I'm laughing, because I just made almost the same comment in your journal, about us liking the same things but for different reasons. We must have been responding to each other at the same time. And I was responding to you there, I was actually answering you on this, even though I hadn't read it yet:
See, this I'm not sure about, largely because she's about to jump into a relationship with Lex. I'd be more persuaded that Lana's really accepting it and that she's really growing beyond it if they didn't plan to stick her right back in a relationship that seems to be more about her not wanting to be alone again and less about her actually having feelings for her new partner (and also possibly about her being broke, too, although I don't know if this creative team is willing to let Lana be *that* ruthless). I think Lana *wants* to be over this aspect of her personality; I think she recognizes the ways in which it's her emotional and psychological albatross, but I don't think she can actually break free of it.
I think you're right that she *wants* not to be dependent, but that she hasn't achieved this yet. (When I was originally posting this I was too struck by the parallels between that scene and the end of Rivka's "Tertium Quid" that I was being optimistic. Now my thought is that breaking free of dependence on others to define herself is what they're foreshadowing as Lana's iconic destiny (just as Lex and Clark's iconic destiny are foreshadowed heavily in this episode).
Of course, freedom from dependence can be a good thing (independence) or a bad thing (isolation/detachment/ inability to connect with people). It would be interesting if her relationship with Lex pushed her more into isolation and coldness, putting her own interests above those of other people, at least for a while, but I doubt they would stay there with her character.
What I liked about it was that I also think it shows that even if he wants to, he doesn't really trust her. I mean, Lex *has* opened up to people about dark things in the past (and by 'people' I really mean 'Clark') and it's been established that if he really loves or thinks he loves someone, he can even come clean with them about really bad stuff that he's done (cf. telling Helen he stole that vial of blood). But the fact that he wouldn't tell Lana just how dark that vision really was suggests that he doesn't feel the kinship to her that he might want to. I liked it because to me, it showed that he absolutely realizes she's capable of active manipulation; he didn't just write off the business with his car as her being strung out. If Lex were truly besotted with Lana, his answer would have been a lot closer to the actual truth, even if he did put a spin on it.
Yes and yes and yes. It's especially potent that he doesn't open up to her about his mother when she did open up to him about why she was seeking out the drug, even though she was initially so reluctant that she would steal from him rather than admit the truth. To me, that suggests he's definitely manipulating her rather than being besotted.
Re: part I (Reposting with better formatting)
See, this I'm not sure about, largely because she's about to jump into a relationship with Lex. I'd be more persuaded that Lana's really accepting it and that she's really growing beyond it if they didn't plan to stick her right back in a relationship that seems to be more about her not wanting to be alone again and less about her actually having feelings for her new partner (and also possibly about her being broke, too, although I don't know if this creative team is willing to let Lana be *that* ruthless). I think Lana *wants* to be over this aspect of her personality; I think she recognizes the ways in which it's her emotional and psychological albatross, but I don't think she can actually break free of it.
I think you're right that she *wants* not to be dependent, but that she hasn't achieved this yet. (When I was originally posting this I was too struck by the parallels between that scene and the end of Rivka's "Tertium Quid" that I was being optimistic. Now my thought is that breaking free of dependence on others to define herself is what they're foreshadowing as Lana's iconic destiny (just as Lex and Clark's iconic destiny are foreshadowed heavily in this episode).
Of course, freedom from dependence can be a good thing (independence) or a bad thing (isolation/detachment/ inability to connect with people). It would be interesting if her relationship with Lex pushed her more into isolation and coldness, putting her own interests above those of other people, at least for a while, but I doubt they would stay there with her character.
What I liked about it was that I also think it shows that even if he wants to, he doesn't really trust her. I mean, Lex *has* opened up to people about dark things in the past (and by 'people' I really mean 'Clark') and it's been established that if he really loves or thinks he loves someone, he can even come clean with them about really bad stuff that he's done (cf. telling Helen he stole that vial of blood). But the fact that he wouldn't tell Lana just how dark that vision really was suggests that he doesn't feel the kinship to her that he might want to. I liked it because to me, it showed that he absolutely realizes she's capable of active manipulation; he didn't just write off the business with his car as her being strung out. If Lex were truly besotted with Lana, his answer would have been a lot closer to the actual truth, even if he did put a spin on it.
Yes and yes and yes. It's especially potent that he doesn't open up to her about his mother when she did open up to him about why she was seeking out the drug, even though she was initially so reluctant that she would steal from him rather than admit the truth. To me, that suggests he's definitely manipulating her rather than being besotted.