Descent, Lex and villainy
Apr. 20th, 2008 01:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bagheera_sanOkay, I did watch Descent, after reading a spoiler that made it pretty much required watching. Hey, that was a good episode again. I think there's no way around it, I'm going to watch the rest of S7.
The episode Lex kills Lionel. It's so weird to watch a show for seven seasons knowing exactly that this one episode is going to come and now here it is. Maybe that's why it feels neither satisfying nor sad. It's just fate, you know?
And yet the theme of this episode when it comes to Lex seemed to be choice. He made a choice, both in killing Lionel and in (symbolically!) killing little Lex. And I'm glad about that. What I feared most when it came to Descent (because I heard spoilers) was that Lex would be portrayed as MAJOR CRAZYPANTS. In my opinion, he wasn't. I don't think he hallucinated. It's fiction, and I choose to interpret "Alexander" not as a symptom of MPD or schizophrenia, but as a symbol for Lex's moral struggle. It could have been done less heavy-handed, but that's SV for you. It's not a symbol in SV unless it bludgeons you black and blue.
I don't want Lex to be crazy as in "can easily use an insanity defence in court" crazy.
Crazy villains don't have a choice. They're either (legally/morally) inhuman, like the Joker, or they're pitiful, tragic monsters, like Two-Face (and yet Two-Face at least manages to externalize his morality/choice.) Pathologically insane villains aren't in control and that almost negates their evil. They should be locked up. No one would blame a hero for killing the Joker, but it would be pointless to start blaming or accusing the Joker. It won't come through. It can't. I don't agree with Chloe's "total absence of love equals evil" talk. Total absence of love equals a personality that is incomplete, diseased, disabled. In order to be morally evil, there has to be an element of choice, and of rationality. There has to be a moment where the character has do decide: do I kill or not? A character without choice is a character without morals is a character without evil. There's no redemption for them, most likely no healing, but also no judgement. They're like a tsunami, or Godzilla. I'm just not terribly interested in Godzilla characters.
Don't get me wrong, a little crazy isn't bad. The occasional manic laughter and mad scheme is amusing. Obsession that clouds the villain's judgement is the spice of hero/villain relationships. But I would still like my villains to be responsible (if evil) adults. Basically I want them to either say "Yep, I'm evil, see if I care" or "The ends justify the means."
[A couple of examples:
I like Spike better than Angelus, and not just because Angel is lame and Spike rocks my socks. Angel is like Two-Face. He has his moment of bliss, and oops, the coin turns up on the scarred side. As soon as he's (soulless) Angelus, he is ALWAYS EVIL. No choice. No moral struggle. No variation. He's a monster. Spike, on the other hand, has no soul, and yet he can occasionally make decisions like "okay, so I don't really want the world to end, let's team up with the slayer." It's still selfish and not at all good, but he isn't irrationally evil. And that makes Spike's bad actions badder. Because you have the feeling that Spike could choose not to kill people. Getting his soul back doesn't change things for Spike the way it changed them for Angel. It's not a lightswitch for Spike. It's a choice.
I *hated* what book 6 and 7 of HP did with Voldemort. Back in book 2, it seemed like Tom Riddle was a really smart wizard kid with a bad childhood who at one point decided, fuck this, I'm gonna rule the world and kill all muggles. But HBP revealed that basically, Tom Riddle was a foul apple right from the start (because of genetics or whatever). And on top of that, he kept chopping away at his soul until he definitely wasn't human in any sense of the word. Boring.
I don't like Simm!Master as much as Delgado!Master, because in New Who you get the impression that the Master is really, really off his rocker. He's very much like a child torturing animals. And New Who made his insanity text, by giving him the drums and the childhood trauma. (Now, I'm not saying that Ainley!Master wasn't bonkers, too. But somehow I really can't see Simm!Master fulfilling his role in Five Doctors. It would at best have been very wacky.)]
And the same goes for Lex. There are two endings for him that I would like.
One is the misguided/end justifies the means path that was repeatedly suggested by his whole "I'm saving the world here" talk. A Lex who knows that the things he does are wrong, but who "puts them into perspective", believing that he is doing what is necessary for the greater good. Good intentions, road to hell. He isn't operating entirely on the truth, but his delusions are external, not internal. This one is dignified, and some find him tragic.
The other path is a Lex who only uses "I'm saving the world" as a front. He knows it's rubbish, and he just decided that the world hates him and to survive/revenge himself, he's going to hate it back. He used to believe in love and goodness, and was disappointed. Each time he does something bad, he deliberately chooses it, with less and less remorse. He's bitter, angry and pretty good at being evil. He steals forty cakes out of spite, and that's terrible and wicked fun to watch.
"Descent" leaves both possibilities open, and that makes it miles better than "Promise" or "Reunion". In the latter two episodes, Lex loses control and is portrayed as someone who's pathologically violent, even as a child. He looks helpless even as he murders people.
In "Descent", however, Lex is struggling with himself. He doesn't murder Lionel in a moment of blind rage. He brought that gun with him. He probably even waited until Lionel was in that office. He did it in cold blood, and he justified the murder to himself. And afterwards, symbolized by Alexander, he fought with his own conscience and won. He didn't kill part of himself. He simply made up his mind, and it wasn't easy for him.
Lex may not be sane in the "well-adjusted, productive member of society" sense, but he's sane in the sense of "I know what I am doing and I stand by it." That, in my opinion, is the pre-condition for true evil. If Lex's motivation is truly the "greater good" or something far more selfish, remains to be seen. But he *has* motivation, he has a conscience, and he makes choices. He is a villain, but he's also a man, not a monster.
The episode Lex kills Lionel. It's so weird to watch a show for seven seasons knowing exactly that this one episode is going to come and now here it is. Maybe that's why it feels neither satisfying nor sad. It's just fate, you know?
And yet the theme of this episode when it comes to Lex seemed to be choice. He made a choice, both in killing Lionel and in (symbolically!) killing little Lex. And I'm glad about that. What I feared most when it came to Descent (because I heard spoilers) was that Lex would be portrayed as MAJOR CRAZYPANTS. In my opinion, he wasn't. I don't think he hallucinated. It's fiction, and I choose to interpret "Alexander" not as a symptom of MPD or schizophrenia, but as a symbol for Lex's moral struggle. It could have been done less heavy-handed, but that's SV for you. It's not a symbol in SV unless it bludgeons you black and blue.
I don't want Lex to be crazy as in "can easily use an insanity defence in court" crazy.
Crazy villains don't have a choice. They're either (legally/morally) inhuman, like the Joker, or they're pitiful, tragic monsters, like Two-Face (and yet Two-Face at least manages to externalize his morality/choice.) Pathologically insane villains aren't in control and that almost negates their evil. They should be locked up. No one would blame a hero for killing the Joker, but it would be pointless to start blaming or accusing the Joker. It won't come through. It can't. I don't agree with Chloe's "total absence of love equals evil" talk. Total absence of love equals a personality that is incomplete, diseased, disabled. In order to be morally evil, there has to be an element of choice, and of rationality. There has to be a moment where the character has do decide: do I kill or not? A character without choice is a character without morals is a character without evil. There's no redemption for them, most likely no healing, but also no judgement. They're like a tsunami, or Godzilla. I'm just not terribly interested in Godzilla characters.
Don't get me wrong, a little crazy isn't bad. The occasional manic laughter and mad scheme is amusing. Obsession that clouds the villain's judgement is the spice of hero/villain relationships. But I would still like my villains to be responsible (if evil) adults. Basically I want them to either say "Yep, I'm evil, see if I care" or "The ends justify the means."
[A couple of examples:
I like Spike better than Angelus, and not just because Angel is lame and Spike rocks my socks. Angel is like Two-Face. He has his moment of bliss, and oops, the coin turns up on the scarred side. As soon as he's (soulless) Angelus, he is ALWAYS EVIL. No choice. No moral struggle. No variation. He's a monster. Spike, on the other hand, has no soul, and yet he can occasionally make decisions like "okay, so I don't really want the world to end, let's team up with the slayer." It's still selfish and not at all good, but he isn't irrationally evil. And that makes Spike's bad actions badder. Because you have the feeling that Spike could choose not to kill people. Getting his soul back doesn't change things for Spike the way it changed them for Angel. It's not a lightswitch for Spike. It's a choice.
I *hated* what book 6 and 7 of HP did with Voldemort. Back in book 2, it seemed like Tom Riddle was a really smart wizard kid with a bad childhood who at one point decided, fuck this, I'm gonna rule the world and kill all muggles. But HBP revealed that basically, Tom Riddle was a foul apple right from the start (because of genetics or whatever). And on top of that, he kept chopping away at his soul until he definitely wasn't human in any sense of the word. Boring.
I don't like Simm!Master as much as Delgado!Master, because in New Who you get the impression that the Master is really, really off his rocker. He's very much like a child torturing animals. And New Who made his insanity text, by giving him the drums and the childhood trauma. (Now, I'm not saying that Ainley!Master wasn't bonkers, too. But somehow I really can't see Simm!Master fulfilling his role in Five Doctors. It would at best have been very wacky.)]
And the same goes for Lex. There are two endings for him that I would like.
One is the misguided/end justifies the means path that was repeatedly suggested by his whole "I'm saving the world here" talk. A Lex who knows that the things he does are wrong, but who "puts them into perspective", believing that he is doing what is necessary for the greater good. Good intentions, road to hell. He isn't operating entirely on the truth, but his delusions are external, not internal. This one is dignified, and some find him tragic.
The other path is a Lex who only uses "I'm saving the world" as a front. He knows it's rubbish, and he just decided that the world hates him and to survive/revenge himself, he's going to hate it back. He used to believe in love and goodness, and was disappointed. Each time he does something bad, he deliberately chooses it, with less and less remorse. He's bitter, angry and pretty good at being evil. He steals forty cakes out of spite, and that's terrible and wicked fun to watch.
"Descent" leaves both possibilities open, and that makes it miles better than "Promise" or "Reunion". In the latter two episodes, Lex loses control and is portrayed as someone who's pathologically violent, even as a child. He looks helpless even as he murders people.
In "Descent", however, Lex is struggling with himself. He doesn't murder Lionel in a moment of blind rage. He brought that gun with him. He probably even waited until Lionel was in that office. He did it in cold blood, and he justified the murder to himself. And afterwards, symbolized by Alexander, he fought with his own conscience and won. He didn't kill part of himself. He simply made up his mind, and it wasn't easy for him.
Lex may not be sane in the "well-adjusted, productive member of society" sense, but he's sane in the sense of "I know what I am doing and I stand by it." That, in my opinion, is the pre-condition for true evil. If Lex's motivation is truly the "greater good" or something far more selfish, remains to be seen. But he *has* motivation, he has a conscience, and he makes choices. He is a villain, but he's also a man, not a monster.
