SV: Splinter as foreshadowing?

[norwich36]

I don't believe in destiny, but I do believe in foreshadowing. When I rewatched "Splinter" last week in light of "Reckoning" and "Lockdown," I noticed a few things that may be foreshadowing upcoming developments in the season, especially in the Lex/Lana relationship.

Spoilers through Vengeance

"Lana, Lex, Lies"

"If I told you the truth and something happened to you, I'd never forgive myself," Lex says to Lana in Splinter, when she wants to know the truth about the spaceship. Isn't *that* an interesting quotation to be coming out of Lex's mouth, especially given the events in "Reckoning." But it's not just foreshadowing "Reckoning," it's more immediately foreshadowing "Lockdown."

In "Splinter," Lex initially tells Lana that he didn't tell her about the spaceship because he's protecting her. Knowledge about the spaceship, he says, is dangerous--"people have killed for a lot less." Lana suspects he's bullshitting her because he wants her knowledge of the spaceship, and at the time it seemed a reasonable assumption. However, it turns out Lex was right: knowledge of the spaceship *did* put Lana in danger--both she and Lex almost got killed for that knowledge in "Lockdown."

Furthermore, the fact that Lex will trust Lana, rather than lying to protect her, is also spelled out directly in "Splinter", where he tells her that he had to stop protecting her because he couldn't lie to her anymore, and he knew that she was searching for the answers haunting her since her parents died. (Again, in "Splinter" this is delivered as fakery--Lex actually makes this response to try to avoid answering hard questions from Lana--but in "Lockdown" we see he was actually telling the truth, in that classic piece of Lex misdirection).

Lana's attitude towards being protected is split: on the one hand, as in "Lockdown," she is drawn to the equality of her relationship with Lex; each takes turn being the protector of the other. This is the adult Lana, and one of the many reasons why Lana's relationship with Clark is doomed to fail. On the other hand, part of her still wants (and needs) to be protected, and that is the part of her that was drawn to Clark's revelation of his secret in "Reckoning." But ultimately (even if Clark had changed the past in a different way), she needs more equality in her relationships. (I've figured out that's why I liked her first scene with Lex in Reckoning: even though she wasn't necessary very *good* at it, she stepped up to try to protect Clark's secret. She does want to be able to protect the people she loves, not merely be protected by them).



Clark's fears, Clark's fists

"I don't know what you did to trick Lana into believing she was in love with you." This is Clark's accusation to Lex while he is under the influence of silver K in "Splinter." He fears that Lana will betray him, just as Lex has--though her betrayal would be the double betrayal of consorting with Clark's enemy. And this does seem to be coming true: every episode since Splinter has moved a step closer to Lexana. I suspect that what Splinter is predicting is that Clark is never going to be able to accept this relationship as real, and that this will somehow lead to full-out war between Lex and Clark. ("I don't want to hurt you, Clark." "But I want to hurt you.")

"If I'd have killed Lana...." (Clark in "Splinter") Clark does, as it turns out, kill Lana in "Reckoning"--or at least, he contributes to her death. (Interesting that in Splinter he *also* almost kills his dad, and attacks Lex, saying that he wants to hurt him. ) Splinter predicts that he cannot live without Lana--you'd never forgive yourself, Professor Fine tells him. And in fact, the decision he makes in "Reckoning" does show he can't bear to be the one responsible for her death. Does this mean he'll never forgive himself for his contribution to Jonathan's death?

"Those Kents, they pack quite a punch." (Lionel Luthor, "Splinter") Here he's talking to Lex, whom Clark has bruised pretty badly; but this statement also foreshadows Jonathan's death. It would be interesting to trace the significance of all the punches this season. Clark punching Lex in "Mortal" signalled the start of open hostilities between them. Everyone was rightly critical of him immediately after that episode for continuing to punch Lex when he was down. This is not the action of a hero, but it is definitely the instinctive response of a Kent (at least a Kent male raised by Jonathan!). Will Clark ever learn that his father died striking his enemy in anger? I think he *must* learn that, sometime in the future, because I think it will be one of the things preventing him from striking a similar future blow at Lex, which would not destroy him physically, but would do so morally.

Actually, I wonder if Clark would have been capable of saving Lionel's life in "Vengeance" had he known the truth about Jonathan's death. Will he ever find out? Will he be tempted not to save him in the future, especially once Lionel starts his seduction of Martha in earnest?



Predicting the future?

"Lana Lang will never love you, son." This is from the end of "Splinter," in the scene with Lionel and Lex. Is this foreshadowing? Or maybe just a warning from Lionel, as part of the deep game he's playing this season? latxcvi has been talking about the slow progression of Lexana this season, how they are actually taking time to build an organic relationship between them, and I think that's true, as I have sketched out, a little, above. I agree that Lexana is only going to work for the viewers to the extent that there is mutual desire between them, so I really *hope* that this is just Lionel's usual mindfuck, and *not* foreshadowing.

Comments

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

I think he *must* learn that, sometime in the future, because I think it will be one of the things preventing him from striking a similar future blow at Lex, which would not destroy him physically, but would do so morally.

Even though AlMiles & Co. aren't always the best at making good/hitting the pay-off with foreshadowing, there are certain things where I think you can just *tell* that what's been said/done/revealed is like a gun in a Chekhov play -- if it shows up in the first act, then it's going off before the curtain falls. I absolutely think that the revelation this week that Lex knows about that meeting with Jonathan will come back to bite Lionel (and possibly the remaining Kents) in the ass later on. It seems to me that Lex most likely even has proof of it, either via a recording of the phone call between them or (and this would be even better) surveillance imagery. Because it's something that happened while Lex himself wasn't in complete possession of his faculties, yet Lex knows all about it; this suggests he's watching Lionel's comings and goings like a hawk (and thus turning the tables on his father).

Now. Lex used it to ensure Lionel would back down from the hostile takeover bid, but it's still a pretty big stinkbomb should he decide to set it off before Lionel's had a chance to secure Martha's trust to the point it wouldn't make a difference. Given all the ways Lionel has directly contributed to screwing with Lex's potential for happiness in the past (paying Helen to spy on him, the hostile takeover of the nascent Lex Corp, even seducing Victoria, which contributed to damaging a relationship Lex seemed to at least enjoy, just to name a few examples), I can *absolutely* believe Lex would get off on the poetic justice of doing the same to Lionel. I mean, Lionel's interest in/attention to Martha isn't a new thing, and Lex does, I think, know his father well enough to know that even if Lionel's got some *other* motives for wanting a connection with Martha, there's nevertheless something about Martha qua Martha that's appealing to him. So I can see Lex timing it just so Lionel maybe gets close enough to thinking he's got Martha (and access to Clark), and then sharing the information and effectively destroying the tenuous connection. I certainly know *I* would find that to be really satisfying TV.

I agree that Lexana is only going to work for the viewers to the extent that there is mutual desire between them, so I really *hope* that this is just Lionel's usual mindfuck, and *not* foreshadowing.

I view everything that comes out of Lionel's mouth to Lex as being a mindfuck. Lionel is a classic emotionally/psychologically abusive parent, and others made an excellent case to me at the time of the episode (because that scene irritated me something *fierce* at the time) that this was just another instance of that. Lana was being used as a stand-in; Lionel was essentially telling Lex *no one* would ever love him, because he's apparently inherently unloveable, and that's (a) an awful thing for a parent to say to their child, and (b) absolutely not true, as iconic!Lex *is* well-beloved by the people of Metropolis (it's part of his rivalry with Superman because when Superman showed up, Lex suddenly had to share the status of "Metropolis' Favorite Son").

[bop-radar.livejournal.com]

Brilliant piece of meta! Loved it. Lots of solid and interesting speculation. I particularly liked the idea of tracing the punches and their meanings.

I wonder if Clark would have been capable of saving Lionel's life in "Vengeance" had he known the truth about Jonathan's death.
Well this was directly addressed when Andrea asked 'what would you do if you were face to face with your father's killer?' and I think we're seeing a Clark who is gradually moving towards being able to hold back despite his anger. As you suggest, it could be that discovering his father's fury contributed to his death plays a part in that. And perhaps the season will end with a non-punch, with Clark confronting Lex but stepping back from the final blow. That would really shape their future relationship and put the punch at the start of the season in context.

The Lexana foreshadowing has been so heavy, I really can't wait for it to go somewhere. I liked your teasing out of how Lana is split between wanting to protect (adult identity) and wanting to be protected (child identity). I think Lex is similarly split. On the one hand, he recognises and acknowledges Lana's desire for full knowledge and truth. We've seen that he believes in this within intimate relationships, at all costs, and so her appeals to him on those grounds strike deep. She's essentially speaking to an earlier (S2-3) Lex (as supacat pointed out, Lana's behaviour this season mirrors Lex's earlier behaviour). But since then, Lex has learnt just how dangerous secrets, and particularly Clark's secrets, are. The obsessive search for the stones in Season 4 served to point that out, plus he's got Lionel at his back and he probably suspects that he would threaten Lana if she got too close to Lex.

Recognising just how dangerous the secrets are has also been a matter of self-discovery. I think when Lex says 'people have killed for a lot less' he's speaking personally. I think he knows *he* would kill for the secrets under certain circumstances (arguably he already has). And not only that, but *Lana* has killed for them and though it's unspoken between them, he is protecting her from becoming a killer again as much as protecting her from killers. The desire for knowledge taints people's morality and one of the things he loves about her is her purity, so I think part of him can't bear to 'soil' her with that secret.

However, what we've seen is that Lana's been successful in tapping into the 'old' Lex of full disclosure. Lex more than anyone takes Lana seriously as an adult and when she calls him on it and says she doesn't want to be protected any more, he believes her and respects her.

I want the Lexana! I want to know where this goes!

I really *hope* that this is just Lionel's usual mindfuck, and *not* foreshadowing.
To make this the most enormous comment ever... I agree with latxcvi that it's a mindfuck, but I also agree with you that in SV canon there is the myth of the 'unloveable' Lex. I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, I see why it works. The show has established that secrets destroy intimacy, or that you can't have true intimacy without revelation, and they've made this the basis of the rift between Clark and Lex themselves. Clark feared Lex's 'true self' (at the time, a construction, I believe) and at the same time held his own secrets back, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: Lex is driven into his worst behaviour patterns by Clark's withdrawal and in the end turns into the man Clark feared he was. So he becomes 'unloveable' by Clark. To have other people support and love Lex complicates the picture because it makes Clark's rejection far more subjective. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I think that's why TPTB have taken this tack.

What it means for future canon is frustratingly simplistic. However I can see (speculation! that thing I'm bad at!) the possibility of them using Lexana to show that Lex comes close to achieving love but this time (in contrast to Helen) he messes it up of his own accord... showing that despite his 'better' self, he's further down the path to evil coldness that he imagines.

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

It would be nicely symmetrical if the thing that drives Lana *away* from Lex was seeing the consequences of Lex *uncovering* some of CLark's secrets (and maybe doing bad things with them), leading Lana to realize that some secrets really *do* need to be kept.

Or, alternatively, for Lex to keep his promise of honesty to Lana and have her driven away because she finds that she actually can't abide some of the choices he makes/things he does. I think that would also be an interesting way to go because it would leave *Lana* alone because of something she always insisted relationships needed -- full and total disclosure. That would actually be another way for her to learn that sometimes, the things people keep from you, they're keeping for reasons of allowing a relationship to *survive*. It would also tie in nicely to something Lex said to her in Recruit, which is this idea that sometimes, people claim all they want is the truth, and then when they get it, they wish they'd never learned it.

buckeye mega millions numbers

[(Anonymous)]

88 [url=http://www.saleshoganoutlet.com/]Hogan Online[/url] a long way on foot to have the actual Gobi beyond the personal
The event [url=http://www.outlethervelegerdressessale.com/]Herve Leger Sale[/url] not just obtained our trust to go after a lengthy lack
one's heart [url=http://www.salechristianlouboutinoutletonline.com/]Christian Louboutin Outlet[/url] gets to be more potent, more to the point, our boy i, understand as well as [url=http://www.burberryonlinehandbagsoutlet2012.com/]Burberry Handbags[/url] believe in one another much more. Xuan Zang mitzvah routines alteration by appliance Kate Moss possess took part in a period of period, nevertheless 38-year-old private business masters are still absorbed inside the ft . Gobi Jian memories.