Sandboxthinking

AUTISM RESPONSE: Rubber ducks and other rubber bath toys can accumulate mold on the inside because of small holes underneath where moisture becomes trapped. The mold often goes unnoticed because it's not visible from the outside.

PENDING RESPONSE: That particular brand is currently being sued for sanitation issues in its factory the next town over

PENDING RESPONSE: Based on my years of professional animal experience, that animal is stressed out and your perception of it as "cute," is merely anthropomorphizing them in a harmful way.

Captain Kirk, while generally portrayed as the traditional masculine hero of the episodic story, is caught in a dichotomy. His character portrait features several feminine traits that cannot be separated from the shell of masculinity. 

Lighting (he is often shown in similar lighting to the female characters, the soft focus that was used to smooth the skin of actresses more so than their male counterparts) 

Costuming (while his ripped and disposable shirts are a point of hilarity, they also resemble the damsel trope/female heroine trope, while also mirroring in show female characters- i.e., during “Shore Leave”, Yeoman Barrows and Captain Kirk both have their clothing ripped, right down to the same area that is torn) 

Sexuality (Kirk’s sexuality itself is up for debate amongst the fans, but the way he utilizes his appearance is akin to female seduction towards male characters in literature; he is often touched without his consent, stared at, remarked on for his looks; his reluctance in some episodes or “honeypot” situations also resemble female seduction- i.e., “The Conscience of the King”, he romances Kodos’ daughter in order to get more accurate information on him) 

I cannot talk about the nuances of Captain Kirk without at least mentioning our dear Mr. Spock. His character encapsulates multitudes, ranging from nontraditional masculinity to racism. However, in the context of this topic, especially when it concerns Kirk, Spock is the more traditionally masculine counterpart in the relationship. Spock is focused on logic, his demeanor more closed off and guarded, while Kirk is shown to be more emotional and reckless. The First Office is often the one protecting Jim or advising him against dangerous situations. Despite being the opposite of the leading male figure, Spock ends up taking on more of the roles of traditional masculinity in ways that you might not notice right away. Kirk’s masculinity is more of a front, simply the appearance of male machoism, despite his physical body and patterns of speech (at least compared to Spock) suggesting otherwise. 

But despite all of these parallels, the show never allows you to forget that Jim is indeed a man. Again, you cannot separate his inherent standing as a man in the show (and out, because William Shatner is in fact a man). The heteronormative storylines that litter nearly every episode make this fact hard to ignore, as well as the general comparison to other female characters. We see the period-typical sexism of the 1960s during which TOS was created bleeds from life to screen, as Kirk doesn’t see the same ramifications of patriarchy as the women do, or at least, not in the same way. While this is in part due to Starfleet’s message of all genders being equal, we don’t really see that more accurately portrayed more until the movies and subsequent spin off series. So, in some cases, an argument could be made that Jim is so used to being used like the female characters on the show that it does not fully register to him that they are experiencing sexism at all; after all, Kirk is going through much of the same thing.

Women are more often than not to be shown in pursuits of the humanities (i.e., Martha McGiver and Khan and 20th century studies from the episode “Space Seed”, Carolyn and the Greek gods and anthropology studies from the episode “Who Mourns for Adonis?”). Kirk’s relationship with things such as poetry and other literature is personal, revealing. His frequent soliloquies and monologues show that he is learned in many areas, from engineering to empathy. While we do see him being the competent captain and possessing the STEM knowledge expected from a science fiction captain, he is more prone to prose and Shakespeare than typical grounded explanations. His loyalty to the ship and his crew are based in the humanities of his studies and himself. 

There is a facet to this male gaze Kirk argument that I would like to add: when talking about James Kirk being portrayed in the male gaze, it is done in a very queer manner. Here is the disclaimer before I go on: I do not believe that Gene Rodenberry, William Shatner, or Leonard Nimoy (yes I’m adding him in because K/S is a part of my argument) intentionally wrote Kirk as a stand-in for gay yearning and queer male representation, but in terms of making an argument for it, they certainly created a solid foundation. 

All of the points I have listed craft this argument: from the lighting of the shots to his empathy to his constant partial nudity. The circumstances of our culture and especially when discussing a show made in a time when queer people were not allowed to be discussed openly lead many people to discovering their sexuality/gender identity or seeing themselves represented as otherwise heterosexual cisgender characters. Jim Kirk is a multifaceted character who stands for justice and loyalty. He also has prominent muscles, tan, smooth skin, a deep voice, and a handsome face. The combination of all these factors is appealing to not only straight women, but also queer men. In addition, his relationship with Spock is reminiscent of many queer friendships/relationships: standing close together, never apart, the two of them understand each other better than anyone else (even their own families), they change tone when together, they sacrifice integral parts of themselves (career, emotions) for each other. Even though there is no on-screen intimacy, both men are clearly drawn to one another. Since one cannot be queer without the other being queer as well, Jim Kirk is definitely colored in shades of gay (can you tell I am still thinking about that Good Omens finale…)

My conclusion is rooted in my own opinion so please keep that in mind!: This interpretation is also comforting; to see such a strong masculine lead portrayed in a manner of femininity and queerness while being taken seriously is lacking today, especially among the rise of conservatism and fascism. Although we have gotten better in some aspects of men’s characterization in media, and by no means is Jim Kirk a perfect example, it is pleasing to know that such characters like this exist, even if the intent of the characters is not the same as much of the interpretation. 

The reason why Michael Rosenbaum is pretty unanimously considered the best Lex Luthor is because of Michael’s incredible acting chops, obviously, but also because of the character’s writing. This version of Lex is given depth, nuance, and a fully realized emotional arc that sets him apart from many other portrayals.

All the other Lex Luthors are very one note, mustache-twirling villains. We get absolutely no insight into who they are other than they want power at all costs and want to destroy Superman because he’s in their way. That works fine when we’re talking about a movie but something long term, like a TV show, is going to require a little more if the character is to remain compelling. Smallville understands this, and as a result, its Lex is not only engaging, but deeply sympathetic.

Now, before any comic fans come at me, this analysis considers only Smallville and all the Superman movies. I have no idea what Lex is like in the comics, if he’s explored more in depth in them as well or not. This analysis takes into account only Smallville and the movies.

So, having said that, Smallville’s Lex is completely fleshed out since his childhood and we get to see parts of him we never saw before. What that does is show us that Lex is arguably the most caring, compassionate and least judgmental character on the show and, above all, he’s a protector.

The protector role always belongs to Clark, and he is a protector too, obviously, don’t get me wrong, but Lex takes on that mantle here as well many times over. The following instances of that are not in order, I just wrote them all down as they came to me:

- He repeatedly tries to help the Kents financially;

- He buys the Talon for Lana and places her in charge of it so that she doesn’t have to move, even though it doesn’t really make any money and is kind of a moot business deal for him. He also allows her to live in the apartment above the Talon completely rent free;

- Later on, when Lana needs money to go to Paris, he buys her share of the Talon as soon as she asks and he is also the one to convince her that Paris is the right choice. He basically spent years supporting her, no questions asked, nothing in return required. He could do it, he cared about her, so he did it;

- When Lionel wants him to fire 20% of a LuhtorCorp company’s employees, Lex finds a way to increase the company’s profits by 20% without a single layoff;

- There are a few instances throughout the show, I don’t remember them all, where people need special medical attention and Lex always immediately pulls all his resources to get people the best possible care, no matter who they are;

- When a journalist starts going after Lana and then Clark, he’s the one that gets him to back off, even though working with him would actually benefit Lex because he had dirt on Lionel, whom Lex is desperately trying to bring down. But doing so would mean betraying his friendship with Clark and endangering him. Lex goes as far as threatening to kill him if he doesn’t leave his friends alone;

- When Lana is attacked at the Talon, Lex is the one who teaches her how to fight and to protect herself. Meanwhile, Clark tells her she should just move on;

- When Earl Jenkins holds Smallville High’s students hostage at the LuthorCorp plant, Lex goes in there by himself to talk to him. Earl claimed there was a level 3 at the plant, which made him sick and he wants to be taken there. Trying to gain his trust, Lex removes his bullet proof vest, lies about knowing where level 3 is and says he’ll take him there, thus getting him to let all the students go and placing himself in great danger, since he doesn’t know anything about a level 3 and Earl will kill him when he realizes that;

- When Lex was around 10 years old, he discovers his mother has killed his baby brother, Julian. Knowing Lionel will destroy her for that, Lex takes the blame for the baby’s death to protect her and becomes the sole focus of Lionel’s abuse and violence from that moment on;

- On that note, there’s the fact that Lex was physically and emotionally abused by his father his entire life and it only made him kinder and more protective of those he loves. He sees how awful his father is and he decides to go the opposite way. If Lex had had a family of his own at some point, he would have been the one to break the cycle of abuse and we see that on Lexmas;

- When Lionel commits him to Belle Reve, Lex knows about Clark’s secret and has many opportunities to use that to his advantage so he can escape but he doesn’t. Even when his father is about to perform electroshock therapy on him, which could kill him or leave him permanently incapacitated, he doesn’t say a word. I talk about this episode at length in this post;

- Lex harbors Ryan, a kid who is being searched by police, in his mansion. Ryan is also an example of Lex pulling on all his resources to get someone medical help;

- In season 6, when Lex is already well on his way down to evil ville, and he and Clark are enemies already, he gets trapped underground with Clark and has a chance to leave Clark down there to die but he doesn’t. He risks his own life to get Clark out;

- He takes a bullet and almost dies to save Lana;

- He helps Chloe fake her own death and hides her for months to protect her;

- I think it’s in season 2 that Lana starts receiving poems from a secret admirer. She’s very flattered and moved by it but everyone (Clark included) makes fun of her for it. Lex is the first one to reassure her and tell her that being cultured and well-read is a very good quality that everyone should strive for, and that anyone who thinks being a mindless hillbilly is a positive is probably not worth her time. I’m paraphrasing here but that’s basically the gist;

- When Lana gets infected by a meteor freak and steals (and I believe thrashes?) one of Lex’s cars because of it, after she’s back to her normal self she apologizes to him and he immediately tells her not to worry and that he did far worse at her age without the mitigating factor of not being in his right mind;

These are all the moments I can remember off the top of my head but there are many more, so, whoever reads this, feel free to add to it.

But the point is that there are countless instances of Lex helping people, being the only one to realize something’s wrong with someone and trying to do something about it, reassuring people, presenting a different perspective when someone is struggling, giving them a way out. Even when he’s already considered evil by the narrative.

It never made much sense to me why they had Lex being so constantly afraid of being like his father when his every action over the course of years proved that he was the complete antithesis of Lionel and not a single person on the show ever points that out to him. Quite the contrary. He is judged every time he takes a breath and is brutally condemned for ANY mistake no matter how small, even when it’s clearly not his fault. All the good he did, and there was so much of it (more than anyone else on the show I’d argue) was never enough.

Instead, Lex exists in an environment where his worst fears are constantly echoed back at him. Over time, this creates the sense that his eventual descent is not driven by inherent darkness, but by a prolonged denial of trust, understanding, and humanity.

Like this post by @izzymarksthespot says, “Lex Luthor turned out not to be evil, but a sad, traumatized man doing his damnedest to be good, only to get (metaphorically or not) slapped for his efforts any time someone deemed he's done something wrong. A "monster" created not by natural proclivity for violence and evil, but by being denied humanity over and over again.”

And if the following quote by Richard Siken doesn’t describe Lex perfectly I don’t know what does:

“We have not touched the stars, nor are we forgiven, which brings us back to the hero’s shoulders and the gentleness that comes, not from the absence of violence, but despite the abundance of it.”

So, if I had to describe Smallville’s Lex in one word, it would be: protector.

And then there’s Clark.

Clark is undeniably a hero. He saves lives, risks himself constantly, and ultimately embodies the role he is destined for. However, the writing surrounding his character often undermines this by placing him in situations where his moral stance becomes inconsistent or difficult to justify.

The central issue lies in how the show handles his secrecy.

Clark lies frequently, which is understandable given his circumstances. However, the problem is not the lying itself, it’s the standard he holds others to. He expects honesty, transparency, and moral clarity from those around him while routinely failing to meet those same expectations. When others fall short, he often responds with judgment rather than understanding, which creates a sense of hypocrisy. Even more than that, he seems to think he’s entitled to know every single aspect of people’s lives. Whatever it is they’re doing, for some reason, he has to be in the loop even if it has nothing to do with him.

When Lex starts getting medical treatments to try and regain the seven weeks of memory he lost when he was at Belle Reve, Clark is upset not be informed of this. From Lex’s perspective, this is a deeply personal matter that doesn’t concern Clark. Clark’s concern is tied to protecting his secret, but the situation raises a larger question: why not offer Lex partial truth? Clark could have explained those missing weeks without revealing his powers, potentially preventing Lex from pursuing a dangerous procedure. Instead, he allows Lex to proceed, prioritizing secrecy over Lex’s safety.

A similar issue arises after Lana is attacked. She wants to press charges, an entirely reasonable response, but Clark discourages her, fearing that an investigation might expose his abilities. From Lana’s perspective, this comes across as dismissive and invalidating. She is denied both justice and agency in a moment where she is most vulnerable.

Mind you, he doesn’t give her any alternatives, he just makes a puppy face and tells her to forget about it because it’ll hurt him. And later on, when he finds out Lex is teaching her how to fight so she can feel safer and protect herself, he gets upset over that too. This is particularly difficult to justify, as Lana’s self-defense has no connection to Clark’s secret. The result is a pattern where Clark not only limits others’ ability to protect themselves, but also resents those who try to help them do so.

Throughout the series, similar situations recur: Clark allows others to take risks or make harmful choices in order to protect his identity, even when alternative solutions exist. These moments create a version of Clark that feels less like a moral anchor and more like a character constrained by inconsistent writing choices.

Again, these are the moments I remember off the top of my head, so feel free to add any others.

But this is what I mean when I say Clark was very poorly written because they always had him in these scenarios where he constantly lied but demanded honesty, he expected things from people that he himself didn’t do, he was extremely judgmental, insisted on perfection from everyone around him and then punished them for not being perfect, and when he apologized for his mistakes he did it as if he was expecting forgiveness, not asking for it.

Bad, BAD, EVIL writing. We know that’s not who Clark is, why would they take this route with him?

It highlights a disconnect between who he is meant to be and how he is sometimes written.

Ultimately, that’s where the contrast between Clark and Lex becomes most compelling.

Lex is written with emotional continuity: his actions, motivations, and internal conflicts build on each other in a way that feels coherent and deliberate. Clark, on the other hand, is often placed in situations where his behavior contradicts his intended role as a moral center, not because of character development, but because of narrative convenience.

The result is a show where the supposed villain is, often, more empathetic, more self-aware, and more consistently protective than the hero.

And that, more than anything, is what makes Smallville's portrayal of Lex Luthor so memorable, and its portrayal of Clark Kent so frustrating.

So there you have it folks. I'm sorry if this is not as coherent as it could be, I was mostly just ranting but I tried to make it make sense.

Tagging those who asked to be tagged if I ever did an analysis: @arson-jellyfish @manyfrance @deltaoftheufe