Is Clark part of the reason why Lex turns evil?

[Poweranimals]

A big part of the reason why Lex has taken these stepping stones that have brought him down the path to his darkside has seems to be because of Clark. A lot of the mysteries Lex has searched after have been directly linked with Clark. Also, even after he sees him in the caves, Clark continues to lie to Lex.

So the question is, could all of this been avoided if Clark had told Lex the truth. Lex started off as a very good person and I think had there been more of a trust between them especially after the events of the finale, Lex may have chosen a different path.

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by Poweranimals
A big part of the reason why Lex has taken these stepping stones that have brought him down the path to his darkside has seems to be because of Clark. A lot of the mysteries Lex has searched after have been directly linked with Clark. Also, even after he sees him in the caves, Clark continues to lie to Lex.

So the question is, could all of this been avoided if Clark had told Lex the truth. Lex started off as a very good person and I think had there been more of a trust between them especially after the events of the finale, Lex may have chosen a different path.

I will have to disagree with your assumption. I'll leave it at that as I'm over-amped today as it is.

People are born inherently good or bad. Lex Luthor was born inherently bad.

I can say with 100% confidence that people have been born to conditions alot worse than Lex Luthor and have not grown up to be homicidal maniacs.

And the reverse holds true as well.

Lex has only himself to blame for being bad.

D'Oh! I couldn't keep it as a one-liner! I suck! :o

[KRAM-el]

Originally posted by Poweranimals

So the question is, could all of this been avoided if Clark had told Lex the truth. Lex started off as a very good person and I think had there been more of a trust between them especially after the events of the finale, Lex may have chosen a different path.

Geez, let's just pile MORE baggage onto this poor BDA! :mad: He's carrying around so much as it is it's NO WONDER he can't fly!!!!!!! :D

[Nerial]

Sorry, no, I don't think so. Clark might lie to Lex, but Lex has never given Clark a reason to trust him. Look at what he did to Arthur Curry when he discovered his abilities.

In truth, Lex has an obsession with knowledge and power. That's not Clark's fault. Lex isn't family or companion (thank Heavens), and doesn't have a right to Clark's secret.

In the future, Lex will hate Superman, and once again, it won't be because of Clark. Lex will be obsessed with trying to figure out Superman, and be jealous of the natural power Clark possesses.

His downfall is the fact he can't get that some things just aren't any of his stinkin' business. :)

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by Nerial
Sorry, no, I don't think so. Clark might lie to Lex, but Lex has never given Clark a reason to trust him. Look at what he did to Arthur Curry when he discovered his abilities.

In truth, Lex has an obsession with knowledge and power. That's not Clark's fault. Lex isn't family or companion (thank Heavens), and doesn't have a right to Clark's secret.

In the future, Lex will hate Superman, and once again, it won't be because of Clark. Lex will be obsessed with trying to figure out Superman, and be jealous of the natural power Clark possesses.

His downfall is the fact he can't get that some things just aren't any of his stinkin' business. :)

Happy Happy Joy Joy! First I found my long lost twin brother and now my long lost twin sister!

BTW, our mom regrets the huge mistake she made at our birth and wants both of you back (and wants me dead :o )

[KRAM-el]

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
Happy Happy Joy Joy! First I found my long lost twin brother and now my long lost twin sister!

BTW, our mom regrets the huge mistake she made at our birth and wants both of you back (and wants me dead :o )

Let's have a family reunion! I understand the Dixie Truck Stop is available... :lol:

[angelfire east]

tbtp have said both Clark and Jonathan are a part of the reason Lex becomes evil but won't relize it till it's too late.

Clark hasn't just lied about his secret to Lex, he stoal a car and lied even though it had nothing to do with his secret. He's also treats Lex like a idoit at times, and uses him. Now I'm not saying Lex is a little angel and it's all evil clarkie fault, but I am saying Clark, Jonathan and Lionel all played a part in what Lex becomes. In the end it is Lex's choice and he chooses to stop trying to be good.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
People are born inherently good or bad. Lex Luthor was born inherently bad.
I think we're on a sliding scale (I wanted to say con tin uum, but the post keeps typing ****** in its place -- weird), and circumstances have a hand in the way a lot of people develop. Looking at young Lex in Memoria, I can't help but think the abuse from his dad has a lot to do with his cunning, manipulative behavior and obsession with power. Not to mention what the meteor shower might have done. But I am one of those people who thinks Lex has been slippery from the start of the show. He's a charmer, and his charm fools everyone. But he had a lot of unattractive history, even in Season 1, and plenty of behaviors that showed him to be untrustworthy and driven by selfish motives.

I don't see how Clark figures into his evil genius. :cool:

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by angelfire east
tbtp have said both Clark and Jonathan are a part of the reason Lex becomes evil but won't relize it till it's too late.

if TPsTB can have two paragons of virtue turn someone evil then they deserve all the "negatives" we can heap upon them.

i think it makes more sense that lex's jealousy of what clark has (especially the love between clark and jk) drives him over the edge. not the actual people themselves.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
if TPsTB can have two paragons of virtue turn someone evil then they deserve all the "negatives" we can heap upon them.
I couldn't agree more. TPTB don't seem to understand their own character! Lex has been brilliantly portrayed by MR, well written, and well developed. I'd never attribute his journey toward evil to Clark or Jonathan.

[Kal EL2380]

I honestly think that if Clark had trusted Lex with his secret he would still have turned out evil. He probably would have tried to use Clark as a thug. Lex does have some redeeming(probably spelt wrong) qualities, but he is still his fathers son. We make our decitions on what we learned as a child. Lex learned from his father. He was doomed from birth.

[angelfire east]

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
Lex Luthor was born inherently bad.

I have to disagree. I think he was born good and became evil over the years.

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by angelfire east
I have to disagree. I think he was born good and became evil over the years.

starting with year 1 :p

[MyOwnSuperhero]

I think the thing is that Lex and Clark have a lot of the same crap to deal with. They both have a lot of unresolved guilt (Lex spent years thinking he had murdered his brother. Clark came to Earth in a rain of death.), they both have domineering fathers (Lionel and Jor-El), they both have always had gifts that seperate them from everyone else (Lex has always known extreme wealth, Clark has always had some powers), both feel alienated from their peers (Lex is unnaturally bald from childhood, Clark is, well, and alien), etc. The parallels between the two highlight the fact that Lex could easily have been good and as much a power for good as Clark will be. At the same time, we see that Clark could just as easily turned towards evil and been a villian of Luthorian proportions.

It's their own natures and decisions that lead them where they end up.

If anything, Lexmas and Reckoning should have clear shown us all that that's the big factor - their own decisions.

[angelfire east]

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
i think it makes more sense that lex's jealousy of what clark has (especially the love between clark and jk) drives him over the edge. not the actual people themselves.

Or maybe that fact that they never trust him, let him in, or treated him fairly, gave him that love he needed. Even after Lex bought and gave the farm deed to JK and asked only that they treat him as member of the family. Jk didn't even try, things went back to the way they where before.

Things like that add up, never being loved since his mother died also played a part in what Lex becomes. Lionel's abuse, the continual betray by every woman he falls for, the way that Jk treaked him, the lack of trust from Clark all these things add up but as I said before in the end it's Lex's choice what he beomes.


Originally posted by MyOwnSuperhero
I think the thing is that Lex and Clark have a lot of the same crap to deal with. They both have a lot of unresolved guilt (Lex spent years thinking he had murdered his brother. Clark came to Earth in a rain of death.), they both have domineering fathers (Lionel and Jor-El), they both have always had gifts that seperate them from everyone else (Lex has always known extreme wealth, Clark has always had some powers), both feel alienated from their peers (Lex is unnaturally bald from childhood, Clark is, well, and alien), etc. The parallels between the two highlight the fact that Lex could easily have been good and as much a power for good as Clark will be. At the same time, we see that Clark could just as easily turned towards evil and been a villian of Luthorian proportions.

It's their own natures and decisions that lead them where they end up.

If anything, Lexmas and Reckoning should have clear shown us all that that's the big factor - their own decisions.

I couldn't agree more.

[KRAM-el]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
TPTB don't seem to understand their own character!
This has unfortunately been the case time & time again (w/ ALL of the characters). I'm not going to even waste thread space w/ specifics. But the writing has been spotty (and that is a HUGE compliment) IMO, and the fact that it hasn't improved much in 4.5 years is what has some of us pulling our hair out...
* Peers in mirror & screams "AAGGHHH!!! I look like LEX!!!! *

[BoSoxJim]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by angelfire east
Or maybe that fact that they never trust him, let him in, or treated him fairly, gave him that love he needed. Even after Lex bought and gave the farm deed to JK and asked only that they treat him as member of the family. Jk didn't even try, things went back to the way they where before.


OK, so lex threw his money at the kent's. SO you're saying love and trust can be bought????

JK was a great judge of character. If it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk then it must be a Luthor.

Love and trust aren't bought, they are earned. Lex has never tried to earn anything, he buys them. Money for the Kent farm i slike a night on the town for him.

Maybe if he said, I'll trade my wealth and status if you leave the Kent's alone and then did that, would show his sincerity.

You know, when he spent time on the Kent farm (JK took him into his home and fed him). JK was impressed with that. Unfortunately, Lex took the easy life back as soon as it was offered. Aha! Argue that one! ;)

[Watching Smallville]

I was thinking about that episode, too. If you think back on the first two seasons, Clark gave Lex chance after chance after chance -- even when Lex had proved to be dishonest with him. That was one of the sore points between Clark and Jonathan -- that Clark kept giving Lex new chances. So I really don't think we can blame Lex's fall on Clark, of all people.

[BoSoxJim]

plus, let's look at ep 100. everybody was around jk win or lose after the senate race was final.

who was lex with??? a bottle of booze and oh yes, clark's fiancee.

why??? jk is (well, now it's was :( ) a good person, lex is a bad person.:

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
who was lex with??? a bottle of booze and oh yes, clark's fiancee.
So unbelievable. Don't get me started. :rolleyes:

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
So unbelievable. Don't get me started. :rolleyes:

i can't believe the writers have people beleiving that clark and his dad are the root of all evil! i have to defend clark and prosecute lex when those should be the two sure things on the show (clark = good, lex = bad).

yes, there's more to it than that but those things should never be in doubt.

[MyOwnSuperhero]

I'm sticking to the idea that they're trying to make Clark and Lex parallel characters. The fact that people are iffy on whether or not Lex is Bad or Clark is good just means they did it well. Remember, it's Grown Up Lex that's unquestionably evil. It's adult Superman who's unquestionably good. It's just good writing that they should spring from such similar roots.

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by MyOwnSuperhero
I'm sticking to the idea that they're trying to make Clark and Lex parallel characters. The fact that people are iffy on whether or not Lex is Bad or Clark is good just means they did it well. Remember, it's Grown Up Lex that's unquestionably evil. It's adult Superman who's unquestionably good. It's just good writing that they should spring from such similar roots.

you know, i could almost buy that up until lex tortured (and almost killed) aquaman. from there, the parallel went perpendicular (completely divergent)

and if good writing means leaving a dozen plot holes in one episode, then yes, it was great writing.

if good writing means leaving people with the thought that clark is a cold blooded killer, then yes it was great writing.

it was such good writing, people still can't tell if it was a jump or flight.

man, they should hand them a peabody or something!

[justsaynotokryptonite]

Lex's problem is that he cannot just accept things for what they are, but has to find its source...clark's secret is clark's...he can tell whomever he wants...i dont think one can honestly say that because clark didnt tell lex his secret that led to his evilness...he made concious choices and those choices led him to where he is...or will be...without anything to do with clark!

[Nerial]

Originally posted by justsaynotokryptonite
Lex's problem is that he cannot just accept things for what they are, but has to find its source...clark's secret is clark's...he can tell whomever he wants...i dont think one can honestly say that because clark didnt tell lex his secret that led to his evilness...he made concious choices and those choices led him to where he is...or will be...without anything to do with clark!

I COMPLETELY agree! Who says anyone has a right to Clark's secret?

Lex's problem is that he's so determined to find the 'truth' about something or someone, he completely ignores the question of, 'if he should.'

[SmallvilleMan]

Clark saved Lex from going evil at least for three years IMO. Clark can't be blamed, when he actually helped Lex away from evil as long as he could.

[KRAM-el]

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
Clark saved Lex from going evil at least for three years IMO. Clark can't be blamed, when he actually helped Lex away from evil as long as he could.
Very true, in this case.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
Clark saved Lex from going evil at least for three years IMO. Clark can't be blamed, when he actually helped Lex away from evil as long as he could.

I so totally disagree. Clark didn't save Lex from being evil for three years. I think Lex would've tried not to become like Lionel whether he met Clark or not. Lex didn't start evil, meet Clark, then say to himself, "You know, after meeting this guy, I think I should try to be good now."

What Clark did do was restore some of Lex's faith in people by not expecting gifts in exchange for friendship...at least, at first. He met Clark and the Kents and saw them as proof of what he'd believed all along, despite Lionel's teachings.

Unfortunately, Clark's (and the Kent's) behavior has caused Lex to become more and more disillusioned, and believe that maybe his father was right all along.

[HalJordan4184]

I'm still trying to figure out how everything thinks Clark is a paragon of virtue, or Jonathon for that matter.

People aren't born inheritantly good or evil. If that's the case, no one is responsible for anything they do. Good people only do good, because it's inheritant. They can't do bad, because genetically, they don't have the right stuff. And bad people, are bad because they are genetically predisposed to it. Lex then becomes not a bad guy, just a victim of genetics and fate. So how is anything he does his fault, if he can't change any of that.

Clark, and Jonathon, really aren't as good as previous incarnations. ANd people keep missing the point, that the powers taht be intentionally made them that way. Both are judgemental, stubborn, pigheaded, too proud of themselves men. They don't take advice, or help when it's needed, and both throw tantrums when things don't go their way. Before he even met Lex, Jonathon had determined he was the devil incarnate. Then, after season one, he had started to warm up to the character again. Then suddenly, he's back to being satan. If I were Lex, i'd go nuts too.

[Nerial]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
I'm still trying to figure out how everything thinks Clark is a paragon of virtue, or Jonathon for that matter.

People aren't born inheritantly good or evil. If that's the case, no one is responsible for anything they do. Good people only do good, because it's inheritant. They can't do bad, because genetically, they don't have the right stuff. And bad people, are bad because they are genetically predisposed to it. Lex then becomes not a bad guy, just a victim of genetics and fate. So how is anything he does his fault, if he can't change any of that.

Clark, and Jonathon, really aren't as good as previous incarnations. ANd people keep missing the point, that the powers taht be intentionally made them that way. Both are judgemental, stubborn, pigheaded, too proud of themselves men. They don't take advice, or help when it's needed, and both throw tantrums when things don't go their way. Before he even met Lex, Jonathon had determined he was the devil incarnate. Then, after season one, he had started to warm up to the character again. Then suddenly, he's back to being satan. If I were Lex, i'd go nuts too.

I don't think Clark or Jonathon are that bad to any extent; however, I do agree that the previous incarnations of them are more...good in the manner of good vs. evil. And, they are very stubborn men. :)

I don't think people are born good or bad, either. Maybe someone can be born insane, (or imbalanced), but in the case of Lex, I've never found him to be insane or imbalanced.

Nonetheless, Jonathon's switch from liking Lex to dislike usually had some cause. I think it's better to say that Jonathon never trusted Lex, but who could blame him? Lex was investigating Clark, and Jonathon got worried. Lex was linked to Nixon; again, got Jonathon worried.

The only thing I don't like about Clark's relationship with Lex now is that he does seem to come to Lex when he needs something, and that's about it. It's not the cause of Lex's downfall, but it certainly doesn't make Clark look good.

[Watching Smallville]

Clark and Jonathan are only two people in Lex's life. Lex has a lot of people in his life -- and had a lot of people in his life before he met Clark. If you think back to the episode Zero, we can see that Lex has been manipulative for a long time. He was always getting into trouble, and his father getting him out of trouble, which we learned with Rogue. I don't think we can take two people that Lex met relatively recently in his life and lay the blame for his development at their feet. Look at the way Lex deals with all the other people he comes into contact with in the Smallville episodes, and you will see that he determines his own path.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
Clark and Jonathan are only two people in Lex's life. Lex has a lot of people in his life -- and had a lot of people in his life before he met Clark. If you think back to the episode Zero, we can see that Lex has been manipulative for a long time. He was always getting into trouble, and his father getting him out of trouble, which we learned with Rogue. I don't think we can take two people that Lex met relatively recently in his life and lay the blame for his development at their feet. Look at the way Lex deals with all the other people he comes into contact with in the Smallville episodes, and you will see that he determines his own path.

I blame the Kents in this sense.

Okay, so Jonathan didn't trust Lex from the beginning. Well, then, leave him alone. Don't accept gifts from him. (Or, you know, farms.) Don't tell them you're going to start treating them like family, the proceed to treat him with the same contempt you always have.

You don't trust Lex, Clark? Then stay the heck away from him! Don't run to him asking for favors, and then ignore him the rest of the time. And don't jump on his case for lying to his "best friend" before proceeding to like (badly) right to his face.

When you think about it, the Kents have been jerking Lex around pretty spectacularly for almost 5 years now. And being jerked around repeatedly can bring out the worst in people.

[HalJordan4184]

I think Clark played a big part in the CONTINUED downfall of Lex. There is no doubt, with the childhood, and parental figure's lex had, he was headed down the wrong path. But CLark met him at a crossroads. Lex was at the point, where he could try to change, and be a better man than he knew his father was, or end up being worse than lionel.

At first, the Kents seem to have everything Lex has dreamed of. A loving, close family. Now, was Lex investigating the crash wrong, no. It directly affected his life, and he was almost positive something was wrong with Clark's story. Sure, Clark has a secret to protect, but he also needs to understand, you can't do something super right in front of someone, and then expect them to take your obvious lie as the gosepl. We know he hit Clark, he knows he hit Clark, and Clark knows he hit Clark. So what's Clark do. Lies.

So Lex does what any sane individual would do, tries to find out the truth. SOmetimes, yes, he does go too far. But i think most people fail to try to see this from Lex's point of view. In fact, i brought this up once, and was berated by another forum member, for trying to understand why Lex is the way he is. I was told simply, he's the bad guy, it doesn't matter, and was immediately called a smallville hater and Lex apologist. LOL

But you have to look at this from Lex's point of view. Everyone of you can sit at home, and say, Lex is bad, because i know this is wrong, and he did it anyway. But the thing is, does Lex know it's wrong. He comes from a family life, where he was taught, from an early age, do whatever it takes to get ahead and stay there. People don't matter. Only you do. Lie, cheat steal, kill, destroy, do anything to make sure you know everything you can, and hold the majority of the cards. And he was taught this was the right thing to do. After meeting Clark, he does have a change in his behavior. You honestly see Lex trying to be a good guy. But you can't change 21 years of upbringing ina couple weeks. So time goes by, and feelings keep repeatedly changing. Out of it all, Lex is probably the most confused one out there. He does the only thing he knows how to do, and the only "right" thing he knows, and is berated for it. So he changes, and is berated for that. He tries something else, and is berated. And it doesn't help the whole time he's trying to figure things out, and try to change, that Clark continually keeps obviously lying to him, and telling him to just let go of events that DIRECTLY IMPACTED HIS LIFE.

Am i saying Lex would have turned out a saint, no. Could he have ended up a decent man, yes. Look at Lexmas. Lex truly only does what he thinks will have the best benefit. And he truly does what he believes will protect people. The whole thing with Clark, was him trying to know the secret, adn be close to him. At least intially. As the years go by, it's become more sinister, sure. But i would think, after two years of Clark repeatedly telling me he trusts me completely, and is my best friend, yet continually keeps lying to me, and hiding things, i'd get fed up too.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by Dannyblue1
I blame the Kents in this sense.

Okay, so Jonathan didn't trust Lex from the beginning. Well, then, leave him alone. Don't accept gifts from him. (Or, you know, farms.) Don't tell them you're going to start treating them like family, the proceed to treat him with the same contempt you always have.

You don't trust Lex, Clark? Then stay the heck away from him! Don't run to him asking for favors, and then ignore him the rest of the time. And don't jump on his case for lying to his "best friend" before proceeding to like (badly) right to his face.

When you think about it, the Kents have been jerking Lex around pretty spectacularly for almost 5 years now. And being jerked around repeatedly can bring out the worst in people.
But Lex has done exactly this to the Kents. As you would say, don't tell people you're not investigating them any more only to create an entire room that is an exhibit of Clark. Don't tell Clark you don't know the reporter who is blackmailing him when you've been working with him all along. It works both ways.

I completely agree with you that Clark wore out his welcome running to Lex to ask him for favors, but Lex set up that dynamic by offering Clark so many favors. I think Lex is smart and calculating. I think he genuinely likes the Kents, but his actions usually have self-interest behind them as motivation.

[HalJordan4184]

And that's more of looking at things from your point of view and not Lex's. Lex has been taught his whole life, you can't trust people, especially ones close to you. And when people are close to him, that he thinks he can trust, obviously lie to him, it's who he is to find that out. That's how he was raised. Clark demands honesty from Lex, but then continually lies to him. Why should Lex tell him the truth. It is a two way street, but everyone keeps trying to blame Lex like he's directing the traffic.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
It works both ways.

Exactly. And Clark is culpable here, too.

Also, I don't necessarilly blame Clark for Lex's eventual fall. But I do think Lex might not fall if Clark had been a better friend. And, fact is, Clark wasn't obligated to be a better, more supportive friend to Lex. But the fact that he hasn't been is a shame, and is one of the bittersweet ironies of the series.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
And that's more of looking at things from your point of view and not Lex's. Lex has been taught his whole life, you can't trust people, especially ones close to you. And when people are close to him, that he thinks he can trust, obviously lie to him, it's who he is to find that out. That's how he was raised. Clark demands honesty from Lex, but then continually lies to him. Why should Lex tell him the truth. It is a two way street, but everyone keeps trying to blame Lex like he's directing the traffic.
I'm not blaming Lex. If anything, I blame his dad. I give full credit to Lionel for the way Lex was raised and the way his upbringing affected his life.

But I don't give Lex a pass, either. I guess I am looking at things from my point of view, because I tend to hold people responsible for their own actions when they've become adults. Many people have difficult upbringings, but at some point, you become the captain of your own ship, so to speak. If Lex feels abused by the Kents, he should avoid them.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
I'm not blaming Lex. If anything, I blame his dad. I give full credit to Lionel for the way Lex was raised and the way his upbringing affected his life.

But I don't give Lex a pass, either. I am looking at things from my point of view, because I tend to hold people responsible for their own actions, especially when they've become adults. Many people have difficult upbringings, but at some point, you become the captain of your own ship, so to speak.

As I wrote in another thread (slightly edited):

I'm not blaming Jonathan or Clark for the choices Lex will make. But they could be considered contributing factors. For example, most of the people in jail for violent crimes were abused as children. Does the fact that they were abused as children mean they shouldn't be held responsible for their crimes? No way. But that abuse definately contributed to how they turned out.

No one in Lex's life (not Clark, Jonathan, etc.) was obligated to give Lex friendship and support. Or even to be nice to him, for that matter. But, if they had, that could've effected Lex in a positive way. The fact that, instead, they gave him distrust and suspicion, effected Lex in a negative way. Logical cause and effect.


I’m not saying Lex is or ever was a saint. He’s made mistakes from the beginning, because Lionel taught him to do things a certain way. But that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have grown out of that behavior, and learned to think a different way, if he’d had the right support. It takes time to unlearn a lifetime of conditioning. Having good examples to follow doesn't hurt. People with abusive and/or traumatic backgrounds do pull themselves up and find success and happiness. But they don’t do it alone. They have help, support. There are people in their lives who want to help them, try to show them a better way, and stick by their side even when they make mistakes (which they are bound to do because of their backgrounds, and certain ingrained behaviors and thought processes that it can take years to change). And that’s the kind of support Lex has never had.

If Lex had arrived in Smallville and found someone who would trust him, support him, stand by him, forgive him, etc., his story would have taken a different tack. For a time, it looked like Clark would be that person. But, as it turned out, Clark wasn’t capable of filling that role. Which isn’t really Clark’s fault. It’s not his job to save Lex. But, if Clark had been the kind of friend Lex really needed, would Lex be teetering on the edge of darkness now? I don’t think so.

In fact, I think anyone giving Lex that kind of support would’ve made a huge difference. Clark is just one of the many people that didn’t.

[boygenius]

Its partly the reason but I think Lex is influenced by his father and his traumatic childhood.

Clark telling him the truth would just delay the inevitable.

[Nerial]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
I'm not blaming Lex. If anything, I blame his dad. I give full credit to Lionel for the way Lex was raised and the way his upbringing affected his life.

But I don't give Lex a pass, either. I guess I am looking at things from my point of view, because I tend to hold people responsible for their own actions when they've become adults. Many people have difficult upbringings, but at some point, you become the captain of your own ship, so to speak. If Lex feels abused by the Kents, he should avoid them.

I have to agree with you, Watching Smallville.

HalJordan, you keep saying we need to look at this from Lex's point of view? How about Clark's point-of-view? He's an alien, and even before he knew he was an alien, his parents never-ever wanted anyone to find out about him. They always warned him, afraid no one would accept him like they have because they raised him. I think they did the right thing, but what kind of feeling would that give Clark? He surely isn't proud of being what he is. It certainly isn't anything that he would want to tell people.

Honestly, I don't think that Lex is just bad. There's a poll on the general discussion page about who the most sympathic character is, and the winning vote is Lex--so, you're not the only one that feels bad for him.

Nonetheless, Lex has to be responsible for his own actions. His father's a jerk and his family's dysfunctional--probably most families have some type of dysfunction. It doesn't make us go all super-villian.

[Dannyblue1]

I do see things from Clark's point of view. And I definately don't think he was obligated to tell Lex his secret. But Clark has been a not-so-good friend to Lex in ways beyond the secret.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by Dannyblue1
If Lex had arrived in Smallville and found someone who would trust him, support him, stand by him, forgive him, etc., his story would have taken a different tack. For a time, it looked like Clark would be that person. But, as it turned out, Clark wasn’t capable of filling that role. Which isn’t really Clark’s fault. It’s not his job to save Lex. But, if Clark had been the kind of friend Lex really needed, would Lex be teetering on the edge of darkness now? I don’t think so.
I guess where we disagree, then, is that I believe Clark was a very good friend to Lex for three seasons -- until he found that room in the mansion. He went against Jonathan on several occasions to stand by Lex, and only became suspcious of Lex when he had good cause. At that time, Clark was a high school student. How can we hold a high school student responsible for the development of a full adult? I would say Lana has been a faithful friend to Lex as well, and still supports him. But for the first four years, Lana was also a high school student. I think it puts too much responsibility on these charaters to say that an adult's behavior depended on them.

[boygenius]

In Onyx we see that Lex's bad side is much stronger and is more motivated.

If he knew the truth about Clark it would'nt be long before he tries to use Clarks abilities to conquer the world.

Remember, he is the true sageeth.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
I guess where we disagree, then, is that I believe Clark was a very good friend to Lex for three seasons -- until he found that room in the mansion. He went against Jonathan on several occasions to stand by Lex, and only became suspcious of Lex when he had good cause. At that time, Clark was a high school student. How can we hold a high school student responsible for the development of a full adult? I would say Lana has been a faithful friend to Lex as well, and still supports him. But for the first four years, Lana was also a high school student. I think it puts too much responsibility on these charaters to say that an adult's behavior depended on them.

I didn't say they were responsible for how Lex turned out. In fact, I said that no one was obligated to be a good friend for Lex. But if someone had been the kind of supportive friend Lex needed, he might have turned out differently.

And I really don't think Clark has been that great a friend to Lex. There have been times when he's stood up for and by Lex, but those instances have been few and far between, sadly. And I blame the writing more than anything else for that. I think we were supposed to see Clark and Lex as great friends at some point, but the writing never bore it out.

[jimmyolsenblues]

Someone once said, that Lex attacks what he can't dominate, and Lex cannot dominate Clark. So Lex can let go of Clark's ablities, like stopping a car , or pulling him out of a car wreck. Lex was bred to be Number 1, and while Clark is around, Lex is always Number 2. Literally.

[jmf1]

Sooner or later you have to grow up and not blame your parents, your friends (your choice by the way on who you hang with) or anyone else for what you are or what you become. At the end of the day, Lex is to blame for becoming evil. The choices he makes in life were his.

I would hope most of the people contributing to this forum that are adults (and even the teenagers) do not blame parents or friends for their actions. Blame yourselves. Everyone comes from a dysfunctional home - its just a matter of degree.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by jimmyolsenblues
Someone once said, that Lex attacks what he can't dominate, and Lex cannot dominate Clark. So Lex can let go of Clark's ablities, like stopping a car , or pulling him out of a car wreck. Lex was bred to be Number 1, and while Clark is around, Lex is always Number 2. Literally.

I don't think that in the equation right now. I think that will be in the equation later on, between Lex and Superman. But, as for right now, I don't see some kind of dominance contest Lex has going, in his own mind, with Clark.

Also, you seem to imply that Lex wanting the secret was motivated by some kind of malicious intent towards Clark. But I don't think that's what's been portrayed.

I think Lex's need to know Clark's secret is more about obsession. Lex feels compelled to find out the truth. Especially since that truth has something to do with his still being alive. That need to know is so pathological, so all-consuming, that it pushed him to do some ethical things, and made him put a friendship he values pretty highly in jeopardy. And, the longer he doesn't know the secret, the darker his drive to discover it becomes.

[Poweranimals]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that this was Clark's fault, but he has definitely contributed to Lex's development. No one is truely born evil either. At least part of the reason why Clark becomes the person that he does as Superman is because of his parents, which is a strong element of the show.

Lex has been forced to deal with Lionel's style of parenting, which is also part of his problem. His mother wasn't exactly sane either. Everything in Lex's life has gone wrong and he's been thrown into situations that would've been difficult for anyone to simply let go. His father put him into a mental institute and erased part of his memory, which could've killed him. On top of that, Lionel took part in sabatoging his marriage and still continues to manipulate him.

Add the fact that he's lost almost everyone he's loved and people have lied to him and pushed him away, because of his father. Granted he's made some bad choices, but he's been redeemable, and still is. A lot of his choices have been made because he feels that he can buy a better life.

Clark has been one of the biggest positive influences in Lex's life and when he continues to lie to his face, that feels like a slap in the face. So yes, he and Johnathan have both contributed to Lex's path towards the darkside.

But I'm not saying that it's Clark's fault anymore than the unpredictable death of his father.

[Virtual_Me]

In my opinion, it was a mix of a lot of things, Lex being born and grew up in that kind of environment certainly didn't help. Clark lying to him didn't help either I think. And the fact that in the future, Lex is kinda jealous of Superman, with all of his powers and habilities, I'm sure that plays quite a big role into the fact that Lex turns bad.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by Poweranimals
Clark has been one of the biggest positive influences in Lex's life and when he continues to lie to his face, that feels like a slap in the face. So yes, he and Johnathan have both contributed to Lex's path towards the darkside.
Clark shouldn't be obligated to tell anyone about himself. It's personal. He doesn't owe Lex an explanation, he doesn't even owe Lana an explanation until they start dating. A real friend would accept that and not press the issue. I have always felt that Lex maintained a friendship with Clark for his own reasons -- and that's supported by the room he created in the mansion. That room was part of a big lie that Lex told for three seasons.

Clark, who was a high school student, much younger and much less mature than Lex while they were friends, can't be held responsible for Lex's choices. Jonathan is not Lex's father -- he's someone Lex rarely sees. Perhaps Jonathan could have had a positive influence on Lex if he had reached out to him and been more supportive, but the fact that he didn't doesn't make him responsible for Lex's dark side. Failing to help Lex be good is not the same as causing Lex to turn bad. And it's hard to say whether Jonathan would have made a difference anyway.

I guess I see the Kents as prominent in Lex's life only because he wants to know what they're hiding, and he obsesses on them. But they are not the primary influences on his development. He is surrounded by businesspeople and international moguls. And by the time he meets Clark, most of his character has been formed by his upbringing. I think his friendship with Clark was a brief bright spot in his development.

[SteveS]

Way to go Watching Smallville, a realistic and mature assesment of the reality of Lex and his corrupt inclinations. Well done.

[Watching Smallville]

Thanks. :)

[Nerial]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
Clark shouldn't be obligated to tell anyone about himself. It's personal. He doesn't owe Lex an explanation, he doesn't even owe Lana an explanation until they start dating. A real friend would accept that and not press the issue. I have always felt that Lex maintained a friendship with Clark for his own reasons -- and that's supported by the room he created in the mansion. That room was part of a big lie that Lex told for three seasons.

Clark, who was a high school student, much younger and much less mature than Lex while they were friends, can't be held responsible for Lex's choices. Jonathan is not Lex's father -- he's someone Lex rarely sees. Perhaps Jonathan could have had a positive influence on Lex if he had reached out to him and been more supportive, but the fact that he didn't doesn't make him responsible for Lex's dark side. Failing to help Lex be good is not the same as causing Lex to turn bad. And it's hard to say whether Jonathan would have made a difference anyway.

I guess I see the Kents as prominent in Lex's life only because he wants to know what they're hiding, and he obsesses on them. But they are not the primary influences on his development. He is surrounded by businesspeople and international moguls. And by the time he meets Clark, most of his character has been formed by his upbringing. I think his friendship with Clark was a brief bright spot in his development.

Agreed. Well put.

I mean, usually when Clark lies to Lex about his abilities, it's when he just saved the guy's life. The alien can't win!

It's not Lex's right to Clark's secret. Lex just thinks it is.

[Dannyblue1]

I don't think anyone has said Clark was obligated to tell Lex the secret. But Clark hasn't been the greatest friend to Lex in other ways.

1. Accusing Lex of every single bad thing that happens in Smallville, then never apologizing after he finds out Lex had nothing to do with it.

2. Saying things to Lex like, "Best friends don't lie to each other, ever," then lying (one must always add "badly") to Lex's face.

3. Going to Lex for favors after pretty much calling an end to their friendship. And, Lex being Lex, he probably saw that as Clark saying, "I'll be your friend, but only if you'll do this stuff for me."

4. Throwing a hissy fit if Lex doesn't automatically jump to do his bidding. ("Ryan" comes to mind.)

And so on and so forth. In some ways, I think Clark has done more harm being a sorta, sometimes, on-again/off-again friend to Lex then he would have if he'd just stayed away from the guy.

[HalJordan4184]

definately, clarks on again off again friendship has probably been more harm than good.

It's not that he owes the secret to anyone. But he's demanding. He wants favors and full disclosures from everyone, and demands they comply, or they aren't being friends. But he doesn't want to offer disclosure or anything in return. he can't demand people tell him everything, then be mad when they have questions of their own, especially when he's lying, as was pointed out, badly to them.

[Watching Smallville]

I can't get past the fact that Lex is the adult and Clark is the child, or minor if you prefer, in this relationship.

I would say that Lex's influence has done more harm to Clark than Clark's influence has done to Lex. Look at how their friendship began. Clark saves Lex's life. The look on Lex's face when that car comes up out of the water speaks volumes. He's already fixated on finding out how Clark saved him. And what does he do? He sends Clark a truck to try to buy his friendship. And it works, even though Clark has to return the truck and Jonathan warns him about fancy presents. Already Lex is a corrupting influence.

When Clark goes to the mansion to return the truck and the keys, Lex says he doesn't want to let anything stand in the way of their friendship. Why? Clark is 14 and a stranger. It's a strong statement, and a little weird, even considering that Clark saved his life. Then Lex proceeds to ingratiate himself by giving Clark advice about Lana, giving him tickets so he can take her to a concert, setting up Lana's birthday present. It's little wonder Clark gets into the habit of asking Lex for favors. This is the way Lex has set up the relationship. He's a corrupting influence.

I won't go on, but for the first four years of their friendship, Lex had the balance of power -- and I think, influence -- in their relationship by virtue of his age and his money and his manipulative personality. Clark finally woke up to this at the end of Season 3, but he backpeddled, and he keeps backpeddling. He has a hard time seeing Lex for what he is.

And I guess he's not the only one! ;) That Lex is a charmer. I love his charm, too. But he's a villain. No doubt about it.

[BoSoxJim]

Lex has been a shady character from episode 1.

While Lionel was screwing over Pete's family, Lex is in the field trying to hit a crow with a rock. Not exactly the sign of a good little boy.

Plus, Lionel had to have dirty cops keep his "good" little boy out of jail many times.

All this before the "evil" Clark got his mitts on him.

Lex never gave a damn about anybody until he met Clark. And eve nthen, he only wanted to get close to Clark to learn all his secrets.

I mean go back and watch the first season.

One of the more telling scenes was "rogue" when the bad cop was dying and lex pleaded with him to tell him what he had on clark.

If Lex was so virtuous then why didn't/doesn't he just leave his father and Luthorcorp behind????

Hmm.....what reason could it be????

[Kryptonian Snake]

Lex's main problem has been his insistence on continuously challenging his father in the corporate arena, further ingraining dishonesty and deception in his character. I think "Exile" and "Lexmas" made it clear that the only way for Lex to truly become a better man is by abandoning his ambition, Luthorcorp, and Lionel. Even if he were accepted into the Kent family, I still believe Lex would have desired the love and acceptance of Lionel, remaining at Luthorcorp and getting entangled in more power struggles. Gaining Clark's trust might have made Lex more optimistic about humanity, but I doubt it would have caused him to fundamentally change his ethical system or ignore his appetite for knowledge at all costs.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by Kryptonian Snake
Even if he were accepted into the Kent family, I still believe Lex would have desired the love and acceptance of Lionel
You hit the nail on the head. And by the time we get to Memoria, it's too late, leaving Lex with nothing but power to fill the gap. And that's his main desire, now.

[BoSoxJim]

and yet another reason why i feel lex was bad before clark had the chance to lead him down the dark path....

episode 1x16 "Stray"

Ryan: Clark, be careful of Lex. I know you like him, but there's a lot of darkness he keeps form the world. I've seen it in his head.

wait, another classic quote from episode 1x17 "Reaper"

Lex: All I'm saying, Dominic, is try and remember who I was raised by. I try to deny it, but I'm still my father's son. Tread carefully.

Wow, I should go back and chronicle each Lex "I'm really a nice guy" quote and pu tthem in the appropriate forum.

However, that would take me about a month to compile :lol:

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
and yet another reason why i feel lex was bad before clark had the chance to lead him down the dark path....

episode 1x16 "Stray"

Ryan: Clark, be careful of Lex. I know you like him, but there's a lot of darkness he keeps form the world. I've seen it in his head.

A-Ha!

Then later, after spending more time with Lex (getting more of a chance to "read" him) Ryan started to like Lex.

A-ha right back! :D

I think that, when Ryan first met Lex, he didn't have much time to do more than get a quick read. He probably focussed on the most worrisome thing about Lex, which is that darkness we know is inside him.

Having a chance to get to know Lex better, he changed his tune. Even told Clark how much Lex really admires him. (And, being a mind reader, Ryan would know Lex's feelings were genuine.) He still saw the darkness in Lex, but he saw good things, too.

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by Dannyblue1
Then later, after spending more time with Lex (getting more of a chance to "read" him) Ryan started to like Lex.

A-ha right back! :D

I think that, when Ryan first met Lex, he didn't have much time to do more than get a quick read. He probably focussed on the most worrisome thing about Lex, which is that darkness we know is inside him.

Having a chance to get to know Lex better, he changed his tune. Even told Clark how much Lex really admires him. (And, being a mind reader, Ryan would know Lex's feelings were genuine.) He still saw the darkness in Lex, but he saw good things, too.

not so fast my friend....

Ryan: I know I said you should be careful of Lex. But I never told you how much he admires you. Promise me you'll keep an eye on him after I'm gone.

ryan didn't say he changed his mind about him.

A-Ha!

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
not so fast my friend....

Ryan: I know I said you should be careful of Lex. But I never told you how much he admires you. Promise me you'll keep an eye on him after I'm gone.

ryan didn't say he changed his mind about him.

A-Ha!

And...

Well, like I said, Ryan was wary of Lex at first, after only getting a chance to do a quick read on him, and that's when he told Clark to be careful of Lex. But Ryan's views of Lex changed after getting to know him better. And you'd think that if the mind reader read nothing but evil in Lex, he wouldn't have been able to feel even a little comfortable around him. In fact, I think Ryan would've been terrified of Lex. But he wasn't.

Also, in that episode, Ryan and Lex had a conversation about how people (formerly good people, like the comic book character they were discussing) could wander onto a dark path without even realizing it. And, from the comments he made, I think that's what Ryan saw in Lex. A man who wasn't on that dark path yet, but could wander onto it without realizing it until it was too late.

If anything, I thought that whole conversation was a pretty anvilicious way for the writers to say, very ominously, "Lex isn't bad now, but you know he will be one day. Mwa-ha-ha-ha!"

[HalJordan4184]

You know, i've only seen one person here call Clark evil, hmmmm.


But anyway. No one is saying CLark is evil. Just he hasn't been the positive influence on LEx Clark Kent should have been. partly it's the writers fault.

I don't see how making Lex do what he's been raised to do since season he was about two onward makes him the devil incarnate since episode one. I mean, gee, he threw a rock at a crow, you guys are aware farmers just shoot them, right? As well as rabbits and other cute cuddly creatures. I guess farmers are evil now too.

The point we're trying to make, is that Lex just isn't inheritantly evil. Yes, he makes his own decisions. But that's like saying there is no such thing as an outside influence,a dn if he had never met Clark, he would still make all of the same decisions he has throughout five seasons. Clark has played a huge role in the decisions Lex has made over the past five years, but people seem to completely deny Clark's mere existance has any impact on what Lex does, and that the man is simply evil for no reason, always would be, and never had a chance. Which is completely against what he producers and writers have said about the show since day one.

[Watching Smallville]

Clark has played a huge role because Lex is obsessed with Clark. I don't think this is the same thing as Clark driving Lex toward the dark side of his character. I think that's an important distinction.

Lex had 21 years to develop before he met Clark. When the show started, he was already a power-broker. He was already a mogul. To say friendship with Clark causes Lex to choose evil is not giving Lex enough credit for being the powerful, smart, self-actuating person that he is. I respect Lex. Lex is his own man -- except where his father is concerned. Lionel is his Achilles heel. If Lex is turning down the dark path, it's because that's where he wants to go. He may not even see it as dark or evil. And that's the beauty of his journey.

I'm a Lex fan. That's why I respect his choices as his own -- even when I disagree with what he does.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
Clark has played a huge role because Lex is obsessed with Clark. I don't think this is the same thing as Clark driving Lex toward the dark side of his character. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Clark has played a role by not being the best friend.

For example, think of what it feels like when someone you don't care for much does something bad to you. (Like starts a nasty rumor or something.) That can make you feel bad. But it's ten times worse when a friend does the same thing.

Lex has gotten used to being lied to, used, decieved, being treated with suspicion. But those were strangers, people Lex didn't care about. Lex certainly didn't think of them as friends.

Then, along comes Clark. And, for a while, Lex thinks he has a friend who won't treat him the way everyone else does. Only, well, Clark does. And, coming from Clark, it had to hurt ten times worse than it had coming from anyone else.

There's an old saying. The best of friends can make the worst of enemies. Because nothing can hurt more, or make a person angrier, than the betrayal (real or just percieved) of a friend. And I think Lex's "fall" coincided with his becoming disillusioned with Clark and their "friendship".



Lex had 21 years to develop before he met Clark. When the show started, he was already a power-broker. He was already a mogul. You're not giving him enough credit for being the powerful, smart, self-actuating person that he is. I respect Lex. Lex is his own man -- except where his father is concerned. Lionel is his Achilles heel. If Lex is turning down the dark path, it's because that's where he wants to go. He may not even see it as dark or evil. And that's the beauty of his journey.

Being a certain age, having a certain amount of power, being raised a certain way doesn't mean a person has little to do with a person's soul. There are a lot of people out there who are smart, self-actuating, powerful, etc., who have serious issues, and could probably be helped by some friendship and support. No man is an island, no matter how rich or powerful they are. Or, at least, they shouldn't be. But Lex certainly seems to be all on his own.

I think Lex arrived in Smallville at a crossroads. He could've gone either way. And having a really good friend (one who stuck by him, even when he made mistakes) could have made a huge difference. For a while, it looked like Clark might be that friend. But, as it turns out, he wasn't capable of it.

And people don't necessarilly choose the dark path because that's the life they want. They choose it because they feel that's all there is for them. That they don't deserve better. And everyone in Lex's life, through word or action, has pretty much told him that he doesn't deserve better. And, sadly, Clark's voice has become part of that chorus.

[Watching Smallville]

We're not going to agree, or convince each other. I think you're looking at Lex as a victim. And he must be very weak if he can be so wounded by what you describe that he casts aside his integrity and moral judgment. I don't see him that way. I think he's tough. I think he's someone who makes things happen, rather than letting things happen to him -- except where Lionel's concerned. And even now, as another poster cleverly said, he's not playing checkers any more.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree. But it's been good discussing these ideas with you. ;)

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
We're just not going to agree, or convince each other. I think you're looking at Lex as a victim. I don't see him that way.

I don't see Lex as a victim. I see him as a human being. And, the fact is, human beings are just better when they have people around them who care about them, believe in them, support them, try to help them...and, yes, forgive them their mistakes. Needing that stuff doesn't make you a victim. It makes you human. And it's a psychological fact that people who don't have that kind of support system are not only less happy (people who live alone and don't have many friends often suffer from depression), but are less likely to care about other people.

Well, Lex has never had that kind of support system. Not for long, anyway. And I think the narrative has shown that Lex could have turned out differently if he had had that kind of support system.

[Watching Smallville]

Of course that's true. I thought we were talking about Clark only. I agree -- Lex could have turned out differently, and in that sense, Lex may be a victim of cruelty and lack of love and support. It's hard to say. Certainly Lionel was cruel to him. But his mother loved him. There are other parts of his history that are a little ambiguous.

At any rate, by the time he meets Clark, I think he is who he is. I guess that's where our disagreement lies. And I'll leave you the last word. :)

[angelfire east]

Originally posted by Dannyblue1
I don't see Lex as a victim. I see him as a human being. And, the fact is, human beings are just better when they have people around them who care about them, believe in them, support them, try to help them...and, yes, forgive them their mistakes. Needing that stuff doesn't make you a victim. It makes you human. And it's a psychological fact that people who don't have that kind of support system are not only less happy (people who live alone and don't have many friends often suffer from depression), but are less likely to care about other people.

Well, Lex has never had that kind of support system. Not for long, anyway. And I think the narrative has shown that Lex could have turned out differently if he had had that kind of support system.

I agree:)


Originally posted by Dannyblue1
And...

Well, like I said, Ryan was wary of Lex at first, after only getting a chance to do a quick read on him, and that's when he told Clark to be careful of Lex. But Ryan's views of Lex changed after getting to know him better. And you'd think that if the mind reader read nothing but evil in Lex, he wouldn't have been able to feel even a little comfortable around him. In fact, I think Ryan would've been terrified of Lex. But he wasn't.

Also, in that episode, Ryan and Lex had a conversation about how people (formerly good people, like the comic book character they were discussing) could wander onto a dark path without even realizing it. And, from the comments he made, I think that's what Ryan saw in Lex. A man who wasn't on that dark path yet, but could wander onto it without realizing it until it was too late.

If anything, I thought that whole conversation was a pretty anvilicious way for the writers to say, very ominously, "Lex isn't bad now, but you know he will be one day. Mwa-ha-ha-ha!"

Again I agree

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
At any rate, by the time he meets Clark, I think he is who he is.

And I think Lex was still capable of change. Ask anyone over 30 (or they'll just tell you, as my mother often does) but a person can change a lot between 21 and 30. Heck, between 21 and 25. Basically, as much power as he had, as self aware as he seemed, Lex was still only 21 years old when he arrived in Smallville, which some forget or ignore. And, at 21, he was as capable of growth and change as any 21 year old. Heck, so is Lex at 26. No one's personality is set. However, they are more open to change at some times than at others. I think that, when he first arrived in Smallville, Lex was more open to change (and being positively affected by support and friendship) than he is now. But, even now, he's not--yet--a lost cause.

Basically, the argument seems to be that Lex was already a lost cause when he arrived in Smallville, and I strongly disagree. If anything, all we saw on the show between seasons 1 and 3 said the opposite.

[SteveS]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
I can't get past the fact that Lex is the adult and Clark is the child, or minor if you prefer, in this relationship.

I would say that Lex's influence has done more harm to Clark than Clark's influence has done to Lex. Look at how their friendship began. Clark saves Lex's life. The look on Lex's face when that car comes up out of the water speaks volumes. He's already fixated on finding out how Clark saved him. And what does he do? He sends Clark a truck to try to buy his friendship. And it works, even though Clark has to return the truck and Jonathan warns him about fancy presents. Already Lex is a corrupting influence.

When Clark goes to the mansion to return the truck and the keys, Lex says he doesn't want to let anything stand in the way of their friendship. Why? Clark is 14 and a stranger. It's a strong statement, and a little weird, even considering that Clark saved his life. Then Lex proceeds to ingratiate himself by giving Clark advice about Lana, giving him tickets so he can take her to a concert, setting up Lana's birthday present. It's little wonder Clark gets into the habit of asking Lex for favors. This is the way Lex has set up the relationship. He's a corrupting influence.

I won't go on, but for the first four years of their friendship, Lex had the balance of power -- and I think, influence -- in their relationship by virtue of his age and his money and his manipulative personality. Clark finally woke up to this at the end of Season 3, but he backpeddled, and he keeps backpeddling. He has a hard time seeing Lex for what he is.

And I guess he's not the only one! ;) That Lex is a charmer. I love his charm, too. But he's a villain. No doubt about it.

You accurately point out that Lex was a young adult and Clark a young teenager when their 'friendship' began. Really, Lex using his daddy's money for favors asked or bestowed is primarily a form of manipulation. There is very little there that could realistically be called a pure motive on the part of Lex. It is a financial form of ingratiation as compared to Clark saving lives non-stop with no gain financial or otherwise. ('Clark is a murderor, Clark is a hypocrite').

It is true that Clark has made a beeline to Lex for favors and that is not right. Lex is happy to give them as it puts him in a power position.

Anyway, there was no 'best friendship' between Clark and Lex, too big a gap in age, situation, and life experiences, even if they overlap on numerous occurrences.

[BoSoxJim]

I'm 34 and I can honestly say, my core personality is the same as when I was 21.

I grew up in a household where my mother and father fough constantly and I was dragged into alot of their fights.

I didn't have alot growing up while my friends did.

However, I've never been arrested. I have never torutured anybody (unless you count my wife and kids). I have never wanted to rule the world.

So please stop using Lex's troubled childhood as an excuse for his behavior.

Lex has done nothing but lie (for bad reasons) since day 1.

He lied to JK's face (in the 1st season) when he told him that he was no longer investigating Clark.

I find it really funny how so many are willing to give lex the benefit of the doubt and on the other hand, are so eager to condemn Clark.

JK let Lex stay at the farm when he got kicked out by lionel. JK actually started to warm up to Lex. However, as soon as Lex had the chance to get his money back, he left them without a second thought.

So he had the perfect chance to start living like a "good" person but decided it was better to be rich and powerful.

[HalJordan4184]

Age has nothing to really do with it. At least, it shouldn't. Sure, Lex was 21. But some of my friends were 21 or older when I was 15/16. One of my best friends is 8 years older than I am. He just turned 30, I'm only 22.

A key thing is in the maturity of the characters. If you look, Lex and Clark were very alike in how mature they both were in season one. Lex was like a 16 year old kid, trying to prove he didn't need daddy. And Clark was like a 16 year old kid, trying to be a 16 year old kid.

I don't think of Lex as a victim, he's made the choices he's made. But as Dannyblue pointed out, he might not have made those, had other people been the kind of friend Clark had said he would be. They just weren't the kind of friends they were supposed to be. We got told they were bestest buds, but never saw it. We only ever saw the bad for the most part. If we saw more fo the good, and more of Lex's struggle after the first season, I think it'd be more apparent.

Something funny I just noticed too. People say Lex was basically set in stone from day one. But with Clark, adn all of the mistakes he's made so far, and all of that, they still insist it's not too late for him to change, and can easily become SUperman, despite some of the heinous stuff he's done. Does that seem like a double standard to anyone else? Lex's youthful mistakes are proof he's the devil. Clark's, just make him more human, and somehow a better Superman.

do you really think it's that easy to just toss out the only life you know, and just become something new? It takes a lot of work, and a lot fo backsliding does happen. That's hardly conclusive proof Lex is evil incarnate.

It seems like too many people just want Lex to be evil, because it makes Clark seem good in comparison. Clark has engaged in evil actions on par with Lex's, yet somehow none of those are Clark's fault. He spends a summer robbing banks, and he's a troubled kid with too much on his plate. Lex takes the blame for his mother murdering his baby brother, watches his mother go insane, and die, and grows up with lionel, and he's just a pathetic loser, who didn't have the guts to move out into the street to be a good man.

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Age has nothing to really do with it. At least, it shouldn't. Sure, Lex was 21. But some of my friends were 21 or older when I was 15/16. One of my best friends is 8 years older than I am. He just turned 30, I'm only 22.



The age reference was to Dannyblue. Plus the age refernce had nothing to do with Lex and CLark. It had to do with what type of person you were at 21 compared to when you are over 30. So unfortunately you can't chime in on this as you are 22.

[HalJordan4184]

Um, waht thread are you reading.

The age reference in SteveS post refers to the fact Lex was just too old to be Clark's friend.

I merely said, age has nothign to do with their friendship deteorating. In fact, age can have very little to do with friendship at all.

And what does my being 22 have to do with anything. Am I not allowed to have opinions now. Apparently I'm just a punk know it all kid then. I might not know what it's like to be thirty, but that doesn't mean I can't understand people's ability to change, or that people can change over time. In fact, there are many 30, 35, 40 year olds out there that don't understand that. Being older, doesn't necessarily make someone wiser. Experience is what brings maturity and change. And you know jack about my experiences.

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
I don't think of Lex as a victim, he's made the choices he's made. But as Dannyblue pointed out, he might not have made those, had other people been the kind of friend Clark had said he would be. They just weren't the kind of friends they were supposed to be. We got told they were bestest buds, but never saw it. We only ever saw the bad for the most part. If we saw more fo the good, and more of Lex's struggle after the first season, I think it'd be more apparent.

I find it funny how (not just you) blame Clark for not being the type of friend he should be.

Well, if CLark wasn't superhuman, Lex would have killed him with his car. Even after that, Clark saved his life. Instead of being grateful, he diecides to launch an investigation into Clark and his family.

Even after Lex told Clark he was investigating him and said he closed the investigation, he continued to investigate him.

SO Clark should have told Lex that he was an alien with super powers???? Please. It's not Clark's fault that Lex couldn't just say "Thank you for saving my life".

and lex's youthful mistakes???? youthful mistakes don't require that your daddy have dirty cops get you out of trouble.



Originally posted by HalJordan4184

And what does my being 22 have to do with anything. Am I not allowed to have opinions now. Apparently I'm just a punk know it all kid then. I might not know what it's like to be thirty, but that doesn't mean I can't understand people's ability to change, or that people can change over time. In fact, there are many 30, 35, 40 year olds out there that don't understand that. Being older, doesn't necessarily make someone wiser. Experience is what brings maturity and change. And you know jack about my experiences.

Read Dannyblue's post and you'll understand.

ANd just calm down. Your age is showing :lol:

[MyOwnSuperhero]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Something funny I just noticed too. People say Lex was basically set in stone from day one. But with Clark, adn all of the mistakes he's made so far, and all of that, they still insist it's not too late for him to change, and can easily become SUperman, despite some of the heinous stuff he's done. Does that seem like a double standard to anyone else? Lex's youthful mistakes are proof he's the devil. Clark's, just make him more human, and somehow a better Superman.

do you really think it's that easy to just toss out the only life you know, and just become something new? It takes a lot of work, and a lot fo backsliding does happen. That's hardly conclusive proof Lex is evil incarnate.

It seems like too many people just want Lex to be evil, because it makes Clark seem good in comparison. Clark has engaged in evil actions on par with Lex's, yet somehow none of those are Clark's fault. He spends a summer robbing banks, and he's a troubled kid with too much on his plate. Lex takes the blame for his mother murdering his baby brother, watches his mother go insane, and die, and grows up with lionel, and he's just a pathetic loser, who didn't have the guts to move out into the street to be a good man. Because we know of the future roles these two characters will fill, we can look at their behavior thus far and recognize the tendencies already inherent in each. (BTW, the destiny aspect is very much alive in Smallville given the Naaman and Sageeth prophecy) The fact of the matter is that Lex is not yet fully evil - he has done some good things. The older he gets, the fewer good things he does, and even the good he does is always a calculated move to secure an ulterior end. Clark is the exact same. He is not yet the pure, altruistic hero we know that he will be - this is evidenced by the wrong things he has done. Again, as he gets older, he grows into the man he will be, and does fewer of those wrong things. Increasingly, even those mistakes are well intended.

At this point, if you ignore the futures that the two characters are growing towards, you can still see that Lex grows darker with time and Clark grows stronger. Could either character change and go a different way? Obviously - that was part of the purpose of Lexmas, to show us that Lex could turn around, should he choose to.

As far as Clark's influence is concerned, Lex himself has often said that being saved by Clark (both when he knew it and when he didn't) gave him a new chance in life, the opportunity to change. He's repeatedly told Clark that he struggles with an inner darkness, and that Clark helps him to keep it at bay.

[MBCorp]

The ambiguity of the character of Lex is one of the reasons why he became my favorite character. If tptb had written Lex in a black-and-white manner right from the beginning, either very, very good or very, very bad, then it would have been pretty damn boring. One of the things that SV is most known for is the fact that their version of Lex Luthor isn't your average boring one-dimensional villain. Instead he's a very complex and layered character. I've got to agree with Dannyblue that there are alot of factors tied in with Lex's descent into true villainy, and that to say that he was just born that way is a massive over simplification of the character's core personality. We've seen that Lex did indeed have a noble side in the first few seasons, although he also had a dark, dishonest side too. And tptb was always very careful to make their writing of both sides of Lex's character to be as ambiguous as possible. Ex. Roger Nixon's death. Very ambiguous. I'm not one to overly praise the writing on Smallville but I do think the writing of Lex's character in the first three seasons was pretty damn impressive for this show. I try not to anaylze the crackpot writing of the characters on this show too deeply, but I do think the writers did a surprisingly good job with Lex's character in those first few seasons.

As for blame and fault finding, If you want to know the truth, if anybody is at fault for Lex's turn to the darkside then it's Lionel, not Clark. Lionel is the character on the show that has screwed Lex up more than any other character. Love the MB to death and he's pretty much the only character that still interests me, but not exactly father of the year, was he? And as any good psychology class shows you, environment is just as important as nature.

[HalJordan4184]

That's the problem. YOu look at every action, based on what you know Lex is supposed to become. You look at every action based on what Clark is SUPPOSED to become.

Clark robs a bank, it's okay, because later, he'll be Superman, and Superman doesn't rob banks. So Clark can be let off.

Lex robs a bank, it's an evil act by an evil man, who should be punished. Because in the future Lex will be SUperman's enemy, so he can't be allowed to get away with stuff.

You can't judge these two based on what they are supposed to become. That's a continuing problem here. Clark can commit heinous crimes, but he's not bad for doing it, because he's supposed to be SUperman later.

Lex can donate a billion dollars to charity, but it's an inheritantly evil, calculated act, made to somehow give him power over the United Negro College Fund, because that's what the future Lex Luthor would do.

People taint Clark's mistakes with goodness because he's supposed to be the good guy, and they taint Lex's good deeds with evil, because he's supposed to be the bad guy.

Also, Clark can never be pure. He's already not. You can't make him pure later, if the point of your show is to show how human and impure the man of steel is. Everyone keeps saying this is a different take, that results in a different superman, then points to the comic or movie version, and uses that as evidence of how Clark is the good guy no matter what and Lex is the bad guy no matter what.

Also, BoSoxJim, like I said, I was responding to SteveS who said Lex was too old to be Clark's friend. So what's the point, that i don't know what it's like to be 30? You're right, I don't. But i somehow still fail to see how I then can't comment on people changing as they grow, or how a person can be different at 21, than at 30. It's not like I could possibly have known people during that period of time.

[angelfire east]

Again HalJordan4184 I agree ^^^


Originally posted by HalJordan4184
A key thing is in the maturity of the characters. If you look, Lex and Clark were very alike in how mature they both were in season one. Lex was like a 16 year old kid, trying to prove he didn't need daddy. And Clark was like a 16 year old kid, trying to be a 16 year old kid.

I don't think of Lex as a victim, he's made the choices he's made. But as Dannyblue pointed out, he might not have made those, had other people been the kind of friend Clark had said he would be. They just weren't the kind of friends they were supposed to be. We got told they were bestest buds, but never saw it. We only ever saw the bad for the most part. If we saw more fo the good, and more of Lex's struggle after the first season, I think it'd be more apparent.

do you really think it's that easy to just toss out the only life you know, and just become something new? It takes a lot of work, and a lot fo backsliding does happen. That's hardly conclusive proof Lex is evil incarnate.

It seems like too many people just want Lex to be evil, because it makes Clark seem good in comparison. Clark has engaged in evil actions on par with Lex's, yet somehow none of those are Clark's fault. He spends a summer robbing banks, and he's a troubled kid with too much on his plate. Lex takes the blame for his mother murdering his baby brother, watches his mother go insane, and die, and grows up with lionel, and he's just a pathetic loser, who didn't have the guts to move out into the street to be a good man.

Wonderfully said HalJordan4184! I agree:)



Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Something funny I just noticed too. People say Lex was basically set in stone from day one. But with Clark, adn all of the mistakes he's made so far, and all of that, they still insist it's not too late for him to change, and can easily become SUperman, despite some of the heinous stuff he's done. Does that seem like a double standard to anyone else? Lex's youthful mistakes are proof he's the devil. Clark's, just make him more human, and somehow a better Superman.

I noticed that too and it really bothers me.

[MBCorp]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
I don't think of Lex as a victim, he's made the choices he's made. But as Dannyblue pointed out, he might not have made those, had other people been the kind of friend Clark had said he would be. They just weren't the kind of friends they were supposed to be. We got told they were bestest buds, but never saw it. We only ever saw the bad for the most part. If we saw more fo the good, and more of Lex's struggle after the first season, I think it'd be more apparent.

Something funny I just noticed too. People say Lex was basically set in stone from day one. But with Clark, adn all of the mistakes he's made so far, and all of that, they still insist it's not too late for him to change, and can easily become SUperman, despite some of the heinous stuff he's done. Does that seem like a double standard to anyone else? Lex's youthful mistakes are proof he's the devil. Clark's, just make him more human, and somehow a better Superman.

do you really think it's that easy to just toss out the only life you know, and just become something new? It takes a lot of work, and a lot fo backsliding does happen. That's hardly conclusive proof Lex is evil incarnate.

It seems like too many people just want Lex to be evil, because it makes Clark seem good in comparison. Clark has engaged in evil actions on par with Lex's, yet somehow none of those are Clark's fault. He spends a summer robbing banks, and he's a troubled kid with too much on his plate. Lex takes the blame for his mother murdering his baby brother, watches his mother go insane, and die, and grows up with lionel, and he's just a pathetic loser, who didn't have the guts to move out into the street to be a good man.

That's an excellent post, HalJordan, and you make some very intriguing points in it! And one of the things that has bothered me most about this show is the lousy writing of the Clex friendship/rift. That was one of the things that initially drew me to the show in the first place, and it really disappointed me that tptb decided to concentrate more on Clana than on the Clex friendship.

[SmallvilleMan]

Something funny I just noticed too. People say Lex was basically set in stone from day one. But with Clark, adn all of the mistakes he's made so far, and all of that, they still insist it's not too late for him to change, and can easily become SUperman, despite some of the heinous stuff he's done. Does that seem like a double standard to anyone else? Lex's youthful mistakes are proof he's the devil. Clark's, just make him more human, and somehow a better Superman.

Because people reconize what kind of person you are. Lex has ALWAYS been the kind of person who's out for himself and will take out anyone to get what he wants. This is the guy who stole something from his future wife. This is a guy who has killed people without showing ANY emtion about it. Now tell me how Clark's mistakes equal that or justify being on Lex's level. Not to mention the fact that Clark has to deal with things Lex could never imagine.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Something funny I just noticed too. People say Lex was basically set in stone from day one. But with Clark, adn all of the mistakes he's made so far, and all of that, they still insist it's not too late for him to change, and can easily become SUperman, despite some of the heinous stuff he's done. Does that seem like a double standard to anyone else? Lex's youthful mistakes are proof he's the devil. Clark's, just make him more human, and somehow a better Superman.
Just for the record, I never said Lex was set in stone from day one. I said by the time he met Clark, there had been so many other influences in his life, that it is unfair to blame Clark for the direction Lex takes in life. I stand by that. I agree with the opinion that Lionel is primarily responsible for Lex's development -- and also the meteors. We never talk about that, but the meteor strike also had an effect on Lex.

I just find it profoundly unfair to lay blame for Lex's life choices at the feet of Clark Kent.

And I hope this is my last word on the matter! :lol:

[HalJordan4184]

See, that's just it. I'm not saying it's Clark's fault. I'm saying, the blame isn't totally on Lex, because circumstances have to be taken into account. Some people defy the odds, yes. But for the most part, people don't. That's basic sociology. Lex had the odds stacked against him from day one of living a good decent life. Sure, he could choose to go the extremely hard, completely crazy route, and throw everything he had away, run away, live on the street, be a pure little angel. But seriously, that doesn't really happen.

Is it Clark's fault, partly. Is it Lex's fault, yes, partly. Is it Lionels fault, yes, partly. The point is it's not one mans fault the choices Lex made. But one man could have made all the difference in the world to Lex. And the show was supposedly trying to set it up that Clark was that man. But all we got was a Clark that asks for favors, and a Lex that freely gives them. I don't even see a real friendship in there anywhere. I'm not saying CLark should have to tell Lex the secret, or anything like that. He only owes that to someone like Lana, who he was freely having a sexual relationship with, but decided the fact he was a completely different species was unimportant, and didn't matter. But did he have to lie horribly, and at every opportunity, no. Instead of helping Lex deal with things, he just kept increasing the suspicion.

[MyOwnSuperhero]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
That's the problem. YOu look at every action, based on what you know Lex is supposed to become. You look at every action based on what Clark is SUPPOSED to become.

Clark robs a bank, it's okay, because later, he'll be Superman, and Superman doesn't rob banks. So Clark can be let off.

Lex robs a bank, it's an evil act by an evil man, who should be punished. Because in the future Lex will be SUperman's enemy, so he can't be allowed to get away with stuff.

You can't judge these two based on what they are supposed to become. That's a continuing problem here. Clark can commit heinous crimes, but he's not bad for doing it, because he's supposed to be SUperman later.

Lex can donate a billion dollars to charity, but it's an inheritantly evil, calculated act, made to somehow give him power over the United Negro College Fund, because that's what the future Lex Luthor would do.

People taint Clark's mistakes with goodness because he's supposed to be the good guy, and they taint Lex's good deeds with evil, because he's supposed to be the bad guy.

Also, Clark can never be pure. He's already not. You can't make him pure later, if the point of your show is to show how human and impure the man of steel is. Everyone keeps saying this is a different take, that results in a different superman, then points to the comic or movie version, and uses that as evidence of how Clark is the good guy no matter what and Lex is the bad guy no matter what. Bah, Humbug, I say.

Clarks wrong actions are still wrong, and it's a fool who says otherwise. However, that does not, by any means, mean that he is incapable of heroic acts. It does not mean that he can't live according to right and wrong, or that he can't encourage people to do the right thing or that he is somehow amoral for the rest of his life.

On the same note, Lex's individual deeds don't lock him into or out of any "future". It's the whole of his actions, the overall trend and the shaping of his character that make him who he is or who he will become.

Neither is perfect, and neither is purely good or evil. That's one of the things that this show explores - how two men who struggle with their own desires and decisions take different paths. One becomes the world's greatest hero, the other, it's greatest villian. Even though their circumstances and the decisions they are faced with are often similar, the fact is that one consistently takes the darker path, and another takes the path of good.


Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Also, Clark can never be pure. He's already not. You can't make him pure later, if the point of your show is to show how human and impure the man of steel is. Everyone keeps saying this is a different take, that results in a different superman, then points to the comic or movie version, and uses that as evidence of how Clark is the good guy no matter what and Lex is the bad guy no matter what. IMO, this arguement is absolutely flawed. Showing that Clark is human and saying that Clark is forever impure are two totally different things. The point is not to show that Clark is the good guy no matter what. It is to show that he has learned, and thus chosen to live a good life, to be a hero.

This does indeed make for a diferrent Superman. This makes for a Superman who consciously chooses to be a hero and do the right thing, as opposed to a Superman who mindlessly flies around performing heroics, because his nature happens to be good and immutably pure. This Clark Kent is a real person, and can truly inspire, because of that fact. The other is an inhuman alien, someone who apparently has no idea what it is to struggle between a right and wrong choice.

At the same time, it brings a reality to future Lex's villiany. Instead of some cardboard cutout, hellbent on evil, he's a man like any other. Through the deliberate use of his resources, he perpetrates some of the greatest evils the world will know, but he doesn't just happen to do that - he chooses to, even though he could do the right thing, even though he once wanted to be a good man.

[HalJordan4184]

Except, on this show, he's not choosing that. His father's death is being used to force him down a path, he didn't want to begin with. He's already said, he would rather marry Lana and live on the farm. And as of right now, he's not doing that for fear Lana will die if he tells her the secret. He's not choosing to be a hero, he's being FORCED to be one. Jor-El constantly tells him he has a destiny, and he can't avoid it. That's not Clark CHOOSING anything.

Also, Clark isn't pure. And while, originally Superman was a character who jsut did good because thats just what heroes did, he hasn't been that for 20 years now. The comics and JLU have a human CLark Kent, who is far more good than this kid has ever been, or can be. Clark chose to do wrong. He didn't stumble into it accidently. He's not accidently throwing people fifty feet. He deliberately chose to be bad. Most people don't deliberately choose to be bad. This doesn't make Clark relateable to me at all. I find it despicable behavior. I don't care if he does stop meteors from crashing into the earth in the future, or he stops a couple plane crashes. He's still deliberately chose to do bad. Being a future good guy doesn't erase that. It's not what we do right that defines who we are. It's what we've done wrong, and what we've done to fix that. Clark' hasn't done anything. He'd still rather run than face problems, and he still doesn't want to accept blame for anything he does wrong. He's not learning. Now, after Reckoning, we're supposedly going to see a new Clark. Great, we'll be getting the Clark we should have had for five years now, the one who is STARTING on the heroic path. Unfortunately, he's been offroading for a little too long, and is a little too dirty to try to pull off the squeky clean hero image. Superman doesn't put on a squeaky clean image, he IS squeaky clean. And Superman, is CLark. People grow up without committing felonies and running away from their problems. Superman isn't the best because he made the most mistakes. He's the best, because he had a good upbringing, with wholesome values, HE STUCK TO. Not he violated, then came back to later when it was convenient for him.

Yopu want a Superman who chooses to be a hero, read Man of Steel by John Byrne. He didn't want to oust himself, but he did for the sake of saving people. He chose to be what he is. he didn't get forced down that path by the disembodied voice of God... err... Jor-El. His dad didn't die, and push him down that path. He chose it, willingly and completely. And he didn't have to rob a bank to figure out how to do it. He didn't have to run away to figure out how to do it. And he didn't have to be someone who is the opposite of himself to figure out how to do it. This Clark isn't leading a normal life on SMallville. He's leading a hollywood cliche'd life. Every decision is somehow life and death. Lana is more important than anything. YOu know how Clark Kent is supposed to have grown up, soemthing that's KEY to the character. As a normal kid, in a normal town, with a normal boring life. That's what made him the best. This CLark, while he can be a good guy when he's grown up, and a hero at that, won't be THE HERO, the light to show the way. He'll jsut be a dude in spandex.

[MyOwnSuperhero]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Except, on this show, he's not choosing that. His father's death is being used to force him down a path, he didn't want to begin with. He's already said, he would rather marry Lana and live on the farm. And as of right now, he's not doing that for fear Lana will die if he tells her the secret. He's not choosing to be a hero, he's being FORCED to be one. Jor-El constantly tells him he has a destiny, and he can't avoid it. That's not Clark CHOOSING anything. Choosing to save people and regularly going out of his way to do the right thing - that's exactly what he's choosing. Right now, he's having to learn that his abilities require more than that, and that his responsibilities extend further than friends and family and Smallville. That's a perfectly natural progression from alien farm boy to Superman; and if he needs to be pushed some to grow, what's the problem?


Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Also, Clark isn't pure. And while, originally Superman was a character who jsut did good because thats just what heroes did, he hasn't been that for 20 years now. The comics and JLU have a human CLark Kent, who is far more good than this kid has ever been, or can be. Clark chose to do wrong. He didn't stumble into it accidently. He's not accidently throwing people fifty feet. He deliberately chose to be bad. Most people don't deliberately choose to be bad. This doesn't make Clark relateable to me at all. I find it despicable behavior. I don't care if he does stop meteors from crashing into the earth in the future, or he stops a couple plane crashes. He's still deliberately chose to do bad. Being a future good guy doesn't erase that. It's not what we do right that defines who we are. It's what we've done wrong, and what we've done to fix that. Clark' hasn't done anything. He'd still rather run than face problems, and he still doesn't want to accept blame for anything he does wrong. He's not learning. Now, after Reckoning, we're supposedly going to see a new Clark. Great, we'll be getting the Clark we should have had for five years now, the one who is STARTING on the heroic path. Unfortunately, he's been offroading for a little too long, and is a little too dirty to try to pull off the squeky clean hero image. Superman doesn't put on a squeaky clean image, he IS squeaky clean. And Superman, is CLark. People grow up without committing felonies and running away from their problems. Superman isn't the best because he made the most mistakes. He's the best, because he had a good upbringing, with wholesome values, HE STUCK TO. Not he violated, then came back to later when it was convenient for him.

This Clark isn't leading a normal life on SMallville. He's leading a hollywood cliche'd life. Every decision is somehow life and death. Lana is more important than anything. YOu know how Clark Kent is supposed to have grown up, soemthing that's KEY to the character. As a normal kid, in a normal town, with a normal boring life. That's what made him the best. This CLark, while he can be a good guy when he's grown up, and a hero at that, won't be THE HERO, the light to show the way. He'll jsut be a dude in spandex. To say that the adult Clark/Superman portrayed in JLU or other media is "far more good than this kid has ever been, or can be" is (IMO) ridiculous, for many reasons.

Is he better than Clark is now? Maybe - that's debatable. What he is is a grown man, who has already learned the lessons that a teenager has not. To say that that particular portrayal of Superman is thus "far more good than this kid... can be" is not just logically flawed, it's silly. That is to say that he is incapable of change, unable to learn or to grow. What that is is saying that his nature is set in stone, defined not by what has occurred, but by what will occur - I believe you just spent a good number of words decrying that stance. Smallville's Clark cannot be defined by the characteristics of Superman until he is Superman. Until then, he is a kid, who must learn certain lessons, many by trial and error. Unless the JLU portrayal of Superman happens to include a full, detailed account of his teen years (which is what Smallville essentially is), then you also cannot make assumptions about his past.

The very idea that Clark Kent, an alien with super-powers could ever live "As a normal kid, in a normal town, with a normal boring life" is silly. Being uniquely gifted, he would naturally face certain issues and need to make certain decisions that a 'normal kid, in a normal town' couldn't even comprehend. Smallville is exploring that very idea. As such, it's the closest look at Clark Kents teen years we've ever been given. Aside from Birthright or Man of Steel, the only other view of young Clark that DC ever gave us was 'Superboy' - an adolescent Superman, tights and all. Again, it was goodness for the sake of... well, not even goodness, because it was never thought out that far.

[HalJordan4184]

I'm not saying his destiny is set in stone. THough when you choose to do a story about Clark Kent, you have essentially set that destiny in stone. Unless you intend to not make him Superman, it's very limited in what you can do.

But i don't think you followed one key point. I NEVER said he couldn't grow, learn or be a good guy. I never said he can't change for the better. I said he can't be the best, because he already isn't. A KEY point, is that SUperman doesn't have a shady past. This one will. That's not originality, that's making him an everyhero. Something Superman isn't. And shouldn't be. He's not meant to be the everyhero. He's meant to be the GREATEST hero. Clark can't be that. He can't be the pure shining light to show the way. He can't take the moral high ground, when he himself hasn't held up those ideals in his own life. I don't understand the contention, that even if Clark does something bad, as long as he doesn't do it again, he can somehow now claim the moral high ground on it. The point i've been making, that people seem to be ignoring, isn't taht Clark can't be a decent man when he's older. It's that, he can't be that top hero. He can't be that inspirational leader. He inspires, not by overcoming his troubled past to be a hero, but by the fact he never had that troubled past. He is that pure shining example of all that's good.

You say we can't judge SUperman based on Clark. WHY? He IS clark. That's like saying we can't judge the pope on anything he did before he took his pope name. If he turns out to be a mass murderer, it doesn't matter than, because that was before he was pope. That's essentially the message I'm getting for Clark. That we can't judge his past actions and apply them to who he is. Because one day, he'll slap on tights, and that magically erases what's happened, and starts him being a good guy with a totally clean slate.

[ox007]

Clark is supposed to be a hero not an evil maker. That wouldn't make much sense if CK made LL evil. Lex has it in blood

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by ox007
Lex has it in blood

I really dislike that "belief", which has existed for thousands of years, and is still followed in some cultures. Basically, that belief asserts that any child with a parent who's committed a crime has that in their blood, and the child is punished right along with the parent. Oh, he doesn't go to jail or get executed, but he is treated like an outcast by his society, and it's okay because there's obviously evil in his blood.

Well, if that's the case, we're all evil, because we've all probably got at least one blood anscestor that did something that could be considered evil.

The fact is, some very evil people have children who turn out to be very good, and vice-versa. And to write someone off as a lost cause because of the acts of someone in their family, acts that person had nothing to do with, is about as unfair as you can get.

Lex is definately going dark. But it's because of the experiences he's had, the things he's gone through over the years, etc.

[MyOwnSuperhero]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
I'm not saying his destiny is set in stone. THough when you choose to do a story about Clark Kent, you have essentially set that destiny in stone. Unless you intend to not make him Superman, it's very limited in what you can do.

But i don't think you followed one key point. I NEVER said he couldn't grow, learn or be a good guy. I never said he can't change for the better. I said he can't be the best, because he already isn't. A KEY point, is that SUperman doesn't have a shady past. This one will. That's not originality, that's making him an everyhero. Something Superman isn't. And shouldn't be. He's not meant to be the everyhero. He's meant to be the GREATEST hero. Clark can't be that. He can't be the pure shining light to show the way. He can't take the moral high ground, when he himself hasn't held up those ideals in his own life. I don't understand the contention, that even if Clark does something bad, as long as he doesn't do it again, he can somehow now claim the moral high ground on it. The point i've been making, that people seem to be ignoring, isn't taht Clark can't be a decent man when he's older. It's that, he can't be that top hero. He can't be that inspirational leader. He inspires, not by overcoming his troubled past to be a hero, but by the fact he never had that troubled past. He is that pure shining example of all that's good. Alright, now I understand a little better where you're coming from. You feel that in order to be the hero that the adult Superman is, he couldn't do so with a checkered past. Got it. I don't necessarily agree, but I'll let it go.


Originally posted by HalJordan4184
You say we can't judge SUperman based on Clark. WHY? He IS clark. That's like saying we can't judge the pope on anything he did before he took his pope name. If he turns out to be a mass murderer, it doesn't matter than, because that was before he was pope. That's essentially the message I'm getting for Clark. That we can't judge his past actions and apply them to who he is. Because one day, he'll slap on tights, and that magically erases what's happened, and starts him being a good guy with a totally clean slate. Now, here is the difficulty that we run into. Do we completely seperate the known Superman from this Clark Kent? Do we hold Clark to a higher standard because of who he will be? Do we have to reevaluate the current Superman based on this Clark Kent?

The problem is that we either take his future into account and consider past and future together, or we completely don't, and consider the future of Smallville entirely unwritten and unknown.

If we accept the view of both as a whole, then we have to realize that regardless of his past mistakes, this Clark Kent (mistakes and all) becomes the Superman we already know. In every respect - abilities, physical stature, moral beliefs, costume, everything.

If we choose not to accept that future as 'written in stone', then we also understand that any path can be taken by the character, and the future has no bearing on the issue, because it does not yet exist.

[HalJordan4184]

THat's the problem. THis CLark can't become the SUperman everyone knows precisely because of his past. Yet this is what AL/MILES said was their goal way back in season one. They have since said however, that this isn't going to follow any known canon, and that the future is uncertain for everyone.

So basically, they are trying to say it's both. It either has to be one or the other. He can't be the current Superman of comics, movies, whatever, because he's already done things those incarnations find morally reprehensible. It is impossible for a person to violate their own moral code. That's exactly what a moral code is. Your beliefs. Your guiding factor. Clark has already proven he isn't above running away, and taking a mind altering substance to get rid of the pain. Will he do it again, maybe, maybe not. But that's the problem. He couldn't even handle his teenage problems. Superman's problems get exponentially bigger as time goes on. ANd CLark, as problems have gotten bigger, has kept on doing the same things over and over again. That's why it's become impossible. He's shown it's ingrained behavior for him to NOT do something in the here and now, but wait til it's so far out of control, he can't help but let people die. That'd be like SUperman waiting for a jet that's crashing to hit the ground, and then burst into flames, before then rushing in to save as many as possible.

It would be different if Smallville's CLark had actually wanted to do something more than marry Lana and be a farmer. I would have had no problems with him messing up, while he's on the journey. However, according to the producers now, the last four and a half seasons, have been the journey, TO GET TO THE JOURNEY. It's only now he's stepping on that path, and he's already tainted. It's one thing to fail when you try. THis CLark doesn't even want to try. The he's a kid argument, works while he's a kid. But he's not. He hasn't been for a long time. Tragedy makes people grow up fast. But apparently it makes Kryptonians become reactive whiners.

Really, Superman can't have a checkered past. That negates his uniqueness as a hero. How is he then any different than any other hero that has a checkered past and takes up the good fight? Long and short of it, he isn't. That's what this Clark will be. ANother everyhero. He'll be fighting for an ideal he doesn't uphold himself. He'll be striving to make things right, that he himself has set wrong. That's not Superman. That's a Batman, or a Punisher, or any one of a number of other heroes. But Clark is supposed to be the unique one that stands out from the crowd. Not because he's like everyone else, but stronger and faster, but because, he's lived up to the ideals he preaches. He does what he does, not out of guilt, fear, or pity, but because it's simply what he want's to do. He wants to be Superman. He's not atoning for anything, and he's not fighting for anything he doesn't think any one else in his position would fight for. He THINKS he's as flawed as everyone, but he ISN'T. That's a big part of his character. He doesn't understand checkered pasts. He can sympathize with people, but he can't empathize with them.

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
THat's the problem. THis CLark can't become the SUperman everyone knows precisely because of his past. Yet this is what AL/MILES said was their goal way back in season one. They have since said however, that this isn't going to follow any known canon, and that the future is uncertain for everyone.

Hey, that's the argument I've been making since I got here.

How'd we go so wrong Hal???? :)

Must've been your fault as I don't make mistakes ;)

[MyOwnSuperhero]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
THat's the problem. THis CLark can't become the SUperman everyone knows precisely because of his past. Yet this is what AL/MILES said was their goal way back in season one. They have since said however, that this isn't going to follow any known canon, and that the future is uncertain for everyone.

So basically, they are trying to say it's both. It either has to be one or the other. He can't be the current Superman of comics, movies, whatever, because he's already done things those incarnations find morally reprehensible. It is impossible for a person to violate their own moral code. That's exactly what a moral code is. Your beliefs. Your guiding factor. Clark has already proven he isn't above running away, and taking a mind altering substance to get rid of the pain. Will he do it again, maybe, maybe not. But that's the problem. Ah, but by seeing that he used to be someone who would run from their problems, we then see how much closer he now is to the Superman we expect him to be.

To say that someone's moral code or personal beliefs is entirely free from growth or change is, IMO, wrong. That, I think, is what the show is consistently trying to show us - that people grow and change, even the aliens. If someone's values are 'set in stone' from the beginning, then Lex would always be a pretty decent guy and this Clark would always be a seemingly normal guy who happens to have superpowers. Conversely, if these past versions of their future characters are bound to the moral code that they will live by as adults, than Lex would always have been evil and Clark would have always been good and super-heroic. Neither would learn, or change or grow, because they would essentially have to be the characters that they grow into, and be those characters from the outset.

The problem is that it is both - we know the character that they will become, but they are not yet those characters, instead, they are developping toward those known end points.

If this were not the case, Clark would have put on the tights long ago, and we would just be watching a lame rehash of Superboy. Even Superboy was just Superman as a teenager, the same character, with no change, but in a younger body. This incarnation, (IMO more honest to life and much deeper than Superboy) is not a teenaged Superman, but instead the teen that will become Superman. That means a journey of change. To try and say that the journey thus far (even though it has been one of growth, one that has pointed him more and more towards being Superman) is only the journey to get to the Journey is silly. They're the same journey, it just took longer to get there than you thought it would.

[HalJordan4184]

That's a common misconception, that between eighteen and thirty, people change so drastically they aren't the same anymore. Moral development, takes place in your pre teen years. YOur teenage years, are when you test your moral boundries. You WILL NOT ever, from the time you are about fourteen on, do anything you find completely and totally immoral and reprehensible. This Clark has already done things, that the character of Superman, finds totally morally reprehensible, and wrong. How can Clark and SUperman, have different morals? They are the same man. SAME MAN. Not different people.

Clark can change, and he can not do things he has done in his past again, but that doesn't change the fact he did them in the first place. There's that old saying, once a crook, always a crook. It's true. Once you are a crook, you will always be a crook. We won't get into the whole labeling discussion, but for the point im making now, Clark will simply be a reformed criminal. He's not going to one day NOT be a criminal. He may be a reformed criminal, but still a criminal none the less. It completely defies the unique nature of Superman, and makes him an everyhero. Which is something the character is not, and was never meant to be.

The point of the character of Superman, is he has always been teh squeaky clean one. He's not the good guy, atoning for his past, or the good guy hiding his past. I'm amazed people don't see the hypocrisy in what this version of Superman would be. He will be throwing people in jail, for the very same things he has done, and demanding they be punished for crimes he got away with, scott free. If that isn't the very definition of hypocrisy, then someone needs to please define it for me. Because a Superman who is a bank robber, and never paid for his crimes, then makes other bank robbers, spend 25 + years in the federal prison system, doesnt sound like a superman to me.

And note, again, this does not mean Clark can not be a good person in the future. Which is somehow the argument you seem to be making at me. That i somehow think Clark can't be a good guy. That's not my contention at all. Clark can be a good guy, he just can't be Superman, which is different entirely. Superman isn't just a good guy, who in reality is more messed up, and has a darker and more jaded past then the people he's putting behind bars.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
That's a common misconception, that between eighteen and thirty, people change so drastically they aren't the same anymore. Moral development, takes place in your pre teen years. YOur teenage years, are when you test your moral boundries. You WILL NOT ever, from the time you are about fourteen on, do anything you find completely and totally immoral and reprehensible. This Clark has already done things, that the character of Superman, finds totally morally reprehensible, and wrong. How can Clark and SUperman, have different morals? They are the same man. SAME MAN. Not different people.
Actually, this is not true. It is true that much of personal development takes place in the earliest years of childhood, but that does not prevent additional development from taking place in teen years, and even further development in young adulthood. There is a whole field of study on student development in the college years that examines the formation of ethical values, world view, and personal identity. People learn, grow, and change throughout their lives -- some for better, some for worse.

I also disagree that people must be viewed for all of their lives in light of their worst mistakes. This allows for no personal evolution at all. If a college freshman plagiarizes a term paper, for example, learns from that mistake, and never cheats again, do you always regard that person as a cheater, no matter what other honorable and honest accomplishments he may achieve in an additional 40 or 50 years of life?

[HalJordan4184]

Yes, that person is a cheater. That action, sets you up as a cheater. Can they be a reformed cheater? Yes. Can they go on to still be a good person? Yes. But does saving a kitten, erase the act they did in the past, does it make it so it didn't happen? No. A person can choose not to do something again. That however, doesn't mean they didn't choose to do it at one point.

Let's put it this way, if I murder my neighbor, and never get caught, but go on to live a good productive life, am I held to the presumption I'm a murderer. Or do my good deeds later, erase the crime of my past? Should i be punished for something I did once but never did again? According to your argument, no, becaue I've since changed my ways, and that act shouldn't color future perceptions of me. The truth is, perceptions are always based off of our past actions, and behaviors. Clark has set up a pattern of avoiding responsibility and running away. That does in fact color the kind of person anyone could see him as tomorrow. Let's try this, if you watched this show, with no idea Clark Kent was destined to be Superman, would you give him the potential you say he has now, or is your view of what's supposed to come, coloring how you see all of his actions now? We're not talking Clark cheated on a paper here, we're talking he was robbing banks, and causing mayhem and destruction on a grand scale.

[Watching Smallville]

Let me make one correction. I didn't say the person who cheated should not be punished. I think he should make amends for that action. And if the punishment produces a new attitude in the person, and produces new behavior, I think that person has grown and earned the right to be seen in a more positive light. That's what the idea "make amends" is all about.

I think the problem with the example of Clark robbing banks etc., is that he never did make amends for those actions, and I agree this is a problem. However, if I knew that a person had robbed a bank, paid his social debt, so to speak, reformed his behavior, and then gone on to do many herioc things and serve society in positive ways, I would think of this person as a hero -- perhaps more so for overcoming such a negative start. I wouldn't forget that he had robbed a bank in the past, but I would not define him as a bank robber because that would no longer be his activity or his mind set.

What you're saying is that people never earn the right to be perceived differently, even when they change. Once a racist, always a racist, even when someone has a change of heart. Once a bully always a bully -- even when the person changes their behavior and becomes kind to people. Once a liar, always a liar, even if the person told a lie at age 6 and never lied again.

The example of murder is where I might agree with you, because for me it falls into a different category. Once a father, you're always a father. Once an alcoholic, you're always an alcoholic. Once a nobel prize winner, you're always a nobel prize winner. Perhaps because you don't "make amends" for these things. Like murder -- you can't really make amends for that. But there's already a long thread on whether Clark is a murderer, and that's a different topic.

[brainiacowen]

Personally, I think in a way they helped create each other(Clark and Lex).

They are counterparts so it is just so poetic that it would happen that way.

Clark pushed Lex a bit to becoming villainous, though not as much as Lionel...

Lex pushed Clark a bit to being heroic, though not as much as Jonathan...

Clark does things that push Lex away, when all he used to need was acceptance. Lex creates problems in the world that Clark has to clean up...it's a balance. Lex and Clark are balances.

1 vs. -1

That is my theory anyway...

[mallory]

If Clark had leveled with Lex early on, they would have formed a partnership for good that would have transformed the world. That's my take, anyway. Clark's constant, non-stop lying and refusal to trust Lex play a big role in Lex turning dark. IMO.

[Watching Smallville]

Lex already had a checkered past when he first met Clark. So it's doubtful whether he would have been an enthusiastic force for good, even with Clark's help. People who are going to struggle for good usually have a history of that behavior by the time they're 21 years old. Not always, but usually. More to the point, people don't turn evil because a friend -- who by the way is a 14-year-old teenager when Lex is a 21-year-oldl adult -- keeps secrets from them. I just don't see that at all.

[SteveS]

It is always good to see a mature assesment like that of Watching Smallville's and it always amazes me how some people think telling all of one's personal business (Clark's massively important secret) is thought to be redemptive of an ethically amoral to criminal personality like that of Lex. Worse, that idea is ridiculous as Lex has no right to anyone's most private business other than his own. Then again, it shows how easily some are charmed by a personality but unable to read character. Lex is a character without much character but with a large amount of charm.

It is always good to see a mature assesment like that of Watching Smallville's and it always amazes me how some people think telling all of one's personal business (Clark's massively important secret) is thought to be redemptive of an ethically amoral to criminal personality like that of Lex. Worse, that idea is ridiculous as Lex has no right to anyone's most private business other than his own. Then again, it shows how easily some are charmed by a personality but unable to read character. Lex is a character without much character but with a large amount of charm.

[MBCorp]

Originally posted by SteveS
Then again, it shows how easily some are charmed by a personality but unable to read character. Lex is a character without much character but with a large amount of charm.

That's an oversimplification of the character, IMO. You're pretty much oversimplifying a complex character by acting as if people only sympathize with him because we're so stupid and morally bankrupt that we are easily swayed by his charm. But you can't gloss over the fact that in past seasons Lex did do many noble things. He did a few shady things too, but then Clark hasn't always been a boy scout either. In past seasons the show was never simplistic concerning Lex and Clark's personalities, they've both (even Clark) always been in a grey area. That's why so many Superman fans like HalJordan4184 have problems with the way that SV's version of Clark Kent is written, because he is written in a very flawed, dark, Marvelized way, and not in the traditional overly perfect way. And it's only been until quite recently that we've seen a significant effort on the part of the writers to push Clark one way and to push Lex the other, to get them both out of that grey area.

[Watching Smallville]

I agree that both Clark and Lex are written as complex, and this is a reason to be engaged by both characters, IMO. The issue above was whether Lex's personal choices could be blamed on someone else'e desire to keep their own personal business private, that telling secrets could be "redemptive of an ethically amoral to criminal personality like that of Lex." (This is very well worded, SteveS.)

It would be like saying Lex's secrets are responsible for the fact that Clark takes the path to becoming Superman -- ignoring Clark's upbringing, his parents' values, his experiences with his other friends, his own personal ethical system, Jor-El, and his past patterns of behavior. Clark was acting like a good samaritan long before he decided that Lex was keeping secrets from him.

Lex is not the reason Clark becomes Superman. Clark is not the reason Lex becomes a super villain. Just because their personal histories intertwine does not mean each is the driving force behind the other's choices. I think Smallville has done a very good job of showing this.

[HalJordan4184]

No one said Clark is the driving force, that's all you. We said, Clark could have been a force for good in Lex's life, that could have helped redeem him, had he been the friend he kept claiming he was. Maybe he would have failed, but then that makes the failure all Lex's. The fact is, Clark is as bad of a friend, as Lex is. Clark didn't do anything to help Lex, or try to redeem him. Clark did nothing but throw accustations and demand favors. Sure, Lex gave them. You all seem to be ignoring how Lex was raised.

Lex was raised by Lionel. He's got probably the most screwed up childhood of anyone on the show. And you make it seem like it's entirely Lex's fault he is the way he is. Like somehow, he should have had an epiphany at ten, and walked out of the house, and lived on the streets to be a moral person. HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO BE A MORAL PERSON. Look at his moral influences, Lionel, and historical figureheads like alexander the great, whos philosophy was, conquer the world and stomp out anyone in your way.

You said it yourself watching smallville, it's his past experiences, his parents values, friends, and personal ethical system that ALL PLAY a part in what each character becomes. Clark, Lex's best friend, was nothing of the sort, and treated him like everyone else. Did this make Lex evil, of course not, and you seem to be the only one who thinks thats what my argument has been. Did this however, just reinforce Lex's beliefs, as taught by Lionel, that people just want to use him. HECK YEAH IT DID. Did it help Lex to see another way, another possible life? No. There were glimpses, yes, just like Lex had small moments where he did the right thing. But not enough to prove the point. Clark Kent, is a small way, has contributed to Lex's CONTINUAL path to the darkside. Did he put him on it? NO, and no one has said that he did. Did he owe Lex the secret? No, and no one again has said he did. Did his actions however, not help Lex get off that path, when he did have a clear struggle, especially early on? Sure.

It's funny, you claim ALL of Clark's experiences and relationships help make him who he is. But Lex, is doomed from the start, and no relationships or experiences can contribute anything, because he's a lost cause. It doesn't matter Clark has treated him like crap, he somehow deserved it, because he was evil from the getgo. His life didn't contribute to that, his experiences didn't reinforce lionels beliefs, and nothing mattered. He was just flat out evil, and nothing could help that.

But tomorrow, CLark could change completely, and that's totally believable. :rolleyes:

[Watching Smallville]

I'm not saying it's Lex's fault. I am saying it's Lex's choice. And I'm also saying, it's not Clark's fault.

If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I take all of Lex's experiences into account as far as his development goes. I don't say he's doomed from the start. Take a look and you'l see. ;)

[SteveS]

Again, Watching Smallville, you have it right, "it's Lex's choice" in the same way that you, I, and everyone else makes choices right or wrong every day. The individual who does not respect a precept of ethical choice derides it as a platitude. How does a person impart to another individual the core to understand, accept and try to follow ethical precepts? Words or deeds? In reality, those individuals without a core will not heed or learn from either. Lex is one of those. Yes, indeed Lex did some good things and Clark ran repeatedly to Lex repeatedly for favors (actually the by-products of Lionel's unethical success). Even so, Lex was never Clark's best friend, as pointed out by Watching Smallville, a young adult and a teenage boy are not best of friends in normal situations. That probably speaks to Lex having any peers as friends as well as his willingness to provide material benefits to Clark for Lex's own non-altruistic motives.

Lex is much like an addict. All the good will of those at the detox clinic can not straighten out the either the addicted body or the addictive personality, it is up to the person themselves. In the same way, a kind word is very nice to hear but it is not what will save the addict. Similar arguments were made that Jonathan was responsible for Lex being who he is and I rejected those arguments to. Had Clark and Jonathan made every pleasantry to Lex, it might have made Lex smile, but it could not change his core and his core has no respect or personal acceptance of the ethical values of right or wrong. Lex is driven for power, wealth, pleasure, and greatness. Jonathan and Clark were and are not driven for power, wealth, pleasure or greatness. The one does not understand the central motivations of the other, and Lex and Clark were and could never have been 'best friends', they are opposite poles.

(I am not unaware of the failings in the way Smallville has portrayed Clark, yet at the end of the day or maybe month,he will tend towards selfless action for the good or others. Lex, however, will do those things that give him power, pleasure, wealth or his view of greatness. Their twain can never meet.)

[Dannyblue1]

And HalJordan pretty much summed it up. Clark didn't put Lex on his dark path. But, in my opinion, he could've helped him off of it. Was he obligated to do this? Not in any way. But opportunity was there and Clark (because of his age, lack of experience, upbringing) didn't take it.


Originally posted by SteveS
Lex is much like an addict. All the good will of those at the detox clinic can not straighten out the either the addicted body or the addictive personality, it is up to the person themselves. In the same way, a kind word is very nice to hear but it is not what will save the addict.

Having known some folks who have gone through rehab, they themselves will tell you that, yes, in the end it was up to them to decide to change. But, while an addict might want to change, they might not have the tools. To get to that place where they do change and commit to a better way of life takes a whole lot of time, and a whole lot of help and support from other people, people telling them they could change, they were worth it, they weren't a lost cause. Thing is, a lot of people did give up on them because of the mistakes they made, the slides back into old behavior (which are sadly common). To those people, they were a lost cause because, well, that's just the way they were, and there was really no help for them, and anybody who tried to make a difference in their lives was just wasting their time. And, if those were the only voices the addict heard, they probably wouldn't have changed for the better. Luckily, they had other people who were willing to fight for them, to help them ignore those voices and believe they could live a better way.

Well, Lex hasn't. Everyone who might have fought for him either died, was removed by his father, or was incapable, for whatever reason, of giving Lex that kind of support. He was a person who wanted to be a different kind of man than his father tried to raise him to be. But, with only Lionel as an example, he didn't have the tools. So, he went looking for someone who did, and example to follow. And, he found the Kents. Only, they quickly joined the chorus of voices telling him he was worthless, and a lost cause, and couldn't change. Why? Because of who his father was.


Similar arguments were made that Jonathan was responsible for Lex being who he is and I rejected those arguments to. Had Clark and Jonathan made every pleasantry to Lex, it might have made Lex smile, but it could not change his core and his core has no respect or personal acceptance of the ethical values of right or wrong. Lex is driven for power, wealth, pleasure, and greatness.

Lex is driven by power, wealth, pleasure, and greatness because he's been told and shown, by everyone around him, that he can't have anything else...because he's a Luthor. He tried for love, but was betrayed. Repeatedly. He tried for respect, but got contempt instead. He tried for acceptance, but was repeatedly turned away. He tried for friendship, but his friends turned out to be pretty much like everyone else. Lex's true fall to darkness began when he said to himself, "I will never be able to have all of this other stuff that I crave. So, I will try to get the stuff I know I can get, which is the stuff my father always said was all you could really count on anyway. So, turns out Lionel was right after all."

Also, you can't say Lex couldn't be changed by an outside influence unless you saw it happen and fail. If Lex got the kind of friendship and support many of us think would've kept him off the dark path, but he chose that dark path anyway, then you can say he was incapable of change. But, since we've never seen this play out, you can't say support and real friendship wouldn't have made a difference.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by Dannyblue1
And HalJordan pretty much summed it up. Clark didn't put Lex on his dark path. But, in my opinion, he could've helped him off of it. Was he obligated to do this? Not in any way. But opportunity was there and Clark (because of his age, lack of experience, upbringing) didn't take it.
I guess this is the point of view I don't understand. This was not an opportunity for Clark. Clark is a teen with his own, immense problems to solve. I don't see the logic in saying that a teenager missed the opporutnity to rehabilitate an adult, as if a teenager would recognize the ways in which an adult needs guidance, or feel capable of providing it. It isn't fair to the teenager. For years, Clark thought Lex was misunderstood. He supported Lex as much as he could -- even taking Lex's side against his own father. I don't see what more could realistically be expected from him.

Originally posted by Dannyblue1
He was a person who wanted to be a different kind of man than his father tried to raise him to be. But, with only Lionel as an example, he didn't have the tools. So, he went looking for someone who did, and example to follow. And, he found the Kents. Only, they quickly joined the chorus of voices telling him he was worthless, and a lost cause, and couldn't change. Why? Because of who his father was.
On this we probably disagree as to Lex's motives. I can see your point here, although I still believe Jonathan is free to react to Lex in any way he wants based on his own experience. I'm not convinced that Lex tried to ingratiate himself to the Kents because he was seeking guidance. I believe he was obsessed with solving the mystery of the Porsche accident. I won't argue that Lex had plenty of bad breaks and hard times. He had a cruel upbringing. A lot of people do -- but many still chose an ethical path in life. So I'm back to it being Lex's choice.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
I guess this is the point of view I don't understand. This was not an opportunity for Clark. Clark is a teen with his own, immense problems to solve. I don't see the logic in saying that a teenager missed the opporutnity to rehabilitate an adult, as if it's an obligation. It isn't fair to the teenager. Clark supported Lex as much as he possibly could -- even taking Lex's side against his own father. I don't see what more could realistically be expected from him.

I think that's the point I and others have tried to make several times. It's not that Clark was obligated to rehabilitate Lex. Just that Lex met Clark at a time when the right kind of person could've changed Lex for the better. There were moments when it seemed like Clark could be that person. But he turned out not to be. It's not Clark's fault. It's just the way things were.

Also, I disagree on a young person's inability to change an older person's worldview for the better. You see it all the time, in real life, in literature, in the movies. It's a very common theme, that youth has its own kind of wisdom, and that older people can learn from that wisdom.



On this we probably disagree as to Lex's motives. I can see your point here, although I still believe Jonathan is free to react to Lex in any way he wants based on his own experience. I'm not convinced that Lex tied to ingratiate himself to the Kents because he was seeking guidance. I believe he was obsessed with solving the mystery of the Porsche accident. I won't argue that Lex had plenty of bad breaks and hard times. A lot of people do -- but some still chose an ethical path in life. So I'm back to it being Lex's choice.

No one is saying that Jonathan was obligated to react to Lex differently. Just that, if he had, it could've had an incredibly positive influence on Lex. That is the tragedy of Lex, according to the writers and producers. You can look back over the course of his life and see how he could've turned out differently if only this had happened, or if only that had happened.

As for Lex's motives for wanting to be a part of the Kent family, why couldn't Lex have wanted to solve the mystery of the accident and have wanted to be part of that family? Are the two motives mutually exsclusive? I don't think so. I think we got more than enough evidence that Lex longed to be a part of that family. The fact that he also longed for the truth, which contributed in part to the Kents' continued distrust of him, is part of the tragedy.

[Watching Smallville]

I guess I sense blame in some of these posts, and I don't see the validity in it. I think people for the most part, choose the path they take in life. Many people have very rough upbringings and go on to be good people. Lex is tragic, but in the final analysis, it's his own tragedy. If he had gone on to be a good person, a force for good, what a hero he would have been. We'd give him credit for that choice. So, let's give him credit for the opposite choice, too.

I edited my post as you were posting. I realize that you did not say it was Clark's obligation. Yes, teenagers can be a great benefit to an adult's development. Of course that's true. But the onus is not on the teen to do this work. If it happens, great. But the responsibility for the adult's behavior is the adult's.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
I guess I sense blame in some of these posts, and I don't see the validity in it. I think people for the most part, choose the path they take in life. Many people have very rough upbringings and go on to be good people. Lex is tragic, but it's his own tragedy.

I don't think there's blame. Like I said, there's the, "If only..." factor. We can see how, if only certain things had happened, Lex could have turned out differently.

Also, people do choose their own paths. But their decisions are often influenced by other things. By their experiences. By other in their lives. By the way they grew up.

I've seen people who seemed to totally be lost causes, who made nothing but bad decisions (and, yes, who had terrible childhoods that made them that way) turn their lives around, and usually because they met the right person at the right time who helped them change. Ask someone who seems to have done a major turn-around in their lives, and I bet they will point to at least one person who helped them do it.

Well, Lex has never had that "one person". And, for some reason, people seem to think Lex, unlike most people who've had his upbringing, should've been able to make a major change, and cast of 20 plus years of conditioning, without some kind of help and support. And, the fact that he didn't means that, well, he couldn't have changed anyway, even if he did get that kind of help and support.

[HalJordan4184]

That's it exactly, it seems like everyone is saying people can be redeemed, just not Lex.

I made the point before, that somehow, it's Lex's fault, and he's totally evil and solely to blame, because he didn't walk out the door when he was ten, and try to make it on his own. WHY?

Is it Lex's ultimate choice, yes. It is, so please people, get that point. Lex is the ultimate one who decided his destiny. What we've been saying all along however, is that he wasn't a lost cause, even up through Lexmas. We saw what one simple decision could have done for him, and his life. But it was a decision, at least according to how the producers have set up the situation, Lex couldn't make, because it would have resulted in someone he loves, again leaving him. This however, doesn't make it Lana's fault Lex is evil.

If Clark had been a real friend to him, which he never really was, and that's a point the producers have tried to hammer home since season one, Lex could have been different. Was it Clark's job to rehabilitate Lex, no. Well, in a way, yes. Clark called himself Lex's best friend. And that's what your best friend is supposed to do, see you through your dark times, and help you find the light. Clark failed in that, but this hardly makes him evil, or responsible. He was incapable of being that because of his upbringing as well. That's the tragic part, these two guys, who have in reality very similar lives, and dillemma's, ended up so differently, because of the simple things.

[Watching Smallville]

I'm with you until you say, "If Clark had been a real friend." That's where we have to part company and agree to disagree.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
I'm with you until you say, "If Clark had been a real friend." That's where we have to part company and agree to disagree.

In many ways, Clark hasn't been the best of friends to Lex. I think some viewers want to see Clark as right and Lex as wrong as far as their friendship goes. But, the fact is, they both made mistakes in their frienship.

Like I said earlier (or possibly in another thread) I think Clark did more harm by offering Lex his friendship, then sorta only going halfsies on it, then if he'd just stayed away from Lex from the get-go. Because he gave Lex hope that, despite all Lionel had taught him, there was a person out there who would be his friend without expecting anything from him, or expecting the worst of him, only to have Clark kinda turn out to be just like everyone else. Only seeming to have time for Lex when he wants something. Accusing Lex of things, then never apologizing when proven wrong. Demanding the truth from Lex in all things, then lying to Lex's face in the same breath. Thinking the worst of Lex, even when it wasn't deserved. All of that disillusioned Lex not only as far as Clark was concerned, it disillusioned Lex about people in general. If true-blue Clark Kent could turn out to be just like everyone else, maybe Lionel was right about people--and how they would only befriend a Luthor for what they could get out of it--after all.

[Watching Smallville]

Well, it seems we're back to square one. So we just see things differently. I don't blame my friends for the things I do -- whether they're good friends or not so good.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
Well, it seems we're back to square one. So we just see things differently. I don't blame my friends for the things I do -- whether they're good friends or not so good.

So you concede that Clark hasn't always been a good friend to Lex?

Also, you're friends do effect you, as much as your family and other acquaintances, especially if you hold them and their opinion of you in high regard. They aren't responsible for the things you do, certainly, but they can help shape the way you react to the world and interact with others. That's a psychological truth.

The argument people seem to be trying to make is that how a person is treated by others has no effect on them (positive or negative) and nothing Clark could have done could've possibly have had any kind of effect on Lex, so it doesn't matter that Clark has sometimes treated Lex badly without good cause. Only that argument only holds if you completely throw out every psychological study that says otherwise.

Or is the argument that only Lex can't be influenced by the behavior of others, simply because he's Lex?

[HalJordan4184]

No one is blaming Clark for what Lex does. YOu've missed the entire point. Clark isn't responsible for Lex being the way he is. That's a culmination of events, and issues that clark is only a part of. But he entered lex's life at a crucial point, and did more harm than good probably.

Lex made his own decisions. No one is saying he didn't. But you seem to think, Clark has absolutely zero effect on Lex's life. That people, exist independent of the actions and thoughts of other people. That no matter what Clark did, Lex would have turned out the same. All we're saying, is if Clark had been a better friend, things could have turned out differently, and you somehow took that to mean, Clark is responsible for Lex being evil.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
No one is blaming Clark for what Lex does. You've missed the entire point. Clark isn't responsible for Lex being the way he is. That's a culmination of events, and issues that clark is only a part of. But he entered lex's life at a crucial point, and did more harm than good probably.
To say Clark "did more harm than good" sounds like blaming. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. BTW, Lex himself would disagree with you. More than once he told Clark that he helped keep his darkness at bay. "Don't give up on me yet" -- Lex's own expression of his appreciation of Clark's loyalty in Onyx.

Let me put it this way -- would Lex have become a villain if he hadn't met Clark? If he had survived the Porsche crash, I think so. Did meeting Clark accelerate his journey toward evil? I don't think so, given Lex's own words. If Clark had been the bestest buddy ever, would Lex have been good instead? I don't think so. You may disagree. :)

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
To say Clark "did more harm than good" is blaming. So I guess I'm not sure where you're coming from. And Lex himself would disagree with you. More than once he told Clark that he helped keep his darkness at bay.

I don't blame Clark for Lex's turn to the dark side. I do, however, blame Clark for his own bad behavior in their friendship. There were just some cases when Clark was not admirable in his dealings with Lex. And I do think believe that thinking as highly of someone as Lex did of Clark, and then being disappointed by them repeatedly, hurts more than never having that person in your life, and never being let down by that person.

As for Lex saying Clark kept his darkness at bay, that wasn't actually because of anything Clark did...other than exist. It was more tht Lex had a pretty good idea what Clark considered a good friend, and that influenced his behavior. I think all of us are influenced by how we want others to see us to some degree.


Let me put it this way -- would Lex have become a villain if he hadn't met Clark? If he had survived the Porsche crash, I think so. You may disagree. :)

I I think he was on the road to being a pretty ruthless businessman with a shaky moral center, certainly. But I think a lot of the reason Lex goes completely over the top super villain is because of the pretty darned extreme things that happened to him in Smallville, that he might have never experienced if he hadn't come to town.

But here's the more pertinent question. Would Lex have become a villain if he'd found the friendship and support he so obviously craved when he came to Smallville? And I don't even say definately, because nothing is certain. But I certainly think it is possible.

[Watching Smallville]

Maybe. It seemed that he tried to change for Helen. He also stole Clark's blood from her office and bought Martha's medical records, so it's hard to say. But the example of Helen makes my point and your point. He may have tried to change for Helen. There's someone who could have influenced him -- a peer, a love interest. That I could see. Clark? I don't see it the same way.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
He may have tried to change for Helen. There's someone who could have influenced him -- a peer, a love interest. That I could see. Clark? I don't see it the same way.

Why not? I've known friendships to be as strong as any romantic relationship. Different, but just as strong in their way.

[MyOwnSuperhero]

If anything, we should realize that Lex's destiny has been up in the air until just recently. Lexmas gave us a clear view of a Lex Luthor who made the right decisions and had really changed to live a good life. It was entirely within his grasp, and it was clearly something he wanted. However, also clearly shown, was the fact that it was his own decision that robbed him of this future. Given all the factors, Lex followed his ambition rather than his heart, and his ambition has always led him towards darkness.

This darkness was present before Clark ever entered the picture, and while his influence has brought certain issues to the forefront, it is Lex that has made his own decisions. It's Lex that makes Lex evil, and though others were involved, the blame isn't ever wholley theirs.

[Watching Smallville]

Originally posted by Dannyblue1
Why not? I've known friendships to be as strong as any romantic relationship. Different, but just as strong in their way.
Because I see a motive in his friendship with Clark that I don't see with Helen -- finding out Clark's secret.


Originally posted by MyOwnSuperhero
This darkness was present before Clark ever entered the picture, and while his influence has brought certain issues to the forefront, it is Lex that has made his own decisions. It's Lex that makes Lex evil, and though others were involved, the blame isn't ever wholley theirs.
Agreed. Well said.

[SteveS]

A long time ago, maybe in a similar thread, I quoted the old saying "one bad apple spoils the barrel." In a different age it meant that corruption spreads but there was not an equivalent saying that 'one good apple cures a barrel of rotten apples.'

Since we disagree on the relative affect a much younger minor from a farming family could affect the intrisic value system of an adult growing up with a corrupted system of values, there is no need to repeat it.

For me, 'Lexmas' was the coup-de grace to this debate. Whether Lex had a 'dream' (I think not since Mama was standing beside him in a ghostly manner at the end of the episode) or whether he was given a vision of an alternative reality, in the end, he did as he had done every day of his life, Lex made his own choices. ClarkMan was in no way responsible for the life Lex ignored and rejected. Lex did so because of his value system. As a result, he will be rich, powerful and a deadly criminal, the results of his own personal choices and values.

On the bright side, he will have the best and newest cars, the best clothes, innumberable hook-ups with women and will be very suave as he goes about his life as the villain of the story.

[brainiacowen]

I've been thinking about it and yeah...Lex turned evil by choice(though, I'm sure he doesn't think of it as "evil").

Clark and Lex grow up becoming two seperate men, because of the choices they made.

Lex was not born evil...Clark was not born good.

Lex turned slowly with choices he made.

Clark did too, but it happened before the show started when Jonathan and Martha were raising him from a four year old.

Clark recently has become more of a hero, because he chose to be like his own father, Jonathan Kent. He will always be a huge factor in Clark's decisions.

Lex, chose not be like his father, because he is an evil man, but took other steps which led him down a different path of villainy.

When they grow up, I still believe in my opposites theory. Clark representing good, and Lex representing Evil, both just as powerful on these opposite sides of the spectrum, but powerful(obviously) in different ways.

[MyOwnSuperhero]

Originally posted by SteveS
For me, 'Lexmas' was the coup-de grace to this debate. Whether Lex had a 'dream' (I think not since Mama was standing beside him in a ghostly manner at the end of the episode) or whether he was given a vision of an alternative reality, in the end, he did as he had done every day of his life, Lex made his own choices. ClarkMan was in no way responsible for the life Lex ignored and rejected. Lex did so because of his value system. As a result, he will be rich, powerful and a deadly criminal, the results of his own personal choices and values. Yes! Exactly! Lexmas and Reckoning are perfect in showing how each chooses their own path because only Lex experienced his 'dream'. Only Clark remembered the events before the time reversal. Both were shown other options and placed in a situation that tied directly to their characters, and each chose. Beautifully done, I might add.


Originally posted by SteveS
On the bright side, he will have the best and newest cars, the best clothes, innumberable hook-ups with women and will be very suave as he goes about his life as the villain of the story. :rotfl: