Why was Lex laughing like a maniac?

[~*smallville_tv*~]

I must be missing something lol I watched that scene where Clark punches Lex and he was laughing in hysterics. Was there a reason why? Or that scene happened to show he is just insane and psycho :I lol?

[xrayvision]

Or that scene happened to show he is just insane and psycho :I lol?

Bingo. It showed how psychotic the evil within Lex is. Along the same lines of what the evil part of Lex did when he split off in Onyx and started urging Lex to kill him while in that dungeon. It also showed that no matter what Clark does, he can't kill or remove that evil within Lex. If it ever happens, it will have to be Lex who does that.

[litew8]

I didn't like it. Not because it was off the wall, but because I thought it was dumb. Lex Luthor isn't suppose to be crazy evil is he? He's suppose to be an evil genius. Which means that he's very smart - but in a bad way. I don't like how SV is portraying his character. I think they've done a piss poor job overall. Not excluding other characters either.

[christina]

I guess that was suppose to be Lex being all evill and what not. :lol:

[xrayvision]

I didn't like it. Not because it was off the wall, but because I thought it was dumb. Lex Luthor isn't suppose to be crazy evil is he? He's suppose to be an evil genius. Which means that he's very smart - but in a bad way. I don't like how SV is portraying his character. I think they've done a piss poor job overall. Not excluding other characters either.

But see, that wasn't Lex. That evil Lex inside his mind & in Onyx is the evil within him. The real Lex is a product of all his experiences...good & evil. The best example is seeing how the evil Lex inside him treated Clark and how the real Lex at the end of the episode treated him. The evil Lex wanted to kill Clark and make him suffer because he hates him. This means the depravity that is within Lex hates what Clark stands for. But there is also good left in him---there always will be. That's why the real Lex treated Clark with contempt, not hate. He doesn't like Clark, but he doesn't hate him to the point where he wants to kill him.

[litew8]

^

I just figured he wanted to kill him because he was in his head. One thing I've noticed throughout the series, Lex doesn't like people getting in his head. I dissagree with your assesment that "that wasn't Lex". I'm pretty sure, that's a side of him as much as the kid represented the other fraction (a persona). They portrayed the bad side as crazy - which I think was a little too far fetched. I think they've screwed up portraying Lex Luthor accurately. The character is suppose to be an evil genius, that means a smart person that has bad intentions. The reason why he ends up becoming Superman's enemy - is because Superman foils his evil genius plans. This Lex Luthor has gone off the deep end - over a Clark Kent.

[Kal26]

I also think it was showing that lex is all powerful inside his own head. Clark punching him wasn't hurting him, so he was laughing in his face. I noticed that the first time Clark punched him, he just kind of looked at him like he was an idiot.

[hightower6969]

He was laughing at Clark because he knew he was unstoppable. This is Lex's mind which means he can control mostly everything that goes on in his mind.

[xrayvision]

^

I just figured he wanted to kill him because he was in his head. One thing I've noticed throughout the series, Lex doesn't like people getting in his head. I dissagree with your assesment that "that wasn't Lex". I'm pretty sure, that's a side of him as much as the kid represented the other fraction (a persona). They portrayed the bad side as crazy - which I think was a little too far fetched. I think they've screwed up portraying Lex Luthor accurately. The character is suppose to be an evil genius, that means a smart person that has bad intentions. The reason why he ends up becoming Superman's enemy - is because Superman foils his evil genius plans. This Lex Luthor has gone off the deep end - over a Clark Kent.

Well, the reason I said that wasn't Lex is because that evil Lex doesn't represent the full Lex. That's why when Lex is "all-in" (a term I use to describe Lex after he kills Lionel), he will not be like that evil Lex in his mind. Thanks to some small bit of good he will always have, he will not be that insane and will instead handle things in a more intelligent manner. He will not do things because he wants to cause as much misery as possible. He will do them because he believes it is the right thing to do and nobody else (including Clark) has the guts to do it. This will make Lex get his hands dirty by doing all sorts of evil things that by some could be interpreted as necessary evils. And the reason I think that he will do them is due to his confusion--his morals will be skewed due to the good/evil struggle but at the end, everything he does will in his mind be heroic. That last line uttered by Lex in Talisman is why Lex will do what he will. Unlike the evil Lex from Onyx/Fracture who does evil things just for the hell of being evil and wanting to rule the world. At the end of the day, the real Lex will become president so he could protect the planet from the danger he envisions. If the evil Lex from Onyx/Fracture were in that situation, he would do it to rule the world & only for the power.

[skully]

He was laughing at Clark because he knew he was unstoppable. This is Lex's mind which means he can control mostly everything that goes on in his mind.Yup. Lex was just laughing maniacally in Clark's face, even though Clark was pulverizing him. Symbolizes Lex's dark side's ascension to evil glory. He is unstoppable in his own mind, and just laughs at puny attempts to get in his way.

I thought it was a powerful statement, and brilliantly done by MR. He is gonna be missed next season.

[litew8]

You know what else I thought was dumb? Clark, when he started to punch him. What did he think he was going to do? Beat the crap out of Lex's thoughts? :lol: Serious, that was dumb I thought. What if Clark beat the crap out of him and was successful? What if Lex ened up dead - killing the flesh form of Lex? They've made Clark Kent an idiot savant. Sad really.

[Eri-El]

Bingo. It showed how psychotic the evil within Lex is. Along the same lines of what the evil part of Lex did when he split off in Onyx and started urging Lex to kill him while in that dungeon. It also showed that no matter what Clark does, he can't kill or remove that evil within Lex. If it ever happens, it will have to be Lex who does that.


Nice Summary...:)

[Kal26]

You know what else I thought was dumb? Clark, when he started to punch him. What did he think he was going to do? Beat the crap out of Lex's thoughts? :lol: Serious, that was dumb I thought. What if Clark beat the crap out of him and was successful? What if Lex ened up dead - killing the flesh form of Lex? They've made Clark Kent an idiot savant. Sad really.

No he was stalling that part of Lex, so the other could get away. Makes perfect sense to me. Besides, there are two parts to Lex. Killing one wouldn't kill him in our reality. IMO it would just kill his evil side, if that were possible, but I agree with xray as to why it's not.

----- Added 5 Minutes later -----


^
The character is suppose to be an evil genius, that means a smart person that has bad intentions. The reason why he ends up becoming Superman's enemy - is because Superman foils his evil genius plans. This Lex Luthor has gone off the deep end - over a Clark Kent.

I don't think someone could do the things that Lex Luthor has done in every incarnation of the character unless that person was at least a bit crazy. The things he's done, and passed off as if they were somehow for the good of humanity, have been shocking to say the least. Evil, yes, a genius, yes, but also crazed, obsessive, and scary. He didn't just get that way over night, and I think most other incarnations have done a very poor job of showing us why he is the way he is. To me, Smallville has created the best incarnation of Lex, and the Lex/Clark relationship to date.

[litew8]

No he was stalling that part of Lex, so the other could get away. Makes perfect sense to me. Besides, there are two parts to Lex. Killing one wouldn't kill him in our reality. IMO it would just kill his evil side, if that were possible, but I agree with xray as to why it's not.


Stalling is holding someone down or whatnot - trying to beat the crap out of someone is attempting to do some serious harm. If he was successful in beating the crap out of that persona, and it died - I seriously doubt Lex would be able to live with such a small percentage of him (young Alexander) still alive. It's already a tiny percentage as it is. However you want to view it - I personally think it was dumb.

[Kal26]

That's fine, I personally think it was sweet!

Holding him down would do less than punching him, because at least by punching him, he is taking his direct line of sight away. He wasn't just laying on the ground watching where the kid was going. He was concentrating on being hit. Whether it hurt him or not is irrelevant. His head was forcibly turned, therefore he was unable to track the kid. Clark's not dumb, he knew he couldn't hurt him, but he was going to do everything possible to distract him.

Another point that needs to be made is that we are talking about parts of his personality here, not his brain. You have to have a certain amount of your brain to survive yes, but I'm not sure science has proven that you have to have both good and bad sides of your personality to go on living.

The fact that the good side of him is represented as a child does in no way reflect the strength of that side. It's a visual representation. In lex's case it's a child because that was when he was still good. His evil side is represented by a period in his life when he was more evil than good. It has nothing to do with that side's ability to go on without the other. The child may not know that he's stronger than he is, and that's why Clark reminded him of that. IMO he would be different without one side or the other, but he'd still be a functioning human being. It's also not as clear cut as good and evil. He may have many more sides of his personality that weren't represented at all.

[MozartRequiem]

"Well, the reason I said that wasn't Lex is because that evil Lex doesn't represent the full Lex. That's why when Lex is "all-in" (a term I use to describe Lex after he kills Lionel), he will not be like that evil Lex in his mind. Thanks to some small bit of good he will always have, he will not be that insane and will instead handle things in a more intelligent manner. He will not do things because he wants to cause as much misery as possible. He will do them because he believes it is the right thing to do and nobody else (including Clark) has the guts to do it. This will make Lex get his hands dirty by doing all sorts of evil things that by some could be interpreted as necessary evils. And the reason I think that he will do them is due to his confusion--his morals will be skewed due to the good/evil struggle but at the end, everything he does will in his mind be heroic. That last line uttered by Lex in Talisman is why Lex will do what he will. Unlike the evil Lex from Onyx/Fracture who does evil things just for the hell of being evil and wanting to rule the world. At the end of the day, the real Lex will become president so he could protect the planet from the danger he envisions. If the evil Lex from Onyx/Fracture were in that situation, he would do it to rule the world & only for the power."

Xrayvision, that is put perfectly! You really understand and interpret these characters in a great way. I agree with you here. The Evil Lex in Onyx/Fracture is that part of him that is "super villain", or, in Freudian terms, the "id", the part of the brain that wants what it wants simply for its own pleasure. This is the part of Lex that savors power. This is a really strong part of Lex, and a HUGE driving force in the person he becomes. But that little good Lex inside of him always wants to be "the hero" and the sad fact is that that good Lex eventually just becomes selfish justifications and gets blurred with the all-powerful bad inside of Lex. Very tragic.

----- Added 9 Minutes later -----

"I don't think someone could do the things that Lex Luthor has done in every incarnation of the character unless that person was at least a bit crazy. The things he's done, and passed off as if they were somehow for the good of humanity, have been shocking to say the least. Evil, yes, a genius, yes, but also crazed, obsessive, and scary. He didn't just get that way over night, and I think most other incarnations have done a very poor job of showing us why he is the way he is. To me, Smallville has created the best incarnation of Lex, and the Lex/Clark relationship to date."

Yeah, that's so true! You know, I never really thought of Lex Luthor as a bit "insane" until last season, when we saw what he did to Lana and with 33.1 and how he thinks he's saving mankind. And then when I read his skewed and twisted thoughts about Superman in the comics, I can see that there is definitely a slight "mad scientist" vibe that mixes in with the "evil genius" persona as well. Lex is such a complex character because he's so many things to so many people. I think that's why he and the Joker are my favorite supervillains, because they are so three-dimensional. We don't often see the "insane" part of Lex, but it's definitely there, waiting to strike, like we saw in "Reunion" and "Promise", and, the Joker, on the other hand, comes across as psychotic and insane to many people, but what some fail to think about is that he's also a master-planner, thorough and methodical in his craziness. So the balance is what keeps things interesting, IMO.

[Kal26]

Well put. I feel the same way about the joker too.

[xrayvision]

The Joker is definitely methodical. One of the best examples of this is in The Killing Joke where Joker is out to prove that anyone having an extremely bad day could go insane. So he just proceeded to do unspeakable things to Barbara Gordon (Batgirl) and Commissioner Gordon just to drive Commissioner Gordon insane.

The Joker may be my favorite villian out of all the villians in comics. He killed the Jason Todd Robin because he felt Jason was intruding on his "quality time" with Batman & was a nuisance. Dr. Harleen Quinzel went insane after her session with the Joker.

[litew8]

There's a website that says Lex Luthor is portrayed the way he is (examples given, for previous shows, Smallville and comics) because of his desires and non-religious beliefs (considered atheist I think). It goes and talks about this and that, showing comparisons for the overall reasoning behind Lex Luthor. Though, I don't recall it saying it has anything to do with being considered mentally challenged - as portrayed or described above; giving any reason to consider that he is or should be.

Whether or not people in the know concur or not - I don't know. Yet it tends to read familiar. I think it also goes to (to some extent I think) suggest that - that's what creates Lex's attitude and discontent towards Superman. Lex Luthor represents everything that Clark Kent / Superman is not. Not that Lex Luthor is irrational to the point of insanity (or whatever), but rather, irrationally obssesed (in ways, pertaining certain things - control/power). Maybe I read it wrong, but that's what I remember a while back. I haven't read it for a while now (all either).


If it is accurate (some degree), then what I was saying about how he was portrayed - is correct (some). It doesn't shine well on why he's acting or being portrayed the way he has/is. The laughter doesn't match. And a sidenote: Lex Luthor is not the Joker.

Here's a link that talks about it - Religious Affiliation of Comics Book Characters (http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/LexLuthor.html)

What do you think?

[MozartRequiem]

"If it is accurate (some degree), then what I was saying about how he was portrayed - is correct (some). It doesn't shine well on why he's acting or being portrayed the way he has/is. The laughter doesn't match. And a sidenote: Lex Luthor is not the Joker."

Well, the way you describe him sounds correct, but the Evil Lex inside his mind isn't a full representation of the true Lex that we know. It's the total depravity that lurks beneath him. I think it's safe to say that there is a slight insanity to the character, but not an "irrationality". His laughter, in this case, was well-suited, IMO, because it represents him laughing in the face of anyone who presents a challenge to him; it represents his complete and utter arrogance, his need for control, even in the situations where he's not in a position of control. He was laughing to mentally say, "Clark, you can't win. I still am in control of my own mind, my own demented universe." I think all of us have insane thoughts at one time or another, and Lex's are just much more extravagant, but, in real life, he holds back the insanity and uses rationality as a justification for the insanity, if that makes any sense. He basically uses his exemplary intellect and skewed logic as a mask for the monster beneath, but in the comics, we have seen that insane monster unleashed, albeit only for brief intervals.

As far as the Joker thing, I never said he was the Joker. I compared and contrasted them as two opposites, but having one thing in common: that people don't always think about the different dimensions behind them. I said that Lex is basically thought of as "evil genius", but sometimes people fail to recognize that there is an insane side to him, and Joker is sometimes seen as "absolute psychotic" or the "chaos" to Batman's "order", but there is also a sense of sanity and methodical organization to him as well.

[litew8]

Well, the way you describe him sounds correct, but the Evil Lex inside his mind isn't a full representation of the true Lex that we know. It's the total depravity that lurks beneath him. I think it's safe to say that there is a slight insanity to the character, but not an "irrationality".But that's just it, what you suggest doesn't necessarily coincide with your own description of the character. "Total depravity" isn't the same thing as insanity. That's why I suggested "irrationality" (as did the page above) to be a better fitting description. He's irrational in that he "thinks" he can have it all. Which causes him to despise Superman - due to Superman stopping him. I just don't see how the term "insanity", or whatnot - be given to a persons "thought" (inner-mind) and it not be intended to reflect his character overall. I don't see how that can be accomplished, rationally, thus - I dissagree with the notion and consider it bad choice of character development instead.

[MozartRequiem]

I can see what you mean. I guess what I'm trying to say is not that Evil Lex is one-hundred percent "insane", but rather, that he is the semi-insane part of Lex. I think we all have little bits of insanity inside of each of us, and we could fall into them if we had really poor guidance and twisted ideals. Therefore, Lex falls into that insanity, but he doesn't totally fall into it, because he uses his twisted rationality as a device for reason and logic.

As far as it not coinciding, I think it's more interesting and three-dimensional that not everything about Lex coincides as perfectly as it seems it should. There's parts of him that even he doesn't know about, or parts he represses, or parts he wants to let out but can't, so these things all blend together to make him truly capable of great-or terrible-things. It's all up to him.

That being said, in the comics, we have seen a more insane side of Lex Luthor a few times, so IMO, it seemed pretty true to the character, as long as the REAL Lex doesn't full-out go insane.

[litew8]

Evil Lex is one-hundred percent "insane", but rather, that he is the semi-insane part of Lex. I think we all have little bits of insanity inside of each of us, and we could fall into them if we had really poor guidance and twisted ideals. Well, that's just it (again). I don't think Lex is a-percent "insane". I also don't agree with everyone having a little bit of insanity within us either. I mean, yes - I think you are correct - but it is something you only see in people when everything else is stripped away from the surface. An underlining human condition, masked by conditioning. It is evident in some people more than others, but for profound reasons. Not the same as suggesting that everyone exhibits some insanity. Suggesting Irrational, absolutely. Irrational + poor guidance - very possible. We've seen that part of Lex throughout the series - by way of his upbringing and encounters that have altered his attitude. But to say insane (even a little) - goes to negate the genius. I think insane is too strong of a word - and oversteps the Lex Luthor character. Evil Genius fits perfectly - not Evil Insane Genius or Evil Slightly Insane Genius. It should never even have been suggested (IMO).

[Kal26]

As someone who holds a degree in psychology, and is one day going to hold a doctorate in the field, I have to disagree with you. I think your taking the term insane to it's most exteme level. Do I think Lex is totally insane, lacking the ability to live in reality, and hold a rational thought, no, but is he totally sane, no. He suffers from delusions of grandeur, obsessive behavior, and a skewed sense of reality. He's also paranoid, and has no real sense of right and wrong.

"INSIANITY: Psychologically, it is a general popular and legal term defining behaviour influenced by mental instability."

It doesn't always have to be someone who is totally out of their mind.

From the few things I listed above, lex could be easily classified as having a psychological disorder. Many people with disorders function well in our society, some even hold very high paying jobs.

Besides, we weren't talking about lex, but rather the evil side of his personality, which probably is completely insane. I would call lex a mentally unstable evil genius, but he's not as far from being like the joker as some would like to think.

----- Added 6 Minutes later -----


Not that Lex Luthor is irrational to the point of insanity (or whatever), but rather, irrationally obssesed (in ways, pertaining certain things - control/power).

You just described something that is a major component of two psychological disorders.

Obsessive compulsive disorder (the obsessed part), and antisocial personality disorder (or from the stone ages "a sociopath"). The latter deals with control, and power. Both can cause you to be placed in a mental hospital depending on their severity, and both could classify you as clinically insane.

[litew8]

Even people who have degrees in psychology are entitled to their opinion. That doesn't mean they are always right. Which is why people get second opinions. I don't think the word insanity can be used so lightly to describe other issues. I think there are clear distinctions. To label them something else, could be very well be considered malpractice. I'm sure you don't tell people that they are "insane" merely becuase they suffer from any (one) of the above. Lets break this down. If Lex suffers from any of the following, or all - "delusions of grandeur, obsessive behavior, and a skewed sense of reality", does that constitute him being considered "insane". I don't think so.

As it pertains to the character:

What is not sane about grandeur? He is suppose to have magnificence, splendid or grand characteristics. He's the head of a billion dollar company. Do you realize what it takes to be in that position? He's already accomplished many things. And there's room for more. And he is young. To suggest it is delusional, at this point in time, isn't accurate. We know he will accomplish more.

Obsessive behavior. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, unless it goes unchecked. Lex Luthor (for the most part) has it in check, and it contributes to the other attributes mentioned above - which goes towards his current status and future developments.

Skewed sense of reality. They are only skewed because of other people not telling him the truth. Not something that has come about due to himself. But what he's percieved and what hasn't been told to him. His surroundings, his life experiences with Clark, and the people closest to him lying about what they know or who they are. These aren't things that Lex Luthor himself has created, they are real things that have effected him, but they aren't due to his mental stability or instability.

I'm not trying to defend the character in any way - as if to imply I admire the character. I'm just saying, to stick a label on him as "insane" or slightly - seems to be innacurate.

[Kal26]

Even people who have degrees in psychology are entitled to their opinion. That doesn't mean they are always right. Which is why people get second opinions.


Right you are. As you are intitled to your opinion, degree, or not. I really don't think any one person can absolutely know what's going on inside another persons head, or what actually motivates their behavior, which is why I went into the field to begin with. To try and understand people, not to label them, but to learn.



I don't think the word insanity can be used so lightly to describe other issues. I think there are clear distinctions. To label them something else, could be very well be considered malpractice.


Well, I don't think the word should be used lightly either, but like it or not, there are many levels of insanity used to classify by the medical industry. Out of respect, and decency, people aren't just labeled insane anymore. Your given a less hurtful label. Now you have a psychological disorder, which is a nice way of saying you have sanity issues. The bottom line is, in some way or another, either severe, or not so severe, the person is out of touch with reality. The question is, are they out of touch with reality in a way that extremely conflicts with day to day life (I'm guessing this is the person you would call insane), or can they mascaraed around as a business man doing what he must to keep the world safe from evil (equally as out of touch with reality as the person previously mentioned, just able to appear rational).




I'm sure you don't tell people that they are "insane" merely becuase they suffer from any (one) of the above. Lets break this down. If Lex suffers from any of the following, or all - "delusions of grandeur, obsessive behavior, and a skewed sense of reality", does that constitute him being considered "insane". I don't think so.



First of all no, I wouldn't tell people that they were insane merely because they suffered from any one of the above. However, if any of the above were displayed in an irrational, compulsive, threatening, or otherwise harmful manner, as they would be in Lex's case, I would have to question their sanity. Even then, I would never call them insane, but would have to label them with some kind of disorder after intense study. Which is a nice way of saying he's insane.




As it pertains to the character:

What is not sane about grandeur? He is suppose to have magnificence, splendid or grand characteristics. He's the head of a billion dollar company. Do you realize what it takes to be in that position? He's already accomplished many things. And there's room for more. And he is young. To suggest it is delusional, at this point in time, isn't accurate. We know he will accomplish more.


Nothing is insane about grandeur. Unless you think that killing people, studying people against their will, cloning people to create your own army, faking your fiance's pregnancy so that she'll marry you, bringing your brother back from the dead via clone, and beating your friend to a bloody pulp because he isn't cool makes you the great savior of humanity. Then we have a problem with grandeur. You see, it's not the grandeur that's the problem. It's the delusion of grandeur. Lex does have great potential, but he thinks he is the only one who truly sees right from wrong. He likes to play god. That's were the insanity comes in. He's truly out of touch with reality. Maybe not on everything, but it doesn't have to be, to get the label.



Obsessive behavior. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, unless it goes unchecked. Lex Luthor (for the most part) has it in check, and it contributes to the other attributes mentioned above - which goes towards his current status and future developments.


In check? Like faking a pregnancy so that the woman you MUST HAVE will marry you? People are possessions to lex. Being obsessed with money, power, hell, even love are fine as long as you keep them in check, but Lex doesn't keep anything in check. He gets what he wants by any means. Every thing he does can be justified in his own mind as means to an end. That, is not normal behavior.




Skewed sense of reality. They are only skewed because of other people not telling him the truth. Not something that has come about due to himself. But what he's percieved and what hasn't been told to him. His surroundings, his life experiences with Clark, and the people closest to him lying about what they know or who they are. These aren't things that Lex Luthor himself has created, they are real things that have effected him, but they aren't due to his mental stability or instability.

I'm not trying to defend the character in any way - as if to imply I admire the character. I'm just saying, to stick a label on him as "insane" or slightly - seems to be innacurate.

So, Clark somehow lied to lex, and told him that it would be ok to clone an army of people from a person that he kidnapped because it would be a good way to save the world?

By skewed sense of reality we mean that you see reality sort of offset from the way it is. In lex's version of reality he is the hero, and everyone around him has wronged him. No one but him can be trusted, and right and wrong are left up to him to decide. In his mind, cloning his brother was a good way to get him back, and make up for their lost time. He didn't see it as wrong in any way. Just as he didn't see shooting the failed copy, or any of the many before him as wrong. Just a necessary road that he had to go down to complete his goal. It's not that he just doesn't understand what's going on from situation to situation because people have lied to him. I'm talking about the fact that he is truly out of touch with any constraint of any kind. He is larger than life, in his own mind.

So you see, these aren't just separate things. In lex's case they all tie in together. Which means that he has more than just one simple problem. He truly displays signs of being mentally unstable to the point of harming himself, or others, and he clearly displays signs of being out of touch with reality. All things that point to insanity in one form or another. I wouldn't be as arrogant as to try and classify him with one disorder over another, but I would definitely say that he is mentally ill.

Insane doesn't mean just running around in your own world laughing, or crying, or screaming, not able to see, or understand the world around you. That's one disorder, but there are many more that fall under the umbrella of mental illness, and all were at one time lumped under the title insane. So, to say that Lex is climbing up the hill toward insanity doesn't mean that he will eventually turn into a blundering idiot with no awareness what so ever. It just means that eventually he will loose himself to his illness. Eventually the line between right and wrong won't exist at all, and he will truly see himself as the only justice our society has. He will also see Superman as the only one keeping the rest of the world from seeing him as our savior, and will have to see to his demise. Another means to an end. It's the fact that he will see himself as the only all deciding entity in our world that gets him the label insane. Can he function? Yes. Is he rational in his thinking? It could be argued. Is he intelligent? Very. But he's completely out of touch with reality, and could harm anyone to get what he wants.

[litew8]

This is some discussion we are having here. Good job keeping it civil. Since I don't know you, I'll take your word for saying that you are educated pertaining the brain.


Well, I don't think the word should be used lightly either, but like it or not, there are many levels of insanity used to classify by the medical industry. Out of respect, and decency, people aren't just labeled insane anymore. Your given a less hurtful label. Now you have a psychological disorder, which is a nice way of saying you have sanity issues. The bottom line is, in some way or another, either severe, or not so severe, the person is out of touch with reality. The question is, are they out of touch with reality in a way that extremely conflicts with day to day life (I'm guessing this is the person you would call insane), or can they mascaraed around as a business man doing what he must to keep the world safe from evil (equally as out of touch with reality as the person previously mentioned, just able to appear rational).Given the fact that we are talking about a comic book character, and not a true to life person - I agree with your assesment, and then I think your rationale stretches too far to describe the comic book character. Lex Luthor does have premises to be doing what he has been doing. Whether or not they are extreem (to us viewers) doesn't seem to sway the fact that he seems to have legitimate reasons, and the instances to back up the claims. To him, and how things have been presented to him, they are all real events and real issues - as we've seen throughout the series. None of them are rumors or fictitious in nature. That makes his intent lucid, not easily labeled as a form of disorder. That's primarily why I dissagree with how he is sometimes portrayed.


First of all no, I wouldn't tell people that they were insane merely because they suffered from any one of the above. However, if any of the above were displayed in an irrational, compulsive, threatening, or otherwise harmful manner, as they would be in Lex's case, I would have to question their sanity. Even then, I would never call them insane, but would have to label them with some kind of disorder after intense study. Which is a nice way of saying he's insane.I agree, and understand completely. But we are talking about a comic book character - who's ideas and intentions are developed by more than one person, for more than one reason. The reality presented to Lex Luthor has driven him to do the things that he is doing. I'd think within reason, if in fact this was a real life senario. Surely people can be driven to become insane, and the reasoning behind the fault explained as society caused it. Even though this holds true, I don't think Lex Luthor has been pushed that far. Again, why I dissagree.


Nothing is insane about grandeur. Unless you think that killing people, studying people against their will, cloning people to create your own army, faking your fiance's pregnancy so that she'll marry you, bringing your brother back from the dead via clone, and beating your friend to a bloody pulp because he isn't cool makes you the great savior of humanity. Then we have a problem with grandeur. You see, it's not the grandeur that's the problem. It's the delusion of grandeur. Lex does have great potential, but he thinks he is the only one who truly sees right from wrong. He likes to play god. That's were the insanity comes in. He's truly out of touch with reality. Maybe not on everything, but it doesn't have to be, to get the label.You're best points yet. Now consider this. If this wasn't a comic book style of story, what would you do if you knew or experienced the things Lex Luthor has? I'll say it again - the things Lex Luthor does is a direct result of the experiences he has had - and the deciet by the people closest to him. If he knew the truth about alot of things, maybe he wouldn't take such drastic measures. As shallow as this may sound - Would you sacrifice a few to try and save the world? Especially if you had the power, means and money to do so?


In check? Like faking a pregnancy so that the woman you MUST HAVE will marry you? People are possessions to lex. Being obsessed with money, power, hell, even love are fine as long as you keep them in check, but Lex doesn't keep anything in check. He gets what he wants by any means. Every thing he does can be justified in his own mind as means to an end. That, is not normal behavior.Faking pregnancy - so that she will marry Lex?
I still don't buy into that, considering there was a clone immediately following.
That, and Lana hasn't said anything about it on screen.
I still think there is something we don't know about.

Everything else you mentioned - is a result of his understandings of his experiences.


So, Clark somehow lied to lex, and told him that it would be ok to clone an army of people from a person that he kidnapped because it would be a good way to save the world?

Well... that's just a small part of Lex's understandings. I think it was actually Lionel that got together with Swann, Teauge, and some other multi-billion dollar people - and started looking for ways to protect the Earth from an alien invasion. Considering what they knew, and the massive threat posed - it seems to be scaled accordingly. Lex wasn't the one that started cloning. Lex wasn't the one seeking alien presence. That was done by people you might consider non-insane.


By skewed sense of reality we mean that you see reality sort of offset from the way it is. In lex's version of reality he is the hero, and everyone around him has wronged him. No one but him can be trusted, and right and wrong are left up to him to decide.I'm not going to argue this - everything I've mentioned above already has rationalized it.


In his mind, cloning his brother was a good way to get him back, and make up for their lost time. He didn't see it as wrong in any way. Just as he didn't see shooting the failed copy, or any of the many before him as wrong. Just a necessary road that he had to go down to complete his goal. It's not that he just doesn't understand what's going on from situation to situation because people have lied to him. I'm talking about the fact that he is truly out of touch with any constraint of any kind. He is larger than life, in his own mind.This may be a valid point. Truely strange. I think it was mentioned that he did it so that he could take control of the Daily Planet. Even still - it is out there. No doubt. Yet, it might actually be disputable. I really don't want to though. I'll just ask - are people that clone their deceased pet cats insane too?


Insane doesn't mean just running around in your own world laughing, or crying, or screaming, not able to see, or understand the world around you. That's one disorder, but there are many more that fall under the umbrella of mental illness, and all were at one time lumped under the title insane. So, to say that Lex is climbing up the hill toward insanity doesn't mean that he will eventually turn into a blundering idiot with no awareness what so ever. It just means that eventually he will loose himself to his illness. Eventually the line between right and wrong won't exist at all, and he will truly see himself as the only justice our society has. He will also see Superman as the only one keeping the rest of the world from seeing him as our savior, and will have to see to his demise. Another means to an end. It's the fact that he will see himself as the only all deciding entity in our world that gets him the label insane. Can he function? Yes. Is he rational in his thinking? It could be argued. Is he intelligent? Very. But he's completely out of touch with reality, and could harm anyone to get what he wants. Great summary.

The only question I have for you - Do the things Lex Luthor has seen, heard, experienced and actions taken to thwart, secure and protect - give reason enough to say that it is Lex himself who has a disability - or is it rather the things that have happened give that appearance?

[Kal26]

This is some discussion we are having here. Good job keeping it civil. Since I don't know you, I'll take your word for saying that you are educated pertaining the brain.


Thanks. I don't see any reason for us to get upset with each other, I enjoy running things back and forth with someone else who is as passionate about the show as I am. I am educated in psychology, not so much in brain function, but that's another interest of mine as well.



Given the fact that we are talking about a comic book character, and not a true to life person - I agree with your assesment, and then I think your rationale stretches too far to describe the comic book character. Lex Luthor does have premises to be doing what he has been doing. Whether or not they are extreem (to us viewers) doesn't seem to sway the fact that he seems to have legitimate reasons, and the instances to back up the claims. To him, and how things have been presented to him, they are all real events and real issues - as we've seen throughout the series. None of them are rumors or fictitious in nature. That makes his intent lucid, not easily labeled as a form of disorder. That's primarily why I dissagree with how he is sometimes portrayed.


He does have legitimate reasons for doing what he does, but his actions are irrational, that's where the problem lies. Does the world really need a bunch of clones made by lex to protect it? Did he really have to ruin lives to get that done?

Take for example a person who has antisocial personality disorder (a sociopath), they see a goal, like say, the protection of a female that they must have. To them, every male in that females life poses a threat. In order to eliminate that threat, they may kill those males, and feel no remorse for it because they were "protecting her". It's a legitimate cause, or at least they could make it seem that way, but at the end of the day it's still murder, and they are still out of grips with reality. If I had to diagnose Lex, I'd say he either has this, or a borderline personality disorder.

In fact, one of the things psychologists note most about antisocials (an incurable disease by the way), is that they are so lucid in their thoughts that they often slip through the system, and go unclassified. That's a little scary.




I agree, and understand completely. But we are talking about a comic book character - who's ideas and intentions are developed by more than one person, for more than one reason. The reality presented to Lex Luthor has driven him to do the things that he is doing. I'd think within reason, if in fact this was a real life senario. Surely people can be driven to become insane, and the reasoning behind the fault explained as society caused it. Even though this holds true, I don't think Lex Luthor has been pushed that far. Again, why I dissagree.


People are often driven insane by life experience. Not everyone with mental illness inherits it, or develops it as a form of brain malfunction if you will, but in lex's case, he probably inherited the gene from Lionel (who seems as antisocial as they come). That doesn't mean he would even pick up the traits. Some who argue in the nature nurture debate say it takes a combination of the two. However, lex's actions can hardly be called normal, even for a person in his position IMO. I don't know if I would go as far as to say that society caused it either. I'd say Lex's inability to deal with the structure set forth by our society caused it.



You're best points yet. Now consider this. If this wasn't a comic book style of story, what would you do if you knew or experienced the things Lex Luthor has? I'll say it again - the things Lex Luthor does is a direct result of the experiences he has had - and the deciet by the people closest to him. If he knew the truth about alot of things, maybe he wouldn't take such drastic measures. As shallow as this may sound - Would you sacrifice a few to try and save the world? Especially if you had the power, means and money to do so?


It depends on if the world really needs saving, or if that's just my own whacked out opinion. I certainly wouldn't harm people to get that done if I had to, and I surely wouldn't set up a holding cell for krypto freaks to study them against there will. You see, some of lex's actions could be justified, if they weren't so far off the right path. He really has no sense of right and wrong. He does what he wants. I really don't think the lies that have been told to lex would cause a sane person to do the things that he's done. What lie was it that caused him to fake lana's pregnancy? What lie was it that caused him to clone her? Did a lie make him not care that one of his military weapons killed virtually all under water life that was around it? I don't buy this part. Lex is responsible for what lex does, and the moment excuses like this are made, I'd have to say it's time for the man with the money, means, and desire to kill to save us, to be locked up. I think Superman would feel the same way.




Faking pregnancy - so that she will marry Lex?
I still don't buy into that, considering there was a clone immediately following.
That, and Lana hasn't said anything about it on screen.
I still think there is something we don't know about.

Everything else you mentioned - is a result of his understandings of his experiences.


What are you talking about? Lex faked Lana's whole pregnancy. The doctor told her, she confronted Lex about it, and he even admitted it. This all happened on screen. He trapped her into marriage because he knew she may back out. Then as you point out, he also cloned her. That doesn't really sound like sane behavior to me.



Well... that's just a small part of Lex's understandings. I think it was actually Lionel that got together with Swann, Teauge, and some other multi-billion dollar people - and started looking for ways to protect the Earth from an alien invasion. Considering what they knew, and the massive threat posed - it seems to be scaled accordingly. Lex wasn't the one that started cloning. Lex wasn't the one seeking alien presence. That was done by people you might consider non-insane.


No, actually I'd also consider lionel to be suffering from a disorder as well. That's not the point though. There is nothing wrong with doing research, or taking measures to save earth. There is certainly nothing wrong with thinking that there may be an alien invasion at some point. What's wrong is thinking it's ok to kidnap a man against his will, clone him, and then kill him. What's wrong is cloning your dead brother, then killing him, and the other failed attempt you've made. IMO there is nothing sane, or even arguably sane about lex's tactics. His intentions may seem normal, but his actions make him look off his rocker. That's also the case with many individuals suffering from a disorder. They don't see the line that they are crossing as a line at all, but a grey area, as lex himself has even said. That is one of the direct quotes that they tell us to look for with patients who exhibit antisocial tendencies.




This may be a valid point. Truely strange. I think it was mentioned that he did it so that he could take control of the Daily Planet. Even still - it is out there. No doubt. Yet, it might actually be disputable. I really don't want to though. I'll just ask - are people that clone their deceased pet cats insane too?


I'd have to say that anyone who makes a copy of a dead loved one (pets included) for the purpose of replacing the old one, or even giving them more time has some metal problems. That may sound mean, but think about the intention behind doing it. Are you going around pretending that they are the real thing to make yourself feel better? If so, yes, you have problems IMO. I could never justify doing something like that myself.




The only question I have for you - Do the things Lex Luthor has seen, heard, experienced and actions taken to thwart, secure and protect - give reason enough to say that it is Lex himself who has a disability - or is it rather the things that have happened give that appearance?

Thank you for the complement, I didn't quote it, but wanted to thank you none the less. I put a lot of thought into it, so it means a lot that you said that.

To the above, I think it would be very possible for someone to appear to be insane, but it really be just our perspective of that person. However, I think after seeing lex in action for seven years, I'm beyond using that as an excuse. I've thought that in the past, only to end up seeing lex in a whole new (psychotic) light. As I said above, all of his life experiences, and everything that has happened to him certainly could have contributed to his situation, but the end result is the same. Situation aside, it doesn't change the fact (imo) that Lex has passed the point of no return. He doesn't care about being seen as good anymore, he just does what he has to do to get what he wants. That's a scary thought when the person has almost unlimited resources.

I have to end with something that I thought of last night. I know Superman is no doctor, but he's probably smarter than one. Sense we were talking about other incarnations of the character, I think it wise to point out that lex has been referred to as insane, a lunatic, and a psychopath by other characters in the lore, and even by superman himself in some incarnations. Not that it means anything, but it is interesting to bring up.

[Routh]

Because he and Clark like it rough.

[83kaL]

Maybe because Lex IS a maniac? Lol

[litew8]

...
Fair enough. I'm still not certain that the things Lex has done versus his personal experiences, should over-power the reality presented (by pushing Lex too far to the left). For every action, there's a reaction. Considering the mix, it's pretty extreem either way. Justified, undetermined. Unbalanced - I think so. I think the Superman character would agree with that. He's not the judge and jury. Which is why he seems forgiving of Lex. If Clark knew of the things you mentioned above, all reasonable tendencies would suggest that Lex be put away (a long time ago). But this is comic book based entertainment.

Such things as the legitimacy of ones actions don't hold the same definition they would in real life. Clark hasn't seemed to have had any interest in persuing justice towards the things Lex has already done. Which can be proven without a doubt. That's irrational to a degree that might actually be worse that what they've shown of Lex. It's up to the writers and producers to make it all click. Some will agree with their work, others not so much. Your last comments about other incarnations - perhaps they were just opinionated expressions rather than literal remarks. I don't know. I still think it was exaggerated - and could have been done differently; smarter.

[Kal26]

Man! I like debating with you. I won't call it arguing, as that's not at all what we've been doing, and is too many times what happens as a result of these conversations. I love debating with people who have an open mind, but at the same time feel strongly about their argument. Thank you.

I still stand by my earlier comments, but totally respect, and understand where your coming from. I agree 100% about this being fiction, and that having an impact on the topic at hand. I also agree with what you said about Clark. I don't see it to the extreme that you do, but have thought for some time that Clark was living in denial on many subjects, especially when concerning what his role should be on earth. For the record, I also agree that the remarks I mentioned concerning Lex in other Superman related media were probably meant by the writers to be that characters opinion, and not necessarily a diagnosis. We can't know that without asking them, which is sort of the point I think you were making (sorry if that's wrong). Anyway, I won't be back on here until Monday, so I'll just say, I respect your opinion, and thank you for taking the time to hear me out on mine. It's been a pleasure. :)

[litew8]

I went back and answered a few more of your points.


I am educated in psychology, not so much in brain functionI just assumed that psychology is related to the brain.


He does have legitimate reasons for doing what he does, but his actions are irrational, that's where the problem lies. Does the world really need a bunch of clones made by lex to protect it? Did he really have to ruin lives to get that done?You seem to cancel out your first remark suggesting that his reasons are legitimate - by saying they are irrational. "Doing what he does" is the same thing as "his actions". As to your question: Would you want to live? Would you want billions of others to live? Or would you rather everyone die?


It depends on if the world really needs saving, or if that's just my own whacked out opinion. I certainly wouldn't harm people to get that done if I had to, and I surely wouldn't set up a holding cell for krypto freaks to study them against there will. You see, some of lex's actions could be justified, if they weren't so far off the right path.Considering what he's observed and learned (truth and otherwise), any rational person might conclude that there is an eminent threat. Sure, part of Lex's actions are traits of his, but 3/4 of that is propelled by what he's witnessed. I'd say that the MASS majority of what he's seen and learned has been very bad. There's been dramatic influence.


He really has no sense of right and wrong. He does what he wants.That could be said of a lot of people. Example: People rob convienent stores for money - which may suggest they need money, not that they are mentally instable. That's a shaddy example, but you get the idea.


What's wrong is thinking it's ok to kidnap a man against his will, clone him, and then kill him.You mentioned this a couple of times. I don't know who you are referring to. Kidnaped and cloned a man?


I'd have to say that anyone who makes a copy of a dead loved one (pets included) for the purpose of replacing the old one, or even giving them more time has some metal problems. That may sound mean, but think about the intention behind doing it. Are you going around pretending that they are the real thing to make yourself feel better? If so, yes, you have problems IMO. I could never justify doing something like that myself.

Okay, but that doesn't take away the fact that the ability to do so exists. Which seems to go back to what I was saying about society's influence on a person's actions/reactions. Action: Cloning your cat is possible (seriously). Reaction: You clone your cat. Question: Does that mean you have a disorder? Much like Lex's disposition - he's been trying to find the answers about Clark (that's irrationally obsessive), yet he begins to find clues. Then MORE clues. Then even MORE. It is actually a reality. His obsessive tendencies actually have teeth. He realizes that people are either not telling him the truth, or they are hiding something from him. From what he's gathered thus far - it poses a threat to earth. Since he knows so much, he's bound to prevent something more evil than himself from happening. Some of his character traits interact with the process, and he gets recognition for it later - he becomes the President of the USA. If anything, the latter goes to provide evidence that what he's doing (now) will be recognized as something that helped, rather than hurt.

[Kal26]

You seem to cancel out your first remark suggesting that his reasons are legitimate - by saying they are irrational. "Doing what he does" is the same thing as "his actions". As to your question: Would you want to live? Would you want billions of others to live? Or would you rather everyone die?


I said that the reasons behind what he's done are legitimate, but what he's actually done as a result of those reasons is irrational. His actions, and what he has done are the same thing, but his actions, and what he has done, are not the same thing as the reasons he performed those actions.

They are legitimate reasons for doing something that are twisted into irrational thoughts on how to deal with that problem, then performed as irrational actions.

What I was trying to say was that worrying about a threat that could harm the world is not an irrational thought. Thinking in some way that harming countless people will help you save it, is the irrational part about his thought process. Thinking that it's his right to harm whoever he wants, then lump them in with those who "had to die for the greater good" is irrational. You see, his thoughts are both rational, and irrational. Lex can't draw the line, that's one problem. It was hard to put that in words without seeming like I was contradicting myself. A person in touch with reality, and who had a conscience, would find a way that didn't involve ruthless killing. There has been nothing delicate, personable, or even thoughtful about the way lex has treated his victims.

So, here's the thought I was talking about being rational, "the world needs to be saved". That is a rational thought.

"I need to torture, maim, and kill in order to save the world." This is an example of how Lex has twisted a rational thought into an irrational one.

Here is a rational action, or something lex could do. He could work on something that doesn't kill, or harm an innocent person.

Here is an example of how lex has twisted a rational thought into an irrational action.

It would be beneficial to be able to come up with a serum that would literally save lives (a rational thought), so he brings a kid back from the dead, then locks him in a room to die a painful, and horrible death, because he won't do what lex wants. (an irrational action)

How is that saving lives? How did torturing that kid help anything? Lex thinks it did. That is a great example of how lex's view of reality is skewed, how he has no conscience, and how he can twist a seemingly rational thought into a totally irrational set of actions.

As for your question, I would want myself, and others to live. However, if countless people had to die horrible deaths for pretty much no reason (because at this point none of lex's schemes have worked out, and everyone has died for nothing), I couldn't live with myself, and would have rather just died. I don't want to live, if it means lex gets to go on a rampage, and kill everyone who gets remotely in his way.

How has Lex doing any of the horrible things he's done helped us, or how would they help us? How would an evil army that does whatever lex wants them to, help us? It may help lex rule us, but what would a world be like under lex's rule? Would we all be experimented on, because lex found what could be a miracle cure for some disease, and thinks it's ok to kill off a couple hundred innocent people in order to finish it?



Considering what he's observed and learned (truth and otherwise), any rational person might conclude that there is an eminent threat. Sure, part of Lex's actions are traits of his, but 3/4 of that is propelled by what he's witnessed. I'd say that the MASS majority of what he's seen and learned has been very bad. There's been dramatic influence.


As I said above, there is nothing wrong with lex thinking there is an eminent threat, or even taking action against it. It's the disregard for the lives of others, and the way he can twist things around in his own mind to somehow make senseless torture seem justified by that threat that's the problem. If he were building normal weapons, and testing them in a way that would help, but not hurt, it would be fine, but lex isn't happy unless he can test that weapon on innocent people first.



That could be said of a lot of people. Example: People rob convienent stores for money - which may suggest they need money, not that they are mentally instable. That's a shaddy example, but you get the idea.


I see your point, but again, there is a difference between robbing a store, and blatantly going out of your way to harm people as lex has done time and time again. How exactly was cloning his brother, or faking Lana's pregnancy helping to save the world?

Also, when concerning the sanity of the person who robbed the store, did they just rob it, or did they torture then kill the clerk, then clone him so no one would wonder what happened to him, then torture and kill his wife so she wouldn't tell after she figured it out? If so, yes, he is insane.

Lex may not have done all that himself, but he is certainly capable of having it done. Lex never just does what has to be done. He always takes it that sadistic step further.



You mentioned this a couple of times. I don't know who you are referring to. Kidnaped and cloned a man?


I don't know his name, but he was a friend of Lois'. There was a whole episode about it. He kidnapped him, killed his wife eventually, and brainwashed him to be an assassin. Later, after the guy is dead, it's revealed that lex made a whole freakin' warehouse full of copies as a sort of army.



Okay, but that doesn't take away the fact that the ability to do so exists. Which seems to go back to what I was saying about society's influence on a person's actions/reactions. Action: Cloning your cat is possible (seriously). Reaction: You clone your cat. Question: Does that mean you have a disorder? Much like Lex's disposition - he's been trying to find the answers about Clark (that's irrationally obsessive), yet he begins to find clues. Then MORE clues. Then even MORE. It is actually a reality. His obsessive tendencies actually have teeth. He realizes that people are either not telling him the truth, or they are hiding something from him. From what he's gathered thus far - it poses a threat to earth. Since he knows so much, he's bound to prevent something more evil than himself from happening. Some of his character traits interact with the process, and he gets recognition for it later - he becomes the President of the USA. If anything, the latter goes to provide evidence that what he's doing (now) will be recognized as something that helped, rather than hurt.

Well, I seriously doubt that lex ran for president under the campaign slogan "I'll kill whoever I want, and torture whoever I want to make this world a safer place". No, he lied to get in office, so I don't think that can be used to justify his actions as actually good. How much money do you think lex would stand to make from creating the weapon that our government would use to protect us from an invasion? He's not doing it for the greater good. If he were, he'd be doing it for free, and he wouldn't be killing to get it done (like Superman). He's doing it for Lex. To help inflate his already over inflated ego. I agree that he is intitled to think that there is something bad coming, and I also think that he should do what he can to stop it. But what he can do has to be balanced by what he should do. I agree with you on his obsession with Clark, but it's the means he uses to get to his ends that are the problem. It's not sane to think that you can do the things that lex has done even if they are for a greater good. Some of the things he's done have just been out right evil, and had nothing to do with this imminent threat.

[kal-el_Girl]

I loved it!! it was awesome the way he was fearless of clark... and maybe that is a glimpse of how lex is never afraid of superman.

[litew8]

It would be beneficial to be able to come up with a serum that would literally save lives (a rational thought), so he brings a kid back from the dead, then locks him in a room to die a painful, and horrible death, because he won't do what lex wants. (an irrational action)I think that was Lionel, not Lex.
I don't know his name, but he was a friend of Lois'. There was a whole episode about it. He kidnapped him, killed his wife eventually, and brainwashed him to be an assassin. Later, after the guy is dead, it's revealed that lex made a whole freakin' warehouse full of copies as a sort of army.Hmm... his name was Wes. I don't recall it being said that the warehouse were clones of Wes. I just assumed that Wes ("Prototype") was a beta test of abilities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All of your explanations hold very well up against my questioning.
I think what I am excluding are the non-punishment of Lex's actions. I watch the show in a comic book focus of imagination. It translates to "good" guys and "bad" guys. Not "good" guys and "insane" guys. I don't like watching movies or shows that are blantanly expressing insanity or the likes, so perhaps I'm looking past it all in Lex's case - just allowing him to be a "bad" comic book character - and don't want to consider him in terms of "insane". I think they did a better job in the early seasons where they portrayed Lex as an oposite of his father. Just thought I'd say - isn't Superman (or Clark) suppose to prevent Lex Luthor from killing innocent people? Maybe that's what I'm not liking - how they've allowed Lex to do so without consequence.

And I know, killing is not a sane trait - don't want you to think I'm attempting to argue the contrary.

[Kal26]

I think that was Lionel, not Lex.


I'm sorry, your right, that was Lionel. Let me give another example, only this time, hopefully, I'll be using something lex actually did.

It would be beneficial to humanity to somehow harness the powers of the kryptonite infected. Some may have powers that could help mankind. (a rational thought)

So, lex literally seeks them out, possibly drugs them, holds them against their will, and experiments on them in any way he thinks necessary. (an irrational action)




Hmm... his name was Wes. I don't recall it being said that the warehouse were clones of Wes. I just assumed that Wes ("Prototype") was a beta test of abilities.


Let's assume that they weren't clones of Wes. The best case scenario is that they were more kidnapped, brainwashed soldiers just like Wes. In my mind, that's just as bad, if not worse than creating a clean slate who has no family, or friends to be ripped away from.

The reason I assumed they were clones of Wes is the title "Prototype", which to me, indicated that he was the "Prototype" for all the other soldiers. The one they were created from. The original.



I think what I am excluding are the non-punishment of Lex's actions. I watch the show in a comic book focus of imagination. It translates to "good" guys and "bad" guys. Not "good" guys and "insane" guys. I don't like watching movies or shows that are blantanly expressing insanity or the likes, so perhaps I'm looking past it all in Lex's case - just allowing him to be a "bad" comic book character - and don't want to consider him in terms of "insane". I think they did a better job in the early seasons where they portrayed Lex as an oposite of his father. Just thought I'd say - isn't Superman (or Clark) suppose to prevent Lex Luthor from killing innocent people? Maybe that's what I'm not liking - how they've allowed Lex to do so without consequence.

And I know, killing is not a sane trait - don't want you to think I'm attempting to argue the contrary.

I know what your saying, and understand where your coming from. I'm thinking something big is about to go down with Lex. At least I hope. :D

[litew8]

I'm sorry, your right, that was Lionel. Let me give another example, only this time, hopefully, I'll be using something lex actually did. It would be beneficial to humanity to somehow harness the powers of the kryptonite infected. Some may have powers that could help mankind. (a rational thought) So, lex literally seeks them out, possibly drugs them, holds them against their will, and experiments on them in any way he thinks necessary. (an irrational action)No need to be sorry. What if the case was - the kryptonite infected were doing more harm than good. Also, Lex stood up to Curtis Knox (Dean Cane).
Let's assume that they weren't clones of Wes. The best case scenario is that they were more kidnapped, brainwashed soldiers just like Wes. In my mind, that's just as bad, if not worse than creating a clean slate who has no family, or friends to be ripped away from. The reason I assumed they were clones of Wes is the title "Prototype", which to me, indicated that he was the "Prototype" for all the other soldiers. The one they were created from. The original.I don't believe they were the soldiers. Lex did what he did to Wes, as a part of beta testing his developed technologies ("Prototype") to apply to the cloned army. The Senator suggested blowing the lid off of what Lex was really doing (cloning), which is what ended his life (by Lex). Even though bad, not directly implicating someones life (because they are clones - like supposed Lana). Duplicates, or replicants. So he didn't achieve them by means of distroying hundreds of lives in the process.
I know what your saying, and understand where your coming from. I'm thinking something big is about to go down with Lex. At least I hope. :DSo it appears he hasn't done as much as you thought. I'll stick with my presumptions - prepare for the worst, hope for the best (as to Lex's character development). Hope it isn't overkilled. Perhaps it already is. I'd take a smart/bad person over a presumed insane/bad person any day. One enduces more intellect, in both character development and viewer perception. (imo)
- - -
:confused:

[Kal26]

No need to be sorry. What if the case was - the kryptonite infected were doing more harm than good. Also, Lex stood up to Curtis Knox (Dean Cane).


If the kryptonite infected were doing more harm than good, I'd say, get evidence, and take it to a higher authority. If they have to be locked up, then it should be done according to the law, not Lex Luthor. You see, that's another one of those lines that can't be crossed. Lex thinks he's judge, jury, and executioner. Another example of his delusions of grandeur, and skewed sense of reality.

I'll give him that he stopped Knox, but imo it had more to do with Knox's refusal to be controlled by Lex, than the bad he was doing.



I don't believe they were the soldiers. Lex did what he did to Wes, as a part of beta testing his developed technologies ("Prototype") to apply to the cloned army. The Senator suggested blowing the lid off of what Lex was really doing (cloning), which is what ended his life (by Lex). Even though bad, not directly implicating someones life (because they are clones - like supposed Lana). Duplicates, or replicants. So he didn't achieve them by means of distroying hundreds of lives in the process.


I wasn't sure if you'd be on the same page as me when talking about cloning being the lesser of the evils here, but I think that's what your saying too. I agree, if they are clones, it's not quite as bad as ripping soldiers away from their families, but again, is still an example of Lex taking things way further than they need to go for his own personal gain. A clone army of soldiers hell bent on following lex's orders isn't going to help do anything except put lex in control imo. No, he didn't achieve them by destroying hundreds of lives, he achieved them by playing god. He only ruined a few lives. Those of Wes' family, and of course Wes himself. Not quite as bad as the alternative, but still unacceptable, and still actions of a severely mentally disturbed person in my book.




So it appears he hasn't done as much as you thought. I'll stick with my presumptions - prepare for the worst, hope for the best (as to Lex's character development). Hope it isn't overkilled. Perhaps it already is. I'd take a smart/bad person over a presumed insane/bad person any day. One enduces more intellect, in both character development and viewer perception. (imo)


Well, that one incident being something that Lionel actually did, doesn't really help my opinion of Lex's sanity at all. That was just one very small piece of the pie compared to the long, long list of things Lex has thought, and done, that would imo qualify him for at least one, maybe even a combination of a few psychological disorders.

The thing I'm trying to stress, and I know we disagree on this, but that's ok, is that...

1) Insanity does not equal low intelligence. In most cases it's exactly the opposite.

2) To be a "smart/bad person" you generally would have to think that it's ok to harm others to get what you want (be it emotional, financial, or physical).

You are right, and the authorities are wrong (not always bad, like if you lived in Nazi Germany, but Lex does not).

And for some reason feel that you are justified in your actions.

Now, as you pointed out, it would be ok to pretend for the sake of entertainment that there is nothing mentally wrong with any of this, that you can think this way, and still be sane, but in reality, thinking, and behaving in these ways will get you classified with a mental disorder.

I can't think of a way in which you could be a smart/bad person, and still be considered sane really. How could someone of sound mind intentionally want to bring harm to others? Isn't that what bad guys do, bad things for enjoyment, or gain? That sounds mentally off to me.

So, with all that said, I again want to point out that I'm not trying to change your opinion, only interject mine. I think in the end we agree to disagree. I see great character development in Lex on Smallville. I see him more and more becoming the super intelligent, evil, insane villain that I have always thought Lex Luthor to be. I'm seeing the development that takes him from the early days on Smallville to the Lex I know from other forms of Superman media, and am loving it. :D

[litew8]

You are right on many points.

I see Lex's character in a slightly different light.
I choose to ignore the obvious (reality comparison), because I don't think they fit well.
If it is comic book based imagination, I can choose to ignore some things.
Things still make sense, if I consider Lex just a bad guy.
I don't think he should be written insane.
I don't like the fact that he kills innocent people and gets away with it.
I don't like the low morals given to Clark.
I don't like alot of what the writers/producers have done.
I think they could have made Lex more smart/bad than insane/bad.
There's nothing good/admirable about portraying an insane/bad person/character.
It negates (overshadows) the genius attribute.
They could have easily made Lex a smart/bad person by persuing the cloning to protect a percieved alien threat. Having Clark stop him from stealing stuff and the likes. Pushing the story to the point where Lex nearly hurts masses of innocent people (incidentally), but Clark stops it from happening.
I don't like the fact that the character has been allowed to kill people in order to possibly kill more people - and considered morally okay to portray on television. Which is why I like the very early years, where the Lex character was trying to be the opposite of what his father was.
I think they could have done the smart/bad (Lex) against the smart/good (Clark) easily. Giving Lex proper reasoning to do the things he thinks needs done to save the earth (within degree), without having to consider him irrational to the point of being completely irrational.
As for the other characters: Zod, Brainiac, BiZaRrO - the writers could have easily allowed them to kill innocents and sacraficed the Lex Luthor character for more evil genius methods and ways.
Until you provide text from a medical book stating that the disorders you mentioned throughout this thread equate "insane" - I'm going to think you are generalizing.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Did you notice the similarities of the early seasons (Primarily Season 1) where Lionel was trying to coach Lex to become a great CEO - how similar teachings were then shifted to Jor-El and Clark? There's eerie on-screen contrast between character development of (early) Lex and (mid-late) Clark.

[UpandAtom]

I have to say Kal26 and litew8, I have read the debate that you two have been having and find that it is very interesting given the overall nature of the nature. Lex thinks that whatever he is doing is for the good of mankind, and if his only intention really is to save the world, then why not consider other political figures who have gone through similar approaches to be insane as well?

George W. Bush started a war in Iraq that really had no justification. In the end, millions of people died and are continuing to die. His defense is that Iraq is part of the war on terror and that they were hiding weapons of mass destruction and needed to be changed. Whether or not his story is true is left up to interpretation, but can he be considered insane for wanting to make the world a better place? The good thing that came out of the war was that Saddam Hussein was finally taken out of power. I suppose the same could be said true of Lex's army. Lex saw a threat and did what he could to stop it. Whether or not the threat was there is up to interpretation, but in case an alien invasion or other attack comes, at least Lex is prepared to deal with it.

About faking Lana's pregnancy, I have trouble believing that Lex actually did it. First of all, in "Static" the surprise on Lex's face is real. Secondly, if Lex did fake it, why would he send Lana to a doctor that told her so?

The clones are another interesting topic. I suppose, given the chance, many people wouldn't hesitate at bringing their loved ones back. Clark himself has resurrected countless people on Smallville. The most memorable one being Lana from "Reckoning". Does it make him a bad person for not wanting to see people die? If he has to opportunity to bring someone back to life, and he doesn't use, it makes him as bad as killing them himself.

Given that the show is taken from Clark's point of view, we are naturally supposed to view him as the good guy and Lex as the bad guy, but Clark has done several things in his life that are questionable and that most ordinary people wouldn't do. He ran away from home, got married to a girl, attacked Lex and Lana at their engagement party. Even though he was on Red K for all of these, it only meant that deep down, he wanted to do all these things. I could also say that Clark has a skewed sense of right and wrong. He only chooses to see things the way he wants to and not from any other point of view.

[Kal26]

I have to say Kal26 and litew8, I have read the debate that you two have been having and find that it is very interesting given the overall nature of the nature. Lex thinks that whatever he is doing is for the good of mankind, and if his only intention really is to save the world, then why not consider other political figures who have gone through similar approaches to be insane as well?


If they seriously thought that killing, and torturing for their own gain was ok, then I would call them insane. If they thought that it would be ok to take the laws of nature into their own hands, again for their own gain, I'd say they were. I don't consider Lex insane because he wants to save the world, and has taken some questionable actions to do so. I consider Lex insane because he thinks it's ok to lock people up in a sudo prison, experiment on them, then toss them aside, or kill them. I consider Lex insane because he thinks it's ok to bring his brother back from the dead via clone, kill off a failed attempt saying "your nothing but a mistake", then kill the version that did work to once again get back at daddy. I really don't see how any of those actions can be seen as sane, and don't think they can be compared to even the actions of our current president, who I utterly dispise.



George W. Bush started a war in Iraq that really had no justification. In the end, millions of people died and are continuing to die. His defense is that Iraq is part of the war on terror and that they were hiding weapons of mass destruction and needed to be changed. Whether or not his story is true is left up to interpretation, but can he be considered insane for wanting to make the world a better place? The good thing that came out of the war was that Saddam Hussein was finally taken out of power. I suppose the same could be said true of Lex's army. Lex saw a threat and did what he could to stop it. Whether or not the threat was there is up to interpretation, but in case an alien invasion or other attack comes, at least Lex is prepared to deal with it.


Again, he can't be considered insane for wanting to make the world a better place. However, anyone who can lie about the evidence that took us to war, gain so much financially off of it, and still be able to sleep at night when innocent troops, and civilians are dying every day, in my mind, has some problems.

What Lex is ready to deal with is the money that the government would have given him for illegally, and immorally creating a clone army. That was, until they found out about his tactics, and threatened to shut him down. Then he just decided to kill the person in charge so that couldn't happen. The only thing Lex wanted out of that army was money, and power, and he thought he could do what he wanted to get that. An invasion is just a good excuse to appease the masses. Typical behavior from someone suffering from antisocial personality disorder.



About faking Lana's pregnancy, I have trouble believing that Lex actually did it. First of all, in "Static" the surprise on Lex's face is real. Secondly, if Lex did fake it, why would he send Lana to a doctor that told her so?


I don't, but about the doctor, I'm a little gray. I thought she went to a normal doctor (for whatever reason), and found out that she had never been pregnant. I thought the doctor who had helped Lex fake the pregnancy was the same person Lex killed on his wedding day, in order to keep the secret from Lana. For whatever reason he did it, he murdered someone on his wedding day, and somehow thought that was ok. Another thing to add to the list of out there things Lex has done. I don't think that murder did anything but save Lex.




The clones are another interesting topic. I suppose, given the chance, many people wouldn't hesitate at bringing their loved ones back. Clark himself has resurrected countless people on Smallville. The most memorable one being Lana from "Reckoning". Does it make him a bad person for not wanting to see people die? If he has to opportunity to bring someone back to life, and he doesn't use, it makes him as bad as killing them himself.


Ok, we have to back this up a bit. If you have the opportunity to clone someone, and don't, it's just as bad as killing them? A clone is a copy, not the real thing, so what you are doing by cloning someone after they have died is pretending that you are still with that same person, but your not. Your letting your desires cloud what is actually true. You have had a break with reality.

Like Clark with his mom. That wasn't really his mom, and for Clark to bring her back knowing that, and then try to pretend that she was the real thing is wrong. The only person he's helping is himself, because his real mother is long gone. In some cases, cloning isn't the problem, it's the way you think of the clone. Pretending it's the same as the real person, and holding on to that, isn't healthy.



Given that the show is taken from Clark's point of view, we are naturally supposed to view him as the good guy and Lex as the bad guy, but Clark has done several things in his life that are questionable and that most ordinary people wouldn't do. He ran away from home, got married to a girl, attacked Lex and Lana at their engagement party. Even though he was on Red K for all of these, it only meant that deep down, he wanted to do all these things. I could also say that Clark has a skewed sense of right and wrong. He only chooses to see things the way he wants to and not from any other point of view.

You could say that about some things, but not the ones you've stated imo. Yes, Clark wanted to do those things red k, or no, but he didn't. He did them on red k. In the case of Lex and Lana's engagement, the red k let him do them, but without the red k he would have kept those actions in check. Lex isn't on a drug that takes away his inhibitions. He just doesn't have any. If he were affected by red k, and was on it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Lex doesn't need red k. He does what he wants, when he wants, right or wrong. Freud would say that he has an Id complex. He's ruled by his desires, with nothing keeping them in check.

----- Added 1 Hours and 25 Minutes later -----



Until you provide text from a medical book stating that the disorders you mentioned throughout this thread equate insanity - I'm going to think you are generalizing.[/LIST]- -


I thought I made it clear (but knowing me, probably worded it in a way that didn't make that much sense), that pretty much anyone using the term insane is generalizing. For the most part, no one in the field uses that term unless generalizing. When looking back on the history of mental illness, one will find that everything from schizophrenia, to antisocial personality disorder, to depression, to bipolar disorder, hell, even alzheimer's disorder was under the umbrella of insanity, because these disorders I've mentioned didn't have names. They didn't take the time to study people on an individual basis, and classify them accordingly. Everyone with a mental problem was labeled insane, then tossed away in an institution. There is no one disorder, or group of disorders today that gets you labeled as insane. We have learned that there are many forms of insanity, and have created a better system to diagnose, so that each person can be dealt with in a specific way.

From the Merriam Webster dictionary

"Insane 1 : mentally disordered : exhibiting insanity"

"Insanity 1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder"


As I'm at work, and have no time to dig out my books at home, I've taken this passage from wikipedia, and can say that it looks like it was taken almost directly from my general psychology book.

"Traditionally, insanity or madness is the behaviour whereby a person flouts societal norms (such as parental authority) and becomes a danger to himself and others. Greek tragedies and Shakespeare often refer to madness in this sense. Psychologically, it is a general popular and legal term defining behaviour influenced by mental instability. It is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as a deranged state of the mind or lack of understanding. Today, it is most commonly encountered as an informal term or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense, and in the medical profession the term is now avoided in favour of specific diagnoses of mental illness"

Here is the origin of the word.

"In English, the word "sane" derives from the Latin adjective sanus meaning healthy. The phrase "mens sana in corpore sano" is often translated to mean a "healthy mind in a healthy body". From this perspective, insanity can be considered as poor health of the mind, not necessarily of the brain as an organ (although that can affect mental health), but rather refers to defective function of mental processes such as reasoning"

Here is the definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder

"Antisocial Personality Disorder is a condition characterized by persistent disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. Deceit and manipulation are central features of this disorder. For this diagnosis to be given, the individual must be at least 18, and must have had some symptoms of Conduct Disorder (i.e., delinquency) before age 15. This disorder is only diagnosed when these behaviors become persistent and very disabling or distressing."

Sounds like it fits Lex perfectly, and also the definition of insane.


Now, some would reserve the label insane for a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia, and that's fine. But given the definition of the word, and the way it has been used in the past, it can be used to describe a person suffering from any mental disorder, because in reality, it isn't a medical term at all, but a legal one.

Here's another word, that many think is another word for insane "psychopath".

Here is the definition of psychopath.

"a general term for a range of personality disorders characterized by lack of empathy, socially manipulative behavior, and occasionally criminality or violence".

Antisocial Personality Disorder is one type of personality disorder.

I am using the term insane very loosely, because that's the only way it can be used. It was never a term used to describe one form of disorder, but rather many, and even all, at one time in history. Would I use it in my professional life, no, never, I wouldn't even use the term psychotic. I used it in this argument to make a point. If you are not completely sane, what are you? Not sane. Insane. That's a great generalization, but for the most part, if I say "it seems to me that he has antisocial personality disorder", people are going to think I mean that he doesn't like being in public or something. That would be a form of anxiety disorder. So, for the sake of everyone getting the point, I think it's ok to use the word insane. For the sake of those who know what I'm talking about, I'd say he has a mental disorder.

[litew8]

Okay, but I don't think the Lex Luthor character is suppose to be out of control, if by using those definitions, to those degrees. I think it is a misrepresentation. But if it is suppose to reflect the traits that you mentioned, they've obviously created something much more troubling than an evil genius. Something far too extreem. The website I provided up thread did not allude to what you just described. So, perhaps you are correct in diagnosing the current character on Smallville, but I'm thinking that it's way off mark.

[euterpe]

I think your problem is with the word "insane". "Insanity" is a social and legal term, not a medical one. A person can be diagnosed with any mental illness, including paranoia or a personality disorder, and be considered insane.

I have to agree with Kal26 that Lex could definitely be diagnosed with one, if not more mental illnesses (I lean toward borderline personality disorder). And that given his actions on the show, Lex could certainly be classied as insane. I also agree and stress that mental stability is mutually exclusive of intelligence. A person can be insane and brilliant at the same time. Or not.

I do agree with you on some of your points, though. Especially "7. I don't like the low morals given to Clark." That has been a real sore point with me throughout the whole series.

[litew8]

I thought I made it clear (but knowing me, probably worded it in a way that didn't make that much sense), that pretty much anyone using the term insane is generalizing. For the most part, no one in the field uses that term unless generalizing.No, you made it as clear as one could. There's just alot of room for passing judgement, allowing an incorrect interpertation. So much so, I'm not easily convinced. When I said generalizing, I should have instead said - being exclusive.


From the Merriam Webster dictionary (...)Now I'm thinking there is significant differences between the words "insane" and "insanity", in how they might be used (in context) to describe what we've been discussing.

If you were to suggest that Lex Luthor suffers from bouts of insanity rather than saying he is "insane", I may be more inclined to consider it a more acceptable description of the character. Not that I think you should attempt to convince me, but considering the big-picture and what I've described, leeway seems in order. When you codify the actions Lex has undertaken, in the manner you have, it seems to undermind the factual reality that exists to have had influenced his actions/reactions. Suggesting that he suffers from bouts of insanity would coincide more easily, due to the influences and experiences (as I described up thread) - and not due to his genetic markup alone. What do you think, suggesting someone is "insane" is different that suggesting they suffer from bouts of insanity. Perhaps I'm walking a fine line here.

The above (bouts of insanity) coupled with the word evil - would seem to be a decent fit. To suggest that bouts of insanity derive from his evilness. Not crossing the line to say that he is "insane".

evil: 1 a) a morally bad or wrong; wicked; depraved b) resulting from or based on conduct regarded as immoral (an evil reputation) 2 causing pain or trouble; harmful; injurious 3 offensive or disgusting 4 threatening or bringing misfortune; unlucky; disastrous; unfortunate

[Alexander III]

He juz luvs gettin' punched, dat's all. Long live the alexander!

[Kal26]

Okay, but I don't think the Lex Luthor character is suppose to be out of control, if by using those definitions, to those degrees. I think it is a misrepresentation. But if it is suppose to reflect the traits that you mentioned, they've obviously created something much more troubling than an evil genius. Something far too extreem. The website I provided up thread did not allude to what you just described. So, perhaps you are correct in diagnosing the current character on Smallville, but I'm thinking that it's way off mark.

I'm not sure what web site your talking about, but if it's the one that was discussing Lex being the way he is because he doesn't have god in his life, I didnt read it. I'm sorry, I knew it was some one's interpretation of how Lex is in the comics, and I already know how he is because I spend all my freakin' money each month keeping up with literally every Superman comic.

I think I'm getting this right, if I'm wrong, please tell me. Your saying that my interpretation of Lex on Smallville may be ok, but that character is way off from how you think Lex should be? I don't know. IMO a typical evil genius is probably suffering from a Personality disorder, so I guess on that we disagree, but that's ok.

----- Added 56 Seconds later -----


I think your problem is with the word "insane". "Insanity" is a social and legal term, not a medical one. A person can be diagnosed with any mental illness, including paranoia or a personality disorder, and be considered insane.

I have to agree with Kal26 that Lex could definitely be diagnosed with one, if not more mental illnesses (I lean toward borderline personality disorder). And that given his actions on the show, Lex could certainly be classied as insane. I also agree and stress that mental stability is mutually exclusive of intelligence. A person can be insane and brilliant at the same time. Or not.

I do agree with you on some of your points, though. Especially "7. I don't like the low morals given to Clark." That has been a real sore point with me throughout the whole series.

Thanks. :D I've been wrestling back and forth with antisocial, and borderline.

----- Added 35 Minutes later -----


No, you made it as clear as one could. There's just alot of room for passing judgement, allowing an incorrect interpertation. So much so, I'm not easily convinced. When I said generalizing, I should have instead said - being exclusive.


Oh, ok, I wasn't sure if I was clear. There is a lot of room for passing judgement, especially due to the fact that none of us have had the time to study Lex the way we should to even be having this discussion. I think you nailed it on the head with generalizing though, because that's exactly what I was doing. What I'm getting at with my whole side of this, is that from what I've seen from Lex, I could never call him sane, or in other words, of sound mind. So, without having the time to properly diagnose, or the experience (I'm in no way trying to pass myself off as a psychologist, just studying to be one), I'd have to generalize as to Lex's condition. IMO he's clearly not completely sane, so the alternative is the general term insane. Although, it would be better to say mentally unstable. By mentally, I mean his mental reasoning, not his intelligence, or his ability to use his intelligence.

I would have to question the mental stability of anyone who knowingly set out to be an evil genius. Why are they evil, or why do they do evil things? To intentionally go against social norms, and harm people. Why? Do they get enjoyment out of it? Does it make them feel powerful? It shouldn't.




Now I'm thinking there is significant differences between the words "insane" and "insanity", in how they might be used (in context) to describe what we've been discussing.

If you were to suggest that Lex Luthor suffers from bouts of insanity rather than saying he is "insane", I may be more inclined to consider it a more acceptable description of the character. Not that I think you should attempt to convince me, but considering the big-picture and what I've described, leeway seems in order. When you codify the actions Lex has undertaken, in the manner you have, it seems to undermind the factual reality that exists to have had influenced his actions/reactions. Suggesting that he suffers from bouts of insanity would coincide more easily, due to the influences and experiences (as I described up thread) - and not due to his genetic markup alone. What do you think, suggesting someone is "insane" is different that suggesting they suffer from bouts of insanity. Perhaps I'm walking a fine line here.



Leeway is the best way not to misdiagnose someone imo. The difference between bouts of insanity, and insanity as I have been using the word, is the pattern involved. A bout of insanity, or a few may be possible, as can be seen in the legal defense temporary insanity. However, when he shows characteristics of a disorder pretty much starting in childhood, and they continue though his adulthood, you've moved from bouts, to a full fledged disorder. If you seem to have a bout with insanity every time you have conflict in your life, that has become a pattern. We've already discovered on the show that for one reason or another Lex has displayed characteristics of someone suffering from at least two disorders that have been mentioned. He's continued to show those same characteristics for seven years. It's also been shown through flashbacks that he showed those same characteristics in his youth. I could go with you on bouts of insanity, if it weren't for the strong evidence against it.

I'll add that I love the fact that you think outside the box. Your really making me look at this from every angle, and you bring up some very good points. I in no way want to convince you of anything as I think that would be a great injustice to you. Please continue to think outside the box. It's what this world needs.

I happen to think that it took both genetics, and his experiences to push him this far, as I think that in most cases where someone has a disorder. The difference between someone of sound mind, and someone who isn't, to me, is how they handle their life experiences with the tools that genetics has given them. Lex handles his life experiences in a maladaptive way. Given the tools he inherited from Lionel, he's probably more equipped to do that than most. He could have saved lives rather than destroying them. He could be more like Ollie, but in his mind, it makes more sense to kill to get what you want.




The above (bouts of insanity) coupled with the word evil - would seem to be a decent fit. To suggest that bouts of insanity derive from his evilness. Not crossing the line to say that he is "insane".

evil: 1 a) a morally bad or wrong; wicked; depraved b) resulting from or based on conduct regarded as immoral (an evil reputation) 2 causing pain or trouble; harmful; injurious 3 offensive or disgusting 4 threatening or bringing misfortune; unlucky; disastrous; unfortunate

As I've stated, anyone who's evil, and thinks that's ok, is probably suffering from a personality disorder. The reason he's "evil", is because in his mind, he thinks it's ok to be. In fact, he actually thinks that evil deeds can in the end be good. That's the case in more incarnations than just Smallville's.

Suggesting that his evilness actually takes over his thought process, and causes him to be temporarily insane over and over again, shows more of a pattern, and also suggests that in fact Lex isn't in control of his own actions.

[litew8]

Well, you should read it. It legitimizes what I've been saying. Adds to the background of what I've been saying. I'm not trying to convince you of something that isn't present - it just explains the character in way that proves what is shown on Smallville is innacurate.

Here's the link again. It is insightful = Lex Luthor (http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/LexLuthor.html)

----- Added 4 Minutes later -----


As I've stated, anyone who's evil, and thinks that's ok, is probably suffering from a personality disorder. The reason he's "evil", is because in his mind, he thinks it's ok to be. In fact, he actually thinks that evil deeds can in the end be good. That's the case in more incarnations than just Smallville's.That's almost like suggesting that anger is not a normal human emotion. Suggesting that people with anger - are not stable or they suffer from some sort of abnormality. I don't buy into that. Evil deriving from anger - is what I'm getting at.

----- Added 16 Minutes later -----


By mentally, I mean his mental reasoning, not his intelligence, or his ability to use his intelligence.Couldn't it just be bad judgement? I mean, you aren't giving experience, inexperience or poor choices a chance. People can only reason (with accuracy) with what they've learned, understood and experienced. The link above tends to explain how and why the character learns and understands. Experience then funneled through that basis.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'll just leave it at that.
I think the character is being misrepresented on Smallville.
Much like Clark Kent's character is.
It's a shame.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Thanks for the complements. Extended to you as well.
It's been enlightening. Best of luck with your education.

[euterpe]

Well, you should read it. It legitimizes what I've been saying. Adds to the background of what I've been saying. I'm not trying to convince you of something that isn't present - it just explains the character in way that proves what is shown on Smallville is innacurate.

Here's the link again. It is insightful = Lex Luthor (http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/LexLuthor.html)



Very interesting articles, but they are hardly definitive. They are just the views of the authors, just as the multitude of posts on this website represents the views of the various authors having written them. Who is to say whose interpretation is the correct one? The only person who could say for sure what Lex believes or doesn't believe is the person(s) who created him in the first place. But like any good work of "art", interpretation is left up to the observer. Which means you will have as many interpretations as there are observers.

I personally believe the Lex of Smallville lacks a real belief in God. The fact that he quotes Bible stories means nothing. He is clearly well educated and very well read. Quoting scripture does not presuppose a belief in said scripture. I can quote lines from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, but I do not believe my akh will join Re in his solar boat in the afterlife.

Personally as a Christian, I believe Lex's lack of faith can explain a lot about his motivations and actions, but that still does not negate the very real probability of mental instability as another major contributing factor. I believe TPTB have never involved religion or lack thereof as a theme on Smallville to explain the characters' actions. But as thinking humans, it is almost impossible for most fans to view a struggle between 'good' and 'evil' without considering the role of religion whether it is overtly presented or not.

But just as mental stability and intelligence are mutually exclusive, so are mental stability and religiosity. If you accept that Lex's lack of belief in God, perhaps instilled in him by his father, has contributed to his bad behavior, that truth does not require that he be considered perfectly sane. His upbringing and the early experiences he had could very well be the root cause of his mental instability that leads to his 'insanity'. But just as Kal26 stated, a person who performs the ations that Lex has could hardly be considered sane by any standard.

As a fictional character, I think TPTB of Smallville are free to interpret Lex in any manner they so desire. Some will appreciate it and some will not. I believe the character of Lex is a far more interesting character when presented as a deeply flawed and possibly disturbed individual rather than the archetypical two-dimensional 'bad-guy'. My disappointment lies with Clark's development rather than Lex's. I can accept the fact that Clark is not the perfect squeaky-clean good-guy. The fact that his morals have been rather skewed on occasion as well is just as interesting for his development as it is to Lex's. My problem is that he does not seem to learn from them and after seven years, Clark still does not possess the characteristics I would consider necessary to become Superman.

In regard to the articles you linked, I do wonder why they always assume Lex's mother was the individual who introduced religion to Lex. At no time on the show did they imply Lillian was devoutly religious, instilled those beliefs in Lex, or even that the baptisms of Lex and Julian were her idea. The authors' mention Episcopalianism as being a prominent Scottish religion, but Lionel Luthor was the one of Scottish ancestry. We are told nothing of Lillian's heritage, and given how she has been portrayed lately, I would question just how 'sweet' and 'loving' she truly was toward Lex. Many people follow religious rituals simply for show or out of tradition, not because they truly believe in their significance. It could just as easily have been Lionel's idea to have his sons baptized simply for appearance sake.





Thanks. :D I've been wrestling back and forth with antisocial, and borderline.



Lex does exhibit symptoms of antisocial personality disorder as well as borderline. He could easily suffer both disorders; comorbidity between the personality disorders is common, especially between borderline and antisocial.

[litew8]

The only person who could say for sure what Lex believes or doesn't believe is the person(s) who created him in the first place. But like any good work of "art", interpretation is left up to the observer. Which means you will have as many interpretations as there are observers.It is obvious that the Lex Luthor on Smallville is a murderer. That is much more exclusive than the other traits being attached within this thread. The disorders listed within this thread aren't disorders that give reasoning to becoming a murderer - meaning that being a murderer is far worse, far more severe; too extreem. To suggest that he is "insane" would be an accurate description of a murderer, but I don't think that is what the Lex Luthor character is suppose to be considered (which is why I dissagree with Smallville's interpertation) and why I followed through with this discussion. Clark/Superman is suppose to prevent Lex Luthor from harming innocent people, either directly or indirectly. Clark/Superman is suppose to foil Lex Luthor's evil plans. That has been negated in Smallville's version, allowing Lex Luthor to be considered a killing maniac, and Clark Kent an inadequate character - thereby altering the characters in a skewed, innacurate manner.

Lex Luthor should be considered a Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate). source = Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Luthor)
That doesn't equate murderer or "insane". (imo)
Bouts of "insanity", I can agree with. Due to abnormal experiences (comic book storylines).

Distinctions:

High Machs
High Machs tend to take a more detached, calculating approach in their interaction with other people. In terms of Big Five personality traits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits), Machiavellians tend to be low on agreeableness and conscientiousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness). Some scholars and researchers have attempted to find a correlation between Machiavellianism and narcissistic personality disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder) and psychopathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder). It could be understood that psychopaths and sociopaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy) have a similar disposition that could be identified with Machiavellianism, for sociopaths are known for manipulation and cunning. Psychopaths, however, generally have difficulty realizing or understanding the concepts of right and wrong, and tend not to have much regard for consequences. On the other hand, High Machs perhaps more or less view as Machiavelli did, and simply believe that while right and wrong have reality (at least to most people), that it is impractical to be ethical all the time, and that perhaps there is a difference between outright deception or exploitation, and subtle spins on the truth for the sake of what is seen (subjectively) as a more important cause that is not recognized by both parties.

source = Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian)

[LegendaryU2K]

Actually the way lex act in onyx and fracture is the way Lex is suppose to act.

http://www.filecram.com/files/Grand.jpg

" Forgive me , I've been a terrible host, let me show you the grand tour "

Trust me, thats the way lex is suppose to act and thats the way he acts in superman the movies. Now i must admit, even tho lex was acting the way he suppose to act, he also acts a tad bit too evil lol. If they lighten up on that, and keep it cool, then it will be perfect.

The way lex was laughing when Clark was hitting him was cool hahaah, and creepy at the same time.

[Kal26]

Well, you should read it. It legitimizes what I've been saying. Adds to the background of what I've been saying. I'm not trying to convince you of something that isn't present - it just explains the character in way that proves what is shown on Smallville is innacurate.


I don't have time right now, but I will read it. The reason I didn't was the same that was stated by euterpe, it's more opinions, nothing solid can be taken from that, and it doesn't prove anything. It may be more opinions that coincide with yours, but there is no proof in it. Another reason I didn't read it, is because the part about Lex not having the Christian's god in his life would infuriate me (an agnostic who has never had the Christian's god in his life) to no end. I'm not a killer, and that's as much as I will say on the subject. I'm not here to put down any one's religion, and don't want to read something that implies that Lex would have been better off with it, because I wholeheartedly disagree.





That's almost like suggesting that anger is not a normal human emotion. Suggesting that people with anger - are not stable or they suffer from some sort of abnormality. I don't buy into that. Evil deriving from anger - is what I'm getting at.


No, what I'm suggesting is that letting your emotions control YOU is not normal. If you have such an anger problem that every time you get mad, you have to commit an evil act, you have no business walking around in our society. Evil deriving from anger suggests that your anger rules you. Anytime you can't be held responsible for your own actions because your emotions caused you to do something, you are in fact insane according to law.




Couldn't it just be bad judgement? I mean, you aren't giving experience, inexperience or poor choices a chance. People can only reason (with accuracy) with what they've learned, understood and experienced. The link above tends to explain how and why the character learns and understands. Experience then funneled through that basis.


I have given those things weight over, and over again in this argument. The problem is that the things Lex has done could be seen as poor judgment, the first couple times he did them, but after seven years of not only continuing down the path, but in fact getting more and more out of control, I think we have a problem.




Thanks for the complements. Extended to you as well.
It's been enlightening. Best of luck with your education.

Thank you!:D

----- Added 3 Minutes later -----



Lex does exhibit symptoms of antisocial personality disorder as well as borderline. He could easily suffer both disorders; comorbidity between the personality disorders is common, especially between borderline and antisocial.

I'm thinking the same thing. I think there are parts of Lex that really can't be explained by one or the other, but a combo seems very likely.

----- Added 16 Minutes later -----


It is obvious that the Lex Luthor on Smallville is a murderer. That is much more exclusive than the other traits being attached within this thread. The disorders listed within this thread aren't disorders that give reasoning to becoming a murderer - meaning that being a murderer is far worse, far more severe; too extreem.


Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to get you to see this entire time. Both Antisocials, and Borderlines are very capable of doing what Lex has done on Smallville. That's why it is so scary that they slip through the cracks so much. To these people, murdering someone, and living with it, could be as easy as putting on their shoes in the morning.



To suggest that he is "insane" would be an accurate description of a murderer, but I don't think that is what the Lex Luthor character is suppose to be considered (which is why I dissagree with Smallville's interpertation) and why I followed through with this discussion. Clark/Superman is suppose to prevent Lex Luthor from harming innocent people, either directly or indirectly. Clark/Superman is suppose to foil Lex Luthor's evil plans. That has been negated in Smallville's version, allowing Lex Luthor to be considered a killing maniac, and Clark Kent an inadequate character - thereby altering the characters in a skewed, innacurate manner.


So, someone who willingly attempts to harm innocent people is sane? I utterly disagree. Also, it seems like your trying to say that it's Clarks fault that Lex is the way he is on Smallville because he didn't stop him in the beginning. Again, suggesting that Lex isn't responsible for his own actions. So, if he tried to kill people, but wasn't able to because Clark stopped him, he's somehow more sane than if he had been able to go through with it? No matter whether he was stopped or not, his intention is to harm innocent people. I have to again ask, who in their right mind, get's their jollies by harming innocent people?

----- Added 31 Minutes later -----



Lex Luthor should be considered a Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate). source = Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Luthor)
That doesn't equate murderer or "insane". (imo)
Bouts of "insanity", I can agree with. Due to abnormal experiences (comic book storylines).

Distinctions:

High Machs
High Machs tend to take a more detached, calculating approach in their interaction with other people. In terms of Big Five personality traits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits), Machiavellians tend to be low on agreeableness and conscientiousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness). Some scholars and researchers have attempted to find a correlation between Machiavellianism and narcissistic personality disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder) and psychopathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder). It could be understood that psychopaths and sociopaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy) have a similar disposition that could be identified with Machiavellianism, for sociopaths are known for manipulation and cunning. Psychopaths, however, generally have difficulty realizing or understanding the concepts of right and wrong, and tend not to have much regard for consequences. On the other hand, High Machs perhaps more or less view as Machiavelli did, and simply believe that while right and wrong have reality (at least to most people), that it is impractical to be ethical all the time, and that perhaps there is a difference between outright deception or exploitation, and subtle spins on the truth for the sake of what is seen (subjectively) as a more important cause that is not recognized by both parties.

source = Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian)

So, this person would still think that it would be ok to bend morality how they see fit. How exactly is that ok, or really any different from what I've been saying? What you've quoted here is nothing more than a toned down version of someone suffering from antisocial personality disorder (known as both a sociopath, and a psychopath). Still quite maladaptive if you ask me, and still probably not what I would call completely sane. The line is still being bent when, and how they see fit, not to mention that the fact that they are above "most people" when it comes to right and wrong, suggests an inflated sense of self.

A person, as was described in your quote could still be capable of murder, if it somehow fit into their plans. Is it normal to be able to take a life when you see fit? It seems the religious talk above should cancel that notion immediately. It's thou shout not kill. Not, thou shout not kill unless you feel it's necessary to complete your goal. What logic could lead a person to think that the world is ripe for them to manipulate their way through? No matter the label, it all boils down to the same thing. In one way or another, they are skewed in their thinking. They are not of sound mind. So, from the origins of the word itself, they are insane.

----- Added 3 Hours and 14 Minutes later -----

************************************************** ****************

Ok, I wanted to leave what I wrote above. I have know read most of the article that litew8 found. I'm sorry, I don't have much time, I will get to the rest eventually, but had to comment on what I have read thus far. I'll start by saying, your right, I should have read this a long time ago, as it really helps my argument more than yours imo. The religious stuff is falling on deaf ears with me, so I was looking more for their take on Luthor's mental state.

I have a few quotes.


"Lex Luthor has consistently been portrayed as a brilliant genius, one of the most intelligent men on the planet. He was originally portrayed as a brilliant mad scientist."

Something I knew, but hadn't thought to bring up. Mad scientist. He was originally a mad scientist. They don't mean angry when they say that. They mean insane.


"Along with his brilliant mind, Luthor's other defining characteristic is that he is unrelentingly evil. A narcissist, he values little other than serving his own whims and megalomaniacal machinations. Luthor generally appears to have no religious or moral values whatsoever. He is an atheist. Luthor's atheism seems to stem not from any real consideration of philosophical and theological questions, but rather from his own hubris, desire for power, and belief in himself above everything else."

This quote backs up just about everything I've been saying in regards to Lex's inflated sense of self, and his irrational belief that he is superior to everyone, and everything.


"Lex Luthor's two primary objectives (or obsessions) are to destroy Superman and to take over the world (not necessarily in that order). At times, Luthor has articulated his desire to take over the Earth as a stepping stone toward taking over the universe, demonstrating a truly unbridled level of megalomania. In a practical sense, these desires constitute Lex Luthor's only religion. Luthor is absolutely driven toward accomplishing these goals by any means necessary"

By any means necessary. This one speaks for itself. I mean seriously, taking over the universe?


"In addition, Luthor systematically blackmailed his detractors and competition to comply with his wishes, and those he could not manipulate either disappeared or died under mysterious circumstances."

Lex is a murderer, who will do whatever is necessary to get what he wants, with no remorse.


"Luthor as a megalomaniac: Luthor must be in control of every situation, but he cannot control Superman."

Again, this one speaks for itself.


"And while this does force us to categorize Luthor as a textbook anti-social personality, it also gives us what could be a definite reason for Luthor's vendetta, one that transcends the decades of Luthor stories: symbolically, Lex Luthor is the personification of the Nietzschean Ubermensch, and by his attempts to kill Superman he is trying to claim the Man of Steel's title for himself. However, as Grant Morrison alludes to above, Luthor knows subconsciously that he is not a worthy successor, and this inadequacy feeds into his jealousy, which in turn fuels his hatred. This is the perpetual engine that drives Luthor's obsession."

This quote even refers to anitsocial personality disorder. I'm still thinking it would be a combo of antisocial, and borderline, but none the less, a personality disorder.

After seeing these statements in this article, I'm even more convinced that Lex is insane. I can't say that the writers meant to make him that way, but as I've said many times, regardless of their intentions, a sane person wouldn't, and couldn't do the things that Lex has done both in the comics, and on Smallville imo.

[litew8]

Well, believe what you will.
The article did not suggest he was a murderering maniac as is portrayed on Smallville.
The article does suggest that he doesn't have a belief in God.
The article does suggest that he is a high mach.


Litew8 said:
"Clark/Superman is suppose to prevent Lex Luthor from harming innocent people, either directly or indirectly. Clark/Superman is suppose to foil Lex Luthor's evil plans."

Kal26 said:
"So, someone who willingly attempts to harm innocent people is sane? I utterly disagree. Also, it seems like your trying to say that it's Clarks fault that Lex is the way he is on Smallville because he didn't stop him in the beginning."Litew8's reply:
Well, much more sane that someone who is allowed to murder people. No, I am suggesting that Clark is flawed. I am also suggesting that the writers and producers have misrepresented both characters. One (Lex) is far too extreem (exaggerated), the other (Clark) - morally deficient.


Kal26 said:
"A person, as was described in your quote (Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate)) could still be capable of murder"Litew8's reply: That is a true statement. However, once a person has committed a murder, they are thereby considered a murderer. The person would then (legitimately) be considered a Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate) (High Mach) murderer. Not simply a Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate). There's a distinction between the two. Sure, you can say that the reasons why he became a murderer was due to disorders - regardless, he's become a murderer. Too extreme in nature, trumping all other characteristics. Thereby negating the evil genius (in conjunction with being considered a Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate)) affiliation known of the Lex Luthor character.


Kal26 said:
"So, this (Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate)) person would still think that it would be ok to bend morality how they see fit. How exactly is that ok, or really any different from what I've been saying?"Litew8's reply:
Well, it doesn't equate murderer first and foremost. Secondly, it goes to suggest what I've been saying - he's suppose to be an evil genius, not murderer or considered an "insane" murderer - as in Smallville's "I'm Lex Luthor and I kill people for breakfast - and nobody stops me". Seriously, I think they've crossed the line - to absurd.


Kal26 said:
Mad scientist. He was originally a mad scientist.
They don't mean angry when they say that. They mean insane.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Mad_scientist.svg/250px-Mad_scientist.svg.png
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Litew8's reply:
Lex Luthor (on Smallville) isn't a scientist.
That's why I never mentioned it. He's (suppose to be) an Evil Genius.

[Dojj]

Can i just say what an interesting thread

I believe Lex has a personality disorder. He is not psychotic and is certainly not insane. However, this depends on how i define insanity, as it seems there are multiple ways to interpret what it means as shown by this thread.

The way i see it, insanity must affect global function, day to day, social, occupational. Lex functions very, very well. There is no evidence he suffers hallucinations, and i dont believe he is delusional.

A delusion is a persistent, false belief. As far as i can tell, what Lex believes is reasonable for the experiences he has faced in his life. Was his laughter that of madness? possibly, but not necessarily, remember, they WERE in his head and he WAS all powerful, it isnt a delusion of grandeur if its real.

What i do question, however, is how he goes about his beliefs - clearly the guy has issues with power, authority, ethics and morality. Basically, he has an antisocial personality in an extreme sense.

----- Added 7 Minutes later -----

and also, murder itself does not make someone insane, the reason for murder does. Lex has killed people for completely sane reasons, albeit totally in conflict with social norms

It is also worth noting he has not killed anyone out of pleasure, there have been clear benefits to him for each murder he has committed.

[Kal26]

Well, believe what you will.
The article did not suggest he was a murderering maniac as is portrayed on Smallville.
The article does suggest that he doesn't have a belief in God.
The article does suggest that he is a high mach.


It strait says that he is a murderer.

"In addition, Luthor systematically blackmailed his detractors and competition to comply with his wishes, and those he could not manipulate either disappeared or died under mysterious circumstances."

This was talking about Lex in the comics. There are several other passages that say he will do whatever is necessary to accomplish his goals.




Litew8's reply:
Well, much more sane that someone who is allowed to murder people. No, I am suggesting that Clark is flawed. I am also suggesting that the writers and producers have misrepresented both characters. One (Lex) is far too extreem (exaggerated), the other (Clark) - morally deficient.


Actually, from the article you found, and my own experiences with Lex in the comics, he's right on par.



Litew8's reply: That is a true statement. However, once a person has committed a murder, they are thereby considered a murderer. The person would then (legitimately) be considered a Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate) (High Mach) murderer. Not simply a Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate). There's a distinction between the two. Sure, you can say that the reasons why he became a murderer was due to disorders - regardless, he's become a murderer. Too extreme in nature, trumping all other characteristics. Thereby negating the evil genius (in conjunction with being considered a Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate)) affiliation known of the Lex Luthor character.


I can't agree with this at all. Becoming a murderer doesn't negate other characteristics, it's an action that is a direct result of those characteristics. If we said that everyone who committed a murder do to a psychological disorder somehow became sane as a result, we wouldn't have the insanity defense. If you suffer from a mental illness, (and I would include your high mach as a mental illness, because no matter how you dress it up, it's maladaptive, harmful behavior that has been present through that persons entire life), and commit murder, you are a murderer, yes, but also mentally disturbed. The act of murder doesn't change that.



Litew8's reply:
Well, it doesn't equate murderer first and foremost. Secondly, it goes to suggest what I've been saying - he's suppose to be an evil genius, not murderer or considered an "insane" murderer - as in Smallville's "I'm Lex Luthor and I kill people for breakfast - and nobody stops me". Seriously, I think they've crossed the line - to absurd.


I've never seen that on Smallville, or anything of the kind. An evil genius, who sometimes commits murder, as comes directly from your article, is still a murderer, and still has mental problems. I've never had this explained to me. How exactly is a person who spends all their time intentionally trying to be evil, and harming others sane?



Litew8's reply:
Lex Luthor (on Smallville) isn't a scientist.
That's why I never mentioned it. He's (suppose to be) an Evil Genius.
[/QUOTE]

That's not the point. The point is that your telling me that Smallville has made Lex look insane, and that, in your opinion, is way off the mark for how Lex is supposed to be. I'm telling you that the original incarnation, was in fact insane. So, how exactly has Smallville gone wrong?

[aXem]

Can i just say what an interesting thread

I believe Lex has a personality disorder. He is not psychotic and is certainly not insane. However, this depends on how i define insanity, as it seems there are multiple ways to interpret what it means as shown by this thread.

The way i see it, insanity must affect global function, day to day, social, occupational. Lex functions very, very well. There is no evidence he suffers hallucinations, and i dont believe he is delusional.

A delusion is a persistent, false belief. As far as i can tell, what Lex believes is reasonable for the experiences he has faced in his life. Was his laughter that of madness? possibly, but not necessarily, remember, they WERE in his head and he WAS all powerful, it isnt a delusion of grandeur if its real.

What i do question, however, is how he goes about his beliefs - clearly the guy has issues with power, authority, ethics and morality. Basically, he has an antisocial personality in an extreme sense.

----- Added 7 Minutes later -----

and also, murder itself does not make someone insane, the reason for murder does. Lex has killed people for completely sane reasons, albeit totally in conflict with social norms

It is also worth noting he has not killed anyone out of pleasure, there have been clear benefits to him for each murder he has committed.

great post

[Kal26]

Can i just say what an interesting thread
The way i see it, insanity must affect global function, day to day, social, occupational. Lex functions very, very well. There is no evidence he suffers hallucinations, and i dont believe he is delusional.


A personality disorder does in fact affect your day to day social, occupational, and global functioning.

He may not suffer from hallucinations, but that is not a criteria for being insane by the definition. He is very delusional. He suffers from delusions of grandeur. He also sees it as ok to use whatever means necessary to get his ends.




A delusion is a persistent, false belief. As far as i can tell, what Lex believes is reasonable for the experiences he has faced in his life. Was his laughter that of madness? possibly, but not necessarily, remember, they WERE in his head and he WAS all powerful, it isnt a delusion of grandeur if its real.


So, it's reasonable to believe that you should be able to do whatever you want to people to get your ends? That's a persistent false belief Lex has. He believes that he is not held by the laws of morality. When I talk about grandeur, I'm talking about the real Lex, not the Lex inside his head.




What i do question, however, is how he goes about his beliefs - clearly the guy has issues with power, authority, ethics and morality. Basically, he has an antisocial personality in an extreme sense.


Yes, or a combination of antisocial, and borderline, anyway you look at it, he has a mental disorder. Due to the fact that a personality disorder has no cure, he would have to be on drugs, and in therapy, for life.

Again, from the origins of the word, he is not of sound mind. He's insane. I'm not saying that your not intitled to reserve that word for other cases, and I would never tell someone that they have to say he's insane. Just pointing out the reasons that I would say he's insane.




and also, murder itself does not make someone insane, the reason for murder does. Lex has killed people for completely sane reasons, albeit totally in conflict with social norms

It is also worth noting he has not killed anyone out of pleasure, there have been clear benefits to him for each murder he has committed.


He killed to get what he wants. In his mind, it's ok to end another persons life, and feel no remorse, as long as you are trying to get something you want. There have been clear benefits for him to murder. It's his problem realizing that it's not just an easy way to get what you want that shows his mental instability. It's the way he views murder. Killing someone does not make you insane, as you said, it's the reasoning behind it, and in Lex's case, he sees it as a means to an end. That's completely maladaptive, and I can't see it as remotely sane.

For the record, Lex has killed for pleasure. His pleasure is derived from the ends that come from killing, torturing, cloning, tormenting, and experimenting. To get pleasure from something that was the direct result of killing someone, or taking from someone, shows that Lex puts no real value on human life unless that life is some one's who somehow fits into his obsession, like Lana. It should be noted that he doesn't really care for Lana, but the way having her made him feel superior to others, like Clark.

It should also be noted that if Lex didn't get pleasure from these things, he would find other ways of doing them. There have been so many times when Lex went out of his way to harm people. Why do that, if it doesn't bring him pleasure? Why set out to be an evil genius, as litew8 has called him, if in fact, being evil, and harming people doesn't bring him pleasure? If your answer is that it is his nature, that also adds to the argument that he is insane, but to be that way consciously equates to Lex deriving pleasure from harming others, either directly from the act, or from the results of that act (his ends).

[aXem]

When has Lex killed for pleasure?

[litew8]

It strait says that he is a murderer. "In addition, Luthor systematically blackmailed his detractors and competition to comply with his wishes, and those he could not manipulate either disappeared or died under mysterious circumstances."

This was talking about Lex in the comics. There are several other passages that say he will do whatever is necessary to accomplish his goals. Actually, from the article you found, and my own experiences with Lex in the comics, he's right on par.
There seems to be one little problem with that. Given everything we've seen - he hasn't even become the Lex Luthor of the comics. You don't consider it exaggerated? I do. Clark isn't even Superman yet, but Lex Luthor is a raving lunatic that goes around killing everyone? Please.


I can't agree with this at all. Becoming a murderer doesn't negate other characteristics, it's an action that is a direct result of those characteristics. If we said that everyone who committed a murder do to a psychological disorder somehow became sane as a result, we wouldn't have the insanity defense. If you suffer from a mental illness, (and I would include your high mach as a mental illness, because no matter how you dress it up, it's maladaptive, harmful behavior that has been present through that persons entire life), and commit murder, you are a murderer, yes, but also mentally disturbed. The act of murder doesn't change that.
Become sane after murder? What are you talking about? I never attempted to make any such claim. What I was saying is that murder escalates the insanity of the person. That's what I meant about negating the other characteristics. Lets leave it on screen, viewer perception. Meaning, once murdered, all rational thoughts have been forgotten. Making the other characteristics moot. They just killed a person for crying out loud! That's too extreme for me to accept in a young Lex Luthor.


How exactly is a person who spends all their time intentionally trying to be evil, and harming others sane?All of their time harming other?


That's not the point. The point is that your telling me that Smallville has made Lex look insane, and that, in your opinion, is way off the mark for how Lex is supposed to be. I'm telling you that the original incarnation, was in fact insane. So, how exactly has Smallville gone wrong?You brought it up, why I don't know. I was just saying - the original incarnation was considered by name - a MAD SCIENTIST (insane by your definition), not an Evil Genius (Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate) by my definition).

[Kal26]

When has Lex killed for pleasure?


"His pleasure is derived from the ends that come from killing, torturing, cloning, tormenting, and experimenting. To get pleasure from something that was the direct result of killing someone, or taking from someone, shows that Lex puts no real value on human life unless that life is some one's who somehow fits into his obsession, like Lana. It should be noted that he doesn't really care for Lana, but the way having her made him feel superior to others, like Clark.

It should also be noted that if Lex didn't get pleasure from these things, he would find other ways of doing them. There have been so many times when Lex went out of his way to harm people. Why do that, if it doesn't bring him pleasure? Why set out to be an evil genius, as litew8 has called him, if in fact, being evil, and harming people doesn't bring him pleasure? If your answer is that it is his nature, that also adds to the argument that he is insane, but to be that way consciously equates to Lex deriving pleasure from harming others, either directly from the act, or from the results of that act (his ends)."

Killing is a means to his ends, repeatedly. He gets pleasure from those ends, and as I stated above, why does he go to such great lengths to harm people, if he doesn't get some sort of pleasure out of it?

----- Added 37 Minutes later -----


There seems to be one little problem with that. Given everything we've seen - he hasn't even become the Lex Luthor of the comics. You don't consider it exaggerated? I do. Clark isn't even Superman yet, but Lex Luthor is a raving lunatic that goes around killing everyone? Please.


So you think Lex just became evil after Clark became Superman, with nothing to build up to that? The comics beg to differ. In one incarnation Lex in fact came to power in Metropolis by using his own set of moral guidelines (which means none) before Clark became Superman. I think it's rather smart to show the mental instability that would have been present in that persons life over a long period of time. He didn't just become ok with killing, or deceiving, he's a master of it. That master had to have a long standing pattern of maladaptive behavior.

Let's throw out the word insane for a minute, and just say he's suffering from a mental disorder. I know you don't like to look at him that way, but humor me, or call him a high mach.

Someone with a personality disorder by definition has to display symptoms of that disorder before age 18, and they have to persist until the present. Ok, so we know the disorder has to be present at this time in Lex's life. Now, again, by definition a person suffering from those symptoms would be capable of doing everything Lex has done on the show. So, how doesn't it seem right to show that pattern?

You admitted that a Mach would be capable of committing murder, only the classification would change. I'm assuming, as in the study of psychology I've never studied this, except to hear my professors write it off, (not a cut to it, or you, but when dealing with terminology, everyone has their "clubs") that they are pretty much in that category from birth. How would it not make sense to show that at this time on smallville? Lex has always been capable of horrible things. Smallville is showing us why.




Become sane after murder? What are you talking about? I never attempted to make any such claim. What I was saying is that murder escalates the insanity of the person. That's what I meant about negating the other characteristics. Lets leave it on screen, viewer perception. Meaning, once murdered, all rational thoughts have been forgotten. Making the other characteristics moot. They just killed a person for crying out loud! That's too extreme for me to accept in a young Lex Luthor.


I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that murder escalates things. I guess what I have to point out is that murder is a direct result of the other characteristics, as murder isn't a characteristic, but an action. Being a murderer isn't a characteristic, but a title that comes from actions, that are a result of your characteristics. It's lex's skewed thought process that allows him to murder. If he didn't have a skewed thought process, he wouldn't murder. As I said above, being an evil genius, as you would have him, entails harming, and even murdering innocent people. Lex has done this over, and over again, in every incarnation. It's his skewed thought process that allows him to do this.

Like in Superman the movie, he wants to blow up a bunch of innocent people, just so he can have some real estate. Tell me that's logical thinking. It's evil. It's an intelligent plan, but it is also coming from a severely skewed thought process. A thought process that has been severely skewed for a long, long time. I see it as nothing but genius to show us this development in young Lex.




All of their time harming other?


You said you would rather have Lex be an evil genius. What do evil genius' do? They certainly don't fund charity events, unless to use them as a ruse for some other hidden agenda, like in some way harming others. Harming others doesn't always have to be physical. Being a danger to others, doesn't always mean your going to physically harm them. It can also mean mentally, financially, or in any way really.



You brought it up, why I don't know. I was just saying - the original incarnation was considered by name - a MAD SCIENTIST (insane by your definition), not an Evil Genius (Machiavellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian) industrialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate) by my definition).

That's what I'm getting at. Why should Lex on Smallville be considered an Mach, when the original incarnation was in fact meant to be Mad? Madness doesn't have to be exclusive to a scientist. You keep saying that Lex was meant to be a Mach, but he wasn't, he was meant to be Mad from the beginning.

[litew8]

So you think Lex just became evil after Clark became Superman, with nothing to build up to that?No. That's not what I think. For the sake of this discussion, and expressing my opinion, I'd say that Lex should become an "evil geinus" as a direct result of Clark/Superman, gradually. A young Lex Luthor, he should remain a High Mach with inspiration to do great things by being a genius - not being a murderer. Sure, we can throw in the disorders you mentioned as part of being a High Mach - but with no murdering. So there's a two part equation - Genius at first, then after foiled plan after foiled plan - progressively evil in attempts and actions - which would coincide with Clark becoming Superman.


Let's throw out the word insane for a minute, and just say he's suffering from a mental disorder. I know you don't like to look at him that way, but humor me, or call him a high mach. Someone with a personality disorder by definition has to display symptoms of that disorder before age 18, and they have to persist until the present.I don't know or think that what you say about "before 18" is accurate. So I won't entertain that aspect of your notion.


I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that murder escalates things. I guess what I have to point out is that murder is a direct result of the other characteristics, as murder isn't a characteristic, but an action. Being a murderer isn't a characteristic, but a title that comes from actions, that are a result of your characteristics. I agree with this, and I agreed with it when I made my comments pertaining it. Which is why I feel it is too exaggerated.


I see it as nothing but genius to show us this development in young Lex.I feel they should have developed the "genius" attribute before the "evil" attribute. I feel he should become evil over the course of more time, particularly when he realizes there is a Superman who foils his genius plans. Evil deriving from anger - in that his plans fall through, and that there is a person who steals the public's attention from him (similar to what the article stated) without trying.


You said you would rather have Lex be an evil genius. What do evil genius' do? They certainly don't fund charity events, unless to use them as a ruse for some other hidden agenda, like in some way harming others. Harming others doesn't always have to be physical. Being a danger to others, doesn't always mean your going to physically harm them. It can also mean mentally, financially, or in any way really.Well, I personally don't know any evil geniuses :lol:, but if I were to use my imagination, I'm sure I could think of a few things that would fit the description.


Why should Lex on Smallville be considered an Mach, when the original incarnation was in fact meant to be Mad? Madness doesn't have to be exclusive to a scientist. You keep saying that Lex was meant to be a Mach, but he wasn't, he was meant to be Mad from the beginning.I think he should be considered a High Mach because it clearly fits his character's environment on Smallville. LexCorp and LuthorCorp, running the town, owning land/buildings. Looking to become Mayor. None of which indicates him being a scientist.

[Dojj]

A personality disorder does in fact affect your day to day social, occupational, and global functioning.

It can yes, but in his case that would be hard to argue, considering how successful LexCorp is under his control. Day to day he is fine, occupational he is fine, its only socially there is a question in my opinion. And even that he keeps under wraps sufficiently to go under the radar - hardly someone not functioning extremely well.

Please recall in the early seasons of Smallville, Lex was admitted to the mental hospital. Something to do with Lionel wanting to delete parts of his memory, i believe. He had an episode of psychosis, and in my opinion was insane. He lacked the ability to function globally.


He may not suffer from hallucinations, but that is not a criteria for being insane by the definition. He is very delusional. He suffers from delusions of grandeur. He also sees it as ok to use whatever means necessary to get his ends.

Insanity and psychosis (hallucination, delusions, thought disorder) both refer to failure of reality testing in the individual, meaning they are out of touch with reality. Hence, i refer to them somewhat interchangeably. I agree that hallucinations are not present, but i contend that he is delusional.

For a delusion to be present, it has to be a false belief. I agree with you that Lex believes himself to be grand, powerful and above the law, but can you argue that he is not these very things? He is one of the most powerful persons in the world and he constantly gets away with breaking the law. He is not delusional to think these things.

I agree with your point that he thinks its okay to commit crime if the end justifies the means. This refers to an inappropriate moral code, perhaps drawn from his ability to play god with the immense power at his hands, LexCorp (and money). Having a poor moral code does not make someone insane in my opinion. It makes them antisocial.



So, it's reasonable to believe that you should be able to do whatever you want to people to get your ends? That's a persistent false belief Lex has. He believes that he is not held by the laws of morality. When I talk about grandeur, I'm talking about the real Lex, not the Lex inside his head.

That is an interesting point you raise. If a tiger killed a deer to eat and thus survive and thrive, is it being unreasonable? Should it consider the well-being of the deer? It is doing what is has to do to thrive in this world. Of course, only humans have the ability to empathise with other living things, and thus are the only living creatures on earth with moral codes. When moral codes are shared among a community, they are referred to as an ethical code. Thus, the concept of inhumanity is born, when humans lack empathy and do not obey ethical codes codes. We expect each other to not cross this line in the competitive lives we live. Some of us, however, lack these moral codes, have socially unacceptable moral codes, or simply ignore them. And they cross these lines. Lex is an example of this.

So, do i believe that Lex is being reasonable in his actions (the end justifies the means)? NO, but i have a different set of moral codes to draw my reasons from than Lex. My point being, that, with Lex's own moral codes (or lackthereof), it is entirely reasonable for him carry out the actions he has. This is part of having an antisocial personality. They are being reasonable, to their own beliefs and needs.





Yes, or a combination of antisocial, and borderline, anyway you look at it, he has a mental disorder. Due to the fact that a personality disorder has no cure, he would have to be on drugs, and in therapy, for life.

There are no drugs for personality disorders. they are treated with psychotherapy and possibly hospitalisation.


Again, from the origins of the word, he is not of sound mind. He's insane. I'm not saying that your not intitled to reserve that word for other cases, and I would never tell someone that they have to say he's insane. Just pointing out the reasons that I would say he's insane.




He killed to get what he wants. In his mind, it's ok to end another persons life, and feel no remorse, as long as you are trying to get something you want. There have been clear benefits for him to murder. It's his problem realizing that it's not just an easy way to get what you want that shows his mental instability. It's the way he views murder. Killing someone does not make you insane, as you said, it's the reasoning behind it, and in Lex's case, he sees it as a means to an end. That's completely maladaptive, and I can't see it as remotely sane.

For the record, Lex has killed for pleasure. His pleasure is derived from the ends that come from killing, torturing, cloning, tormenting, and experimenting. To get pleasure from something that was the direct result of killing someone, or taking from someone, shows that Lex puts no real value on human life unless that life is some one's who somehow fits into his obsession, like Lana. It should be noted that he doesn't really care for Lana, but the way having her made him feel superior to others, like Clark.

I don't believe Lex has gotten pleasure from any of his murders. Maybe you can point out one that he has to support your point?


It should also be noted that if Lex didn't get pleasure from these things, he would find other ways of doing them. There have been so many times when Lex went out of his way to harm people. Why do that, if it doesn't bring him pleasure? Why set out to be an evil genius, as litew8 has called him, if in fact, being evil, and harming people doesn't bring him pleasure? If your answer is that it is his nature, that also adds to the argument that he is insane, but to be that way consciously equates to Lex deriving pleasure from harming others, either directly from the act, or from the results of that act (his ends).

[aXem]

my ADD just kicked in

[Kal26]

No. That's not what I think. For the sake of this discussion, and expressing my opinion, I'd say that Lex should become an "evil geinus" as a direct result of Clark/Superman, gradually. A young Lex Luthor, he should remain a High Mach with inspiration to do great things by being a genius - not being a murderer. Sure, we can throw in the disorders you mentioned as part of being a High Mach - but with no murdering. So there's a two part equation - Genius at first, then after foiled plan after foiled plan - progressively evil in attempts and actions - which would coincide with Clark becoming Superman.


Ok, I can see how that could happen, but that's not how lex has ever been in the comics, or in any other form of superman media, that I'm aware of, so what your describing would be even more of a change to the character than what your saying Smallville has done.

I'm not taking away from what you've described though, because it is very plausible. The only problem that I can see is this, why would Superman have to stop Lex from doing anything if he wasn't evil, but just a rather cunning business man? If that's all he was, there would be no conflict imo. Just a thought.



I don't know or think that what you say about "before 18" is accurate. So I won't entertain that aspect of your notion.


You don't' have to. The DSM IV clearly states that this is a must with this disorder. So, the psychological community agrees with it, and for my argument, that's all that matters.(that sounded bad, but I think you know what I mean. I'm not trying to be a d!#&)



I feel they should have developed the "genius" attribute before the "evil" attribute. I feel he should become evil over the course of more time, particularly when he realizes there is a Superman who foils his genius plans. Evil deriving from anger - in that his plans fall through, and that there is a person who steals the public's attention from him (similar to what the article stated) without trying.


I can agree with this, if I didn't feel the way I do about his disorder, and know that it's characteristics have to be present at this time. Does he have to be killing people? That is the question. In my mind, yes, realistically, he would, but can see, and appreciate your point of view. Again, I have to ask, why would superman be foiling his genius plans, if they weren't evil?



Well, I personally don't know any evil geniuses :lol:, but if I were to use my imagination, I'm sure I could think of a few things that would fit the description.


I don't know any either, that I know of hmhmhahaha!



I think he should be considered a High Mach because it clearly fits his character's environment on Smallville. LexCorp and LuthorCorp, running the town, owning land/buildings. Looking to become Mayor. None of which indicates him being a scientist.

I don't think he should be a scientist on Smallville either, but to me, he's clearly is suffering from a personality disorder. I'm not saying I'm right, and your wrong, and I know that's not what your saying. It's obvious to me that we're not going to be able take this too much further, and I don't want anyone to feel like I'm trying to force my beliefs by jumping in every time someone thinks differently than I do, so I may leave it at agree to disagree, unless there are still things you feel you need to say, and after reading them, I feel I need to respond. Just saying that if you don't hear back from me, it's not that I don't enjoy debating with you, just that I'm trying to let others share their opinions.:D

----- Added 55 Minutes later -----


It can yes, but in his case that would be hard to argue, considering how successful LexCorp is under his control. Day to day he is fine, occupational he is fine, its only socially there is a question in my opinion. And even that he keeps under wraps sufficiently to go under the radar - hardly someone not functioning extremely well.


Actually it would be quite easy. First off, it doesn't have to affect all of the above. Second, occupationally he's a mess. It doesn't matter if his business makes money at all, as most people with a personality disorder do great in business, they're crooks. The reason he is a mess occupationally is because if he worked for others, he would have no job, they would have fired him for his immoral actions when relating to business. So, without daddy, he'd be out on his butt with no job.

Socially, your right, he has a very hard time with relationships, and has unrealistic expectations for them.

I don't call killing people to get what you want on a daily basis fine. Not at all. It doesn't matter that he keeps everything under wraps well. That just adds to him having a personality disorder. Whether or not you consider someone with a personality disorder sane, or not, is up to you. However, I'll refer back to the definition of insane as being mentally disordered. Then, point out that a personality disorder is a mental disorder. I'll then point to the origins of the word sane, which translates to "of sound mind". Someone who suffers from a personality disorder is not at all of sound mind, or they wouldn't think that it's ok to do the things that they do. Therefore, to me, Lex is insane. In fact, anyone who is not of sound mind, is insane, because I don't attach this all encompassing break with everything in reality to the word. If you do, that's fine.



Please recall in the early seasons of Smallville, Lex was admitted to the mental hospital. Something to do with Lionel wanting to delete parts of his memory, i believe. He had an episode of psychosis, and in my opinion was insane. He lacked the ability to function globally.


That was due to being drugged by Lionel. He wasn't really suffering from what they thought he was, because it was drug induced. I agree that he looked insane, but I don't think it has to be that extreme to use the word.



Insanity and psychosis (hallucination, delusions, thought disorder) both refer to failure of reality testing in the individual, meaning they are out of touch with reality. Hence, i refer to them somewhat interchangeably. I agree that hallucinations are not present, but i contend that he is delusional.


That's right, Lex has a disorder of thought process. That's what a personality disorder effects, thought process.




For a delusion to be present, it has to be a false belief. I agree with you that Lex believes himself to be grand, powerful and above the law, but can you argue that he is not these very things? He is one of the most powerful persons in the world and he constantly gets away with breaking the law. He is not delusional to think these things.


He's not? He's not delusional to think that he can murder who he wants, or clone who he wants, to get what he wants? It doesn't matter if he gets away with it, that doesn't make it right. Anyone who thinks that they are capable of doing such things, because they are powerful, is mental. I think anyone who thinks that killing is a good quick way to get what they want is delusional. He thinks he is above right and wrong. Getting away with it doesn't make that true. It just means he's sneaky.

He thinks that he has the right to take someone else's life away. Think about what it would take to feel that way. He feels so important that nothing in that persons life matters. None of their dreams, or aspirations matter, just what Lex wants.




I agree with your point that he thinks its okay to commit crime if the end justifies the means. This refers to an inappropriate moral code, perhaps drawn from his ability to play god with the immense power at his hands, LexCorp (and money). Having a poor moral code does not make someone insane in my opinion. It makes them antisocial.


To me, there is a huge difference between having a poor moral code, and doing what Lex has done. Is he cheating on his taxes, or does he think it's ok to kill his doctor to keep him from telling his wife what he's been up to? Does he rip someone off in a big business deal, or does he clone an army from an unwilling source? How about holding meteor freaks against their will. All of these things imply that there is a severe break in Lex's thought process.

Having a poor moral code, and thinking that everyone else is wrong, and you are right is more severe, than just having a poor moral code. Lex clearly thinks he's right, and everyone else if off.




So, do i believe that Lex is being reasonable in his actions (the end justifies the means)? NO, but i have a different set of moral codes to draw my reasons from than Lex. My point being, that, with Lex's own moral codes (or lackthereof), it is entirely reasonable for him carry out the actions he has. This is part of having an antisocial personality. They are being reasonable, to their own beliefs and needs.


Right, which is what makes them a danger to society. If their needs involve killing you, they will, without looking for a better way, which is what makes there thinking irrational, dangerous, and skewed.




There are no drugs for personality disorders. they are treated with psychotherapy and possibly hospitalisation.


There is no cure, however drugs are often used to either calm them down, or alleviate some symptoms that are a result of having this disorder.

Freaquently used drugs are...

serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as fluoxetine (Prozac, Sarafem), sertraline (Zoloft), citalopram (Celexa), paroxetine (Paxil), nefazodone, and escitalopram (Lexapro), or the related antidepressant venlafaxine (Effexor) to help relieve depression and anxiety in people with personality disorders. This will at least keep them calm, and hopefully more rational. If they develop depressive symptoms as a result of having the disorder, this will also help.

Anticonvulsants. These medications may help suppress impulsive and aggressive behavior.


Antipsychotics. People with borderline and schizotypal personality disorders are at risk of losing touch with reality. Antipsychotic medications such as risperidone (Risperdal) and olanzapine (Zyprexa) can help improve distorted thinking. For severe behavior problems, doctors may prescribe haloperidol (Haldol).

Doctors sometimes prescribe anti-anxiety medications such as alprazolam (Xanax) and clonazepam (Klonopin) and mood stabilizers such as lithium (Eskalith, Lithobid) to relieve symptoms associated with personality disorders.

All of the above came from mayoclinic.com, as I don't have my text books with me. Keep in mind that when I talk about medications, I'm at a loss. I'm studying to become a psychologist, we don't deal with medication, that's a psychiatrist, a medical doctor who then studies psychology.

Now, ask yourself this question. Why would a sane person have to be hospitalized, or be in therapy for life?




I don't believe Lex has gotten pleasure from any of his murders. Maybe you can point out one that he has to support your point?

I believe that every murder he commits, and gets away with, makes him feel that much more powerful, and to Lex, power is happiness. I'm saying that as a direct result of killing someone, Lex is feeling pleasure. If he wasn't, he's be finding other ways to get the job done.

[litew8]

Ok, I can see how that could happen, but that's not how lex has ever been in the comics, or in any other form of superman media, that I'm aware of, so what your describing would be even more of a change to the character than what your saying Smallville has done.Are you refering to grown up Lex, or young Lex. As I pointed out earlier - I believe Lex on Smallville is far too young to be doing all of the things he has done thus far. Too exaggerated.


I'm not taking away from what you've described though, because it is very plausible. The only problem that I can see is this, why would Superman have to stop Lex from doing anything if he wasn't evil, but just a rather cunning business man? If that's all he was, there would be no conflict imo. Just a thought.I think the thing you are getting hung up on is that you consider evil to equate insanity, and insanity equates murder, and that genuis doesn't allow merely bad. Without insanity and murder, you do not believe that evil can exist - to the extent that it is considered bad genius alone. I do not have the same boundries in what I consider evil. There are many things a (sane/semi) person can do or attempt to do that fall within juristiction of needing to be stopped. They don't actually have to accomplish an evil task to consider it evil or merely bad, whilst maintaining an element of genius. It can be percieved as a threat (indirectly, or consequently) in order for Superman/Clark to stop it - without realizing that it was in fact Lex Luthor's doing.

Over the course of time, Lex can come to realize that something is preventing his true genius from being realized (as he percieves it), thus growing his bad genius - into an evil genius. Before it blossoms, Superman will have been born. Giving him (Lex) all the more reason to grow into character.


Again, I have to ask, why would superman be foiling his genius plans, if they weren't evil?As breifly mentioned above. Lex could do things (with his genius) that would indirectly effect the lives of innocent people. Does that mean he is full blown evil? No. It just means that he's nearsighted, only seeing the direct benefit of his plans or actions - but not in a murdering manner, or intentionally harmful manner. I think there is a distinction of characteristics that would allow growth.

Genius > Bad > Genius > Worse > (Superman) > Genius > Evil > Genius > MoreEvil


I don't think he should be a scientist on Smallville either, but to me, he's clearly is suffering from a personality disorder. I'm not saying I'm right, and your wrong, and I know that's not what your saying. It's obvious to me that we're not going to be able take this too much further, and I don't want anyone to feel like I'm trying to force my beliefs by jumping in every time someone thinks differently than I do, so I may leave it at agree to disagree, unless there are still things you feel you need to say, and after reading them, I feel I need to respond. Just saying that if you don't hear back from me, it's not that I don't enjoy debating with you, just that I'm trying to let others share their opinions.:DThat's fine. I've said everything I felt needed saying. I couldn't have done that without you acting as my soundboard to bounce my thoughts off of. And likewise for you / others.

I still think the Lex Luthor character is exaggerated.

[Kal26]

That's fine. I've said everything I felt needed saying. I couldn't have done that without you acting as my soundboard to bounce my thoughts off of. And likewise for you / others.


I had to start with this one. This strait put a smile on my face in the middle of a horrible day. Soundboard. That's a very unique, and intelligent way to think of things. I love it! That's exactly what we all do for each other. I seem to learn so much about myself, and others on this site. I end up thinking about things in ways that I never would because there are so many perspectives to look at them from. I'm going to do my best to simply answer the questions you've asked, and leave it at that. I think we've gotten to the point now that if either one of us wants an explanation as to why we hold that opinion, all we have to do is read a prior post. Unless of course for whatever reason opinions change. I don't think I need to keep blugeoning you with the roots of my opinions though. I tend to get repetitive.






Are you refering to grown up Lex, or young Lex. As I pointed out earlier - I believe Lex on Smallville is far too young to be doing all of the things he has done thus far. Too exaggerated.


I guess I was referring to adult Lex when discussing the comics, as I don't really know anything about young Lex in the Superboy comics. The only representation I have of a young Lex comes from the Superboy TV show. He was pretty bad in that, but I haven't seen more than the first season, and your right, he wasn't as bad as Lex in Smallville.

I will say that if Smallville didn't show Lex the way they are, I wouldn't be happy with it, due to my opinion on his mental state. What I meant by the statement you quoted was along those lines. I believe Lex should be at the point he is on the show, because of my opinion of his mental state as an adult. I feel the progression they took was necessary to show us why Lex is the way he is as an adult. I do know that adult Lex is very capable of doing what's been done on Smallville, so I wanted it to be more of a progression from adolescence through adulthood.





I think the thing you are getting hung up on is that you consider evil to equate insanity, and insanity equates murder, and that genuis doesn't allow merely bad. Without insanity and murder, you do not believe that evil can exist - to the extent that it is considered bad genius alone. I do not have the same boundries in what I consider evil. There are many things a (sane/semi) person can do or attempt to do that fall within juristiction of needing to be stopped. They don't actually have to accomplish an evil task to consider it evil or merely bad, whilst maintaining an element of genius. It can be percieved as a threat (indirectly, or consequently) in order for Superman/Clark to stop it - without realizing that it was in fact Lex Luthor's doing.

Over the course of time, Lex can come to realize that something is preventing his true genius from being realized (as he percieves it), thus growing his bad genius - into an evil genius. Before it blossoms, Superman will have been born. Giving him (Lex) all the more reason to grow into character.


I didn't mean to make it seem that way. I do believe their can be evil without insanity, and murder without insanity, and genius with, or without any of the above. That's not the problem. The problem is that I'm looking at a text book personality disorder, and I don't consider someone suffering from that disorder sane.

I believe that there can be a bad genius. I believe Lex Luthor to be more than that. I also agree that there are many things that an evil genius can do, that would be considered bad, and necessary to stop, but wouldn't take them as far as to call them insane. Imo Lex Luthor in the comics, and on Smallville has crossed that line too many times, and has displayed too many characteristics of a mentally disturbed person for me to say that he's sane.

Also, I would add, that if someone doing the things you've described fit the criteria for a personality disorder, I wouldn't consider them sane either. As I said when we started this, I really can't say one way or the other without intense personal study with Lex himself. That's not going to happen, so I have to make a judgment on him. Not others who have done some of the same things, but him. I can't say he's sane based on what I've seen, and read.



As breifly mentioned above. Lex could do things (with his genius) that would indirectly effect the lives of innocent people. Does that mean he is full blown evil? No. It just means that he's nearsighted, only seeing the direct benefit of his plans or actions - but not in a murdering manner, or intentionally harmful manner. I think there is a distinction of characteristics that would allow growth.

Genius > Bad > Genius > Worse > (Superman) > Genius > Evil > Genius > MoreEvil


I agree, but would add a question.

What kind of mental state does it take to do the things he's capable of when he hits the end of your time line?

I'm not saying the road can't be taken later in life, but the destination is the same imo. For me to believe it realistically, it would have to start now. Where he is now, imo, should be the tip of the iceberg. He has to build up to destroying entire states. Starting the way he has on Smallville, should get him their just in time imo. That's if he is suffering from a personality disorder.

Now, if he's not suffering from a personality disorder, and is just evil, I can see no rational explanation, because imo the concepts of good and evil aren't always logical. Meaning that I can't prove why someone would be just innately good, or evil. So, it all goes back to having to spend time with the person in question to study pretty much their entire lives.

So, in the end, I've said all that, to say this...I hold my stated opinion on Lex's sanity, but am open to what you've said. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but would have to do far more study on a person affected by the course of events you laid out above to decide whether I thought they were in fact suffering from a disorder, or sane.

[litew8]

I agree, but would add a question. What kind of mental state does it take to do the things he's capable of when he hits the end of your time line?

I'm not saying the road can't be taken later in life, but the destination is the same imo. For me to believe it realistically, it would have to start now. Where he is now, imo, should be the tip of the iceberg. He has to build up to destroying entire states. Starting the way he has on Smallville, should get him their just in time imo. That's if he is suffering from a personality disorder.

Now, if he's not suffering from a personality disorder, and is just evil, I can see no rational explanation, because imo the concepts of good and evil aren't always logical. Meaning that I can't prove why someone would be just innately good, or evil. So, it all goes back to having to spend time with the person in question to study pretty much their entire lives.

So, in the end, I've said all that, to say this...I hold my stated opinion on Lex's sanity, but am open to what you've said. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but would have to do far more study on a person affected by the course of events you laid out above to decide whether I thought they were in fact suffering from a disorder, or sane."What kind of mental state does it take to do the things he's capable of when he hits the end of your time line?"

- He'd be very disturbed to say the least. Given what you've said and compounded. Murdering tendencies etc... Yes, the destination would be the same, but to have it nearly peak at such a young age I feel is exaggerated. I don't know why it seems as if they've pushed it too hard. Most likely because the series is about to end and they have to play catch up. It just feels forced. I was also thinking, perhaps it is somewhat difficult to put the character into proper contrast when portrayed on an 8 year long show, as apposed to a comic book. If done differently, I think they could have pulled it off more accurately (towards my taste). Since they've strayed from time to time, I think they've found themselves in a pinch, unable to portray the characters in an accurate manner.

There are other factors that go against time that aren't necessarily there when dealing with comic books. Character aging is one big factor. Comic book characters don't age or have the same pressures associated with actors/scripts. Comic books have more time to allow a story to progress without real-time having an effect. More capable of drawing out the story. Prolonging it. Enabling the readers imagination to interpert the story in a more personal (personalized?) way. Whereas television is being portrayed in a more direct method, more dialog and less to be imagined.

[Kal26]

I agree, comics would make the transition that your looking for take more time due to the reasons you've given. To me, Smallville's perfectly on track, and Lex is no where near peaking, but again, that's just my opinion.

All the examples you gave as to why comics could portray things differently reminds me why it's such a great medium. I really hope DC knows what they're doing with this final crisis, not to get off topic, but a lot of comic book fans (not I) have become disheartened with comics recently, and I hope they find a way to bring those long time fans back. I personally enjoy all ages, but that's just me.

[litew8]

I agree, comics would make the transition that your looking for take more time due to the reasons you've given. To me, Smallville's perfectly on track, and Lex is no where near peaking, but again, that's just my opinion.

All the examples you gave as to why comics could portray things differently reminds me why it's such a great medium. I really hope DC knows what they're doing with this final crisis, not to get off topic, but a lot of comic book fans (not I) have become disheartened with comics recently, and I hope they find a way to bring those long time fans back. I personally enjoy all ages, but that's just me.Since you don't consider him exaggerated, how about you give an example of what you think Lex would be like once nearing his destiny. Does he just become a babbling/raving out of control lunatic/maniac? I've never read any of the comics.

[Serynarpc]

Bingo. It showed how psychotic the evil within Lex is. Along the same lines of what the evil part of Lex did when he split off in Onyx and started urging Lex to kill him while in that dungeon. It also showed that no matter what Clark does, he can't kill or remove that evil within Lex. If it ever happens, it will have to be Lex who does that.

I think thats it on the nose. 'The stronger Lex' has completely lost his mind in justifying all of his evil deeds and experiments on people. After all- when Lois poked a hole through his smooth humanitarian facade, he reacted badly. :\ That Lex lurks just beneath the surface.

[Kal26]

Since you don't consider him exaggerated, how about you give an example of what you think Lex would be like once nearing his destiny. Does he just become a babbling/raving out of control lunatic/maniac? I've never read any of the comics.

No, no babbling, or raving. He's just on a Larger scale than Lex on Smallville is right now.

An adult Lex is bent on dominating the world. In fact, he would like to rule the galaxy by any means necessary. Anyone, or anything that gets in his way will either be killed, or destroyed. Lex on Smallville is playing on a small game board compared to his adult counterpart.

One example is one I already gave from Superman the movie. He wants to blow up entire states full of people. One is even the home of his girlfriend's mom. The reason? To be able to sell the empty space at a high price.

Here is a quote about golden age Lex (the original) from dc databaseproject.com.

"Very little is known about the history of Alexei Luthor before he rose to power and took control of several minor European nations prior to World War II through his super-scientific machinations. He intended to plunge all of the European countries into war starting with the small countries of Galonia and Toran, and used his scientific genius to sabotage a peace conference."

At the time, he was just called Luthor, and was given the first name Alexei later after DC decided to say that everything that happened in the golden age of comics was actually on earth two. We actually have 52 versions of Lex right now in the dcu because there are 52 earths. New earth is our current Lex, who is a sort of combination of earth two (Luthor as he was in the original comics, with the same back story 1938 to the mid 50's), earth one (Lex from the silver age 1951 through 1986), and modern age (Lex following crisis on infinite earths ending with the finale of Infinite Crisis).

During Crisis on infinite earths, Lex (earth one) teamed up with braniac to try and take over the multiverse. He didn't just want to rule our universe, but every one that exists, again, by any means necessary.

I don't see an adult lex as a babbling idiot who does nothing but kill. I see adult Lex as someone who has no regard for human, or alien life, to the point that he would be willing to spark wars that would annialate millions of people, and even let entire planets die, to get what he wants. Lex on Smallville is just working on the united states right now.

I have to ask, and I don't want you to take this the wrong way, I'm just curious. If you haven't read any of the comics, what are you basing your ideal version of the character on?

Mine is based mainly on Lex from the original comics. New earth Lex is ok, but I like the original better.

Here's another quote about him.

"The Golden Age Luthor was a far more blood-thirsty character than his successors."

[litew8]

I don't see an adult lex as a babbling idiot who does nothing but kill.

- no regard for human
- he would be willing to spark wars
- annialate millions of people
- Anyone, or anything that gets in his way will either be killed
- blow up entire states full of people



Looks like a lot of killing going on there.


If you haven't read any of the comics, what are you basing your ideal version of the character on?Hmm... good question. I grew up watching Superfriend cartoons. :lol: I suppose that doesn't really count. Honestly, I'm basing my opinions on realistic humane characteristics. Moral and intellectual advancement, in accordance with what has been provided within the story of Smallville. It is by no means a combination of universes, planets or personas. Not unlimited resources or power. There are limitations as to how far the imagination can be used when watching the show, before it crosses the line of absurd/uncomprehensible. All things taken into consideration, as to not fracture the idealization of the characters/story. That goes to say (in particular) why the character's basis should not stray too far - many people have no understanding of the comics. Having said that, we're talking about character development of Lex Luthor. How he's portrayed. Over the years, up-to-date. The environment. Cause and effects. In association with being a High Mach, not a murderer.

[Kal26]

Looks like a lot of killing going on there.


Yeah, definitely a lot of killing, but not really in a babbling/raving kind of way. Definitely imo an out of control maniac though.



Hmm... good question. I grew up watching Superfriend cartoons. :lol: I suppose that doesn't really count. Honestly, I'm basing my opinions on realistic humane characteristics. Moral and intellectual advancement, in accordance with what has been provided within the story of Smallville. It is by no means a combination of universes, planets or personas. Not unlimited resources or power. There are limitations as to how far the imagination can be used when watching the show, before it crosses the line of absurd/uncomprehensible. All things taken into consideration, as to not fracture the idealization of the characters/story. That goes to say (in particular) why the character's basis should not stray too far - many people have no understanding of the comics. Having said that, we're talking about character development of Lex Luthor. How he's portrayed. Over the years, up-to-date. The environment. Cause and effects. In association with being a High Mach, not a murderer.


Superfriends counts. I have the first season on dvd, it's a really good show. I'd have to say that when choosing your ideal version of the character, any version would count.

I said earlier that my favorite Lex came from the golden age. In comics, that's true. But my overall favorite is from Smallville.

I find their version more realistic than most others because of my interest in psychology, and the fact that I always saw Lex as someone probably suffering from a personality disorder. I'm very pleased to get to see his development, and how the disorder has become more and more evident. As I said before, if they didn't show this now, I'd have a hard time believing Lex capable of the things that I know he does in the future. To me, a watered down version of Lex would be taking away from the character, and not showing the things that he's truly capable of would be totally unrealistic.

Over the past seven years I've seen great character development in regards to Lex Luthor. I've seen him grow into the man I know, and I've seen how and why he gets there. From my point of view it's been nothing but realistic, and continues to be. However, that's because I don't see Lex as being simply a high mach now, haven't seen him that way in the past, and don't want to in the future. I have a preconceived notion of my ideal Lex Luthor. I can certainly respect you wanting to see your ideal version of the character, because if the situation was reversed, and Lex was more like your version than mine, we'd probably still be having this argument, only I'd be unhappy with the show, and you wouldn't (at least concerning Lex).

[litew8]

I can understand how my reasoning for considering it exaggerated is considered rich content from your perspective. Your last sentence - on mark. I just don't care much for the murdering/genius combo. Nothing against your opinion or perspective. Just a personal preference.

[Kal26]

Your last sentence - on mark. Nothing against your opinion or perspective. Just a personal preference.

Thanks, and the same to you. It's been a pleasure. If it's ok with you, I'm going to add you to my buddy list. Given the size of this site, I tend to loose track of people that I enjoy talking with unless I do that. Take care. :D

[GENERALzod777]

Dude Lex In All Media (COMICS, MOVIES) Is FREAKIN NUTZ. He's Hoopdy. He Reminded me of woody woodpecker when laughed. that was a good cartoon.

[pizzaguy19]

IMO it was cause he was being powered up by Chloe at the time, so he felt the power flowing into him and knew he was invincible.

If Lex knew Chloe's power, he would also be laughing at Clark indirectly hurting Chloe more and making her stay dead longer.