Ah- Bo... uh Jon Kent. I have mixed feelings. I never felt the Pa Kent hate early on, because I kind of 'got' him. What I liked about him was that I thought he was honest. I like that. He didn't like Lex. He didn't trust Lex. He wasn't shy about letting folks know it. But that was HONEST and he did have his reasons. And then when we found out that he'd done a deal with Lionel- betrayed his friends in order to keep Clark... I liked him more. Why- because it made more sense of why he might have an issue with Lex. In some ways his dislike was a result of his own guilt. That made sense. None of which is to say I won't 'boo' him when he's being mean to Lex- but I still LIKED him! There wasn't anything 'two-faced' about him.
Now I DID have a major problem in s-3 when Jon encouraged Clark leave Lex in Belle Reve- and particularly when he seemed to hint that it would be better for Lex to get brain damaged than to risk Clark's secret. And I had a BIG problem with that for a couple of reasons:
1. Like I say- I always thought of Jon as honest and loyal. Perhaps to a fault. And when Jon gave Lex that watch for his wedding, when he accepted the deed to the farm in s3- both of those things seemed to me to say 'welcome to the family- you're one of us, now.' No, I didn't think Jon was going to go around revealing Clark's secrets- but dammit, he let Lex in. That means Jon owed Lex a kind of loyalty. He doesn't get to have it both ways- take him in (watch and deed) yet hang him out to dry (brain fry). That irked the crap out of me.
2. Already mentioned above- but... I'm never quite sure on how we are supposed to view the Kents. Sometimes, it seems to me Jon is telling Clark that he needs to 'do the right thing' and not put himself before others. However, other times, it seems he's saying 'family comes first, and that needs to be protected above all else'. Now either of these two approaches works for me, but they are NOT synonymous. Again, you don't get to have it both ways. And what really irks is, I'm not at all certain that the audience is suppossed to notice the difference. I'm not certain that AlMiles notice the difference. If they do (and we are) then that's cool- yes, it makes the Kents much more interesting and complex than they appear on the surface. But a lot of time, I get the feeling that we're supposed to think the Kents stand for all that is good and right and honest when clearly- they don't. So... it often rubs me the wrong way.
As to Jon freaking about Clark being gay... I could pretty easily imagine him homophobic. Just a stereotype of a small town football 'good-ole-boy' who thought the scarecrow tradition was nifty. However, I think he'd 'deal' if Clark ended up gay- because it's pretty clear he loves his son and Jon has had to deal with a lot of stuff that's MUCH weirder than a gay kid! (A gay alien son who wants to date a Luthor... now that might push him over the ledge!)
Hm- but I still don't hate Jon. OK, sometimes I do. But not too often!
no subject
Now I DID have a major problem in s-3 when Jon encouraged Clark leave Lex in Belle Reve- and particularly when he seemed to hint that it would be better for Lex to get brain damaged than to risk Clark's secret. And I had a BIG problem with that for a couple of reasons:
1. Like I say- I always thought of Jon as honest and loyal. Perhaps to a fault. And when Jon gave Lex that watch for his wedding, when he accepted the deed to the farm in s3- both of those things seemed to me to say 'welcome to the family- you're one of us, now.' No, I didn't think Jon was going to go around revealing Clark's secrets- but dammit, he let Lex in. That means Jon owed Lex a kind of loyalty. He doesn't get to have it both ways- take him in (watch and deed) yet hang him out to dry (brain fry). That irked the crap out of me.
2. Already mentioned above- but... I'm never quite sure on how we are supposed to view the Kents. Sometimes, it seems to me Jon is telling Clark that he needs to 'do the right thing' and not put himself before others. However, other times, it seems he's saying 'family comes first, and that needs to be protected above all else'. Now either of these two approaches works for me, but they are NOT synonymous. Again, you don't get to have it both ways. And what really irks is, I'm not at all certain that the audience is suppossed to notice the difference. I'm not certain that AlMiles notice the difference. If they do (and we are) then that's cool- yes, it makes the Kents much more interesting and complex than they appear on the surface. But a lot of time, I get the feeling that we're supposed to think the Kents stand for all that is good and right and honest when clearly- they don't. So... it often rubs me the wrong way.
As to Jon freaking about Clark being gay... I could pretty easily imagine him homophobic. Just a stereotype of a small town football 'good-ole-boy' who thought the scarecrow tradition was nifty. However, I think he'd 'deal' if Clark ended up gay- because it's pretty clear he loves his son and Jon has had to deal with a lot of stuff that's MUCH weirder than a gay kid! (A gay alien son who wants to date a Luthor... now that might push him over the ledge!)
Hm- but I still don't hate Jon. OK, sometimes I do. But not too often!