I'll say about that...I know I should be considering Lexana in the grand Lex-nalysis, but any long-term contemplation of teh Lana pains me, so it will have to be left to sturdier spirits than mine...)
That Lex is working toward a greater agenda than his own advancement doesn't make him less scary - a true believer is more frightening than any wicked, petty soul. But I personally don't see such as evil. Misguided, yes; insane, often. And sometimes irredeemable, if they refuse to accept any questioning of their righteousness.
What gives me hope for Lex is that he doesn't seem to think he's righteous. He doesn't believe he's doing the right thing, but the necessary thing. A desperate man; but for now, at least, he's still trying to go for the lesser of possible evils. Doing what he has to, but not proudly or happily (look at his fears with Lana, and how he dreads her learning the truth about him), and not without restraint; there's still lines he hesitates to cross. If Lex thought his ends justified any means, then he would have manipulated Moira in the most efficient way - by bringing in Chloe and putting a gun to her head. She already hated him; what did he have to lose?
And man, I want to know what exactly his ends are. Judging by (our wacky interpretating of) the director's cut for next week's ep, Lex puts his projects above his own life...
For Lex to fully come into his own as the Lex Luthor of comic fame, he's going to have to either give up his higher cause, or give into it entirely, become absolutely assured of his righteousness. The former way he'll declare moral bankruptcy and then I'll comfortably admit to his evil; the latter way makes for a more frightening villain, but one I'd hesitate to call evil; insane, more like, for all that he's damned either way. Maybe it's only a matter of personal definition. But either way, I don't see him as being there yet.
A couple final thoughts about "Progeny" - having watched the director's cuts last week, I was pleased that most of Clark's hesitation in saving Lex from Chloe's bullet was cut. Not really for the Clex. But Clark, for all his stumbles, is still pretty pure morally, and while I don't actually have much problems with him wondering for a moment whether he should let Lex die (I believe he has good reasons to think Lex is evil, even if I don't agree with that judgment, and he still made the right decision in the end, after all) - it bothered me a lot that he would consider letting Chloe become a killer. I know this is SV and no one is ever held accountable for what they do under the influence of whatever, but gunning someone down in cold blood, even if she didn't remember and believed he deserved it - that's not something Chloe should have on her conscience.
Also, I am starting to think Lex is adopting the Subterfuge approach to supervillainy, and is deliberately leading people on in the extent of his evilness because he's realized the advantages of that assumption. He can intimidate with vague threats and insinuations without having to making good on them, because people are frightened enough of him to fall into line without proof. Chloe was terrified of him (without Lex even having to mention that if she possibly managed to get her article published, without evidence, he could sue for libel and she would never work in newspapers again) - so terrified that she didn't even consider that for some bizarre reason he's neglected to sweep her or Clark up into 33.1. And I'm very curious as to the reasons for that. Because he doesn't actually put anyone in 33.1 who didn't first prove themselves dangerous by getting committed? Because he bears some lingering loyalty to their past friendship? Or does he have a more nefarious agenda? And will the show always leave us wondering in doubt about it? (I don't know about you, but I'm inclined to go with the wondering in doubt, myself...)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-22 04:29 am (UTC)Heh, I found it hysterical that Lex didn't have to threaten Chloe outright. It's about time he took advantage of his undeserved reputation!
Actually here's a question - so is Desiree a guest of one the various 33.1?
Eee! I never thought of that, that would be awesome! I think she was put away in Belle Reve or something, too...oh, I hope Lex has collected her. She'd be pretty useful, too, if he could control her...
then when she betrayed him by falling back in with Clark, Lex must have taken that particular hard and as confirmation that he's right to be worried that the invasion will be all about subtle mind control
Even before going back to Clark, Lana betrayed Lex by stealing his box in "Fallout" - she gave it back to him, but with an ultimatum; she proved she didn't trust him at all, and therefore he couldn't go to her for objective oversight. You can't accept the advice of someone who will actively work against you before going to you to respectfully disagree. Not to mention, Lana actually told Lex in that ep that they were not on the same side! (which was dumb as anything, umm, what did she expect, that he would immediately change his mind about his obsession of over a year and join her nonsensical "there's nothing to worry about, aliens never strike the same planet twice!" side?) Lex needs someone who understands his fears and goals but disagrees with his methods, not someone who questions what he's trying to do at all.
Good point, too, about Lex reasonably having concerns that Clark has unreasonable influence on people. Even if the influence is really Lana's magic meteor mutatation!