Additional Heroes thoughts

[selenak]

It's fascinating, especially with an ongoing show (i.e. open canon that can change at any moment and doesn't offer the possibility to say "ah, you may think X does this because of Y, but in the last episode, we actually find out for good it's because of Z!"), to observe how different viewers can interpret the same scenes.




Mrs. Gray and Gabriel/Sylar: checking on message boards and other reviews, I saw both objections along the lines of "are we supposed to feel sympathy for Sylar because he had a bad mother?"' and exclamations along the lines of "omg, all he wanted was his mother to love him, the poor guy!" Now I think the gender policies of this show are somewhat dodgy, but I actually got neither impression from the way Mrs. Gray was presented in The Hard Part - i.e. I didn't see her presented as a "bad" mother - or an excuse for Gabriel Gray becoming a serial killer naming himself Sylar. She rather struck me as an Arthur Miller character; Willy Loman in female form (complete with an increasing inability to deal with harsh reality and withdrawal into a fantasy world), if you like, not Willy's wife. Her reply "why would I tell you that, if you can be so much more?" - to his "could you not tell me I can be not special?" query - doesn't endorse Sylar continuing his murderous career, about which she has no idea; note that the next thing he asks, still clad in "what if?", is whether killing others is an acceptable price for specialness, and Mrs. Gray unambiguously rejects this. Her Gabriel does not kill people. Except that he does, of course, and so we get to the open rejection once she senses that about him. Mrs. Gray's wish for her son to be "an investment banker" or some other glamorous sounding thing is no more or less harmful, by itself, than any other parents' wish for their children to succeed in life. It's the context which makes it fatal.

As for the question whether or not Sylar would actually have stopped killing if Mrs. Gray had said something along the lines of "you're wonderful as a watchmaker, stay that!": I don't think so. I think it's right that Hiro, our observer in this scene, wants to give Sylar the benefit of the doubt, but that's a different issue. Note that Sylar's question to both Mohinder and his mother, though more openly to Mohinder isn't "why would I commit a massacre at all?" but "why would I kill so many people without gain?" There is also the factor of control, as cadesama pointed out; all his previous kills have been planned by him and chosen by him, but now that he's stuck with Isaac's precog ability, he's also (at first) stuck with the sense of fate unfolding, no matter his own choices, and so he tries to get control from the first instance anyone ever has, their parents... but it's a temporary thing. To return to my Hamlet and praying Claudius comparison from the episode review: that scene ends with Claudius concluding he cannot truly repent as long as he cannot wish what he gained from his murder away - his queen and his throne - and thus he's back on course. There is no indication Sylar would be able to live without everything his murders gave him, all those special abilities, and sooner or later, those he had wouldn't be enough anymore.

Does that mean Mrs. Gray had no hand in forming Sylar: well, no, and yes, she had. Much as Willy Loman, with the best of intentions, has a hand in making his son someone as unable to function in the "real" world as Willy himself is, though in a different way. I don't know whether that makes Willy and Mrs. Gray "bad" parents; I'd say it makes them unlucky ones.


...and then there's Mrs. Petrelli and Nathan. Again, I was surprised by the very different interpretations their scene had, or rather, that it was interpreted as unambigous (Nathan completely accepts Angela's doctrine at the end - that seems to be the consensus on forums; and, more rarely, Nathan rejects it but plays for time), because it struck me as extremely ambiguous (and very well acted), which made for its strength. It is both a parallel and a complete contrast and reverse to what has been going on with Mrs. Gray and Sylar. Starting with the technical details; son seeking out mother, asking questions, trying to get her to validate, or not, what he's doing; mother seeking out son, issuing statements, wishing him to validate what she has planned. With the Grays, neither party is in control, and neither party says what the other wishes to hear; with the Petrellis, Angela is completely self-possessed and the one who keeps talking, never asking a question except for the one at the end, while Nathan goes from somewhat shocked surprise to increasing and then complete silence. What he says in this scene is:

"You knew? You knew about Linderman's plans?"

"You think I am a mass murderer?"

"That was different, Ma, we were at war. I can't accept this."

Which is the last thing he says. The rest of the scene is played out in utter silence on his part. Angela takes his looking back at her as consensus. But his facial expressions throughout, especially when he turns away from her while she puts the jacket on him, are anything but accepting; if anything, they're tormented and horror-struck. Which isn't to say I read the scene as a rejection in disguise, but I do think it is a classic case of Petrelli miscommunication and a set up for things to come. The interesting thing is that Angela Petrelli has never been presented as having an emotional connection to Nathan. At all. To Peter, yes, but not to Nathan. Simultanously, she has always been presented as being majorly invested in his campaign, with "Nothing to Hide", "Run" and her words to him in "O.07" highlighting this; which makes sense in lights of the revelation that she has signed on to the utopia-via-major-catastrophe-first plan. One thing Mrs. Petrelli does have in common with Mrs. Gray is that utter conviction she knows exactly "what you're capable of". Mrs. Gray thinks Gabriel couldn't hurt a fly; Angela thinks Nathan can allow and encourage an explosion that takes out half of New York City. The audience already knows Mrs. Gray is wrong and that in one time-line, Angela was right. And yet Mrs. Gray ends up telling her son he's dammed, and Angela ends up telling her son he's destined to create utopia, and in that timeline we recently saw, Mrs. Gray was right, and Angela was wrong. Which leads us to a central question for the show - free will versus destiny. Nathan gets told by good guys (Peter, Hiro) and bad guys (Linderman, Thompson) alike it is their mission to save the world; his mother says "believe", his brother says "trust", and the irony is that they mean something similar and yet so different. In their ways, both Peter and Angela (and Linderman) are convinced of the right(ous)ness of their cause; Peter, of course is willing to sacrifice himself, whereas Linderman and Angela are determined to sacrifice others.

(When Nathan asks Thompson "Why are you asking me to make this sacrifice?", the phrasing is nicely ambivalent. It can mean "why are you asking me to sacrifice the lives of so many people?" or "why are you asking me to sacrifice my own humanity?")

"He forgot that killing should be hard," Hiro says about Future!Hiro, determined not to become him; whether or not he will succeed is what we're going to see on this show. Angela, I think has definitely forgotten, as did Linderman; Nathan is still aware - which doesn't mean he's not capable of it, of course - and it shows in his vocabulary; "mass murderer" is all the high rethoric his mother and Linderman use stripped bare.

So, if Nathan does what he must have done in the "Five Years Gone" timeline - allow the explosion to happen and perhaps take steps to ensure it will - would that make it his mother's fault? No, not in the sense of "blame the parents" , and definitely not in the sense of absolving Nathan from responsibility (he is nearly forty!); she'd be a fellow culprit by rights of her own actions, not her parenting skills. If, on the other hand, Nathan makes a different decision in this current timeline, it won't be thanks to Angela, either. The responsibility and choice are his.




Which brings me to the survival stakes for the finale. Nathan is the character I'm most worried about, which isn't just a question of sympathy. Consider:

Hiro: no way they're going to kill Hiro. He's 100% immune to killing by virtue of being the most popular character and embodiment of optimism.

Ando: pre-"Five Years Gone" I was worried, now I'm not anymore, because of the "death of Ando creates Future!Hiro" thing; I very much doubt Future!Hiro will be presented on this show on a regular basis, as opposed to Current Hiro, who is the character the audience fell for.

Peter: too many fake deaths for the genuine thing to happen. The one niggling concern I have is that Future!Peter still has all his powers, and there's no way they can keep a regular character this powerful, but that is easily avoidable by getting him depowered to some degree through whatever will happen with the explosion.

Claire: see also: Hiro. No way they're going to kill Claire. Aside from, you know, her being unkillable anyway unless someone removes her brains, and considering Sylar did that in the AU Future, I very much doubt he'll do it in the present.

Mr. Bennet: Hmmm. Next to Nathan the character I'm most worried about. On the one hand, he became an audience favourite, and provided the Company gets taken down, there is nothing to prevent him going home to Texas with Claire afterwards; on the other, that might be the very reason why he's in danger, if the show wants to keep Claire in New York. Still, if I had to bet, I'd bet on survival.

Niki/Jessica: had shaky writing and the storyline least connected to the central arc, but won't get killed precisely because the emotional impact on the audience would not be strong enough.

DL: And his death would have even less impact. Except for making an unfortunate third after Simone and Isaac. Otoh, see also: dodgy politics. Hm, could be, but I doubt it.

Micah: now that definitely would have an emotional impact and might be the event that triggers the integration of Niki and Jessica, but tv shows very rarely kill children. Especially regular children.

Mohinder: is the narrator. We're stuck with him.

Nathan: well now. One of my worries actually isn't his death, it's the show doing what I tend to call "pulling a Gul Dukat", though now I suppose I can also call it "pulling an Irina Derevko", i.e. making a previously shades of grey character unambiguously evil. Complete with slightly insane evil overlord speech. Considering they've been careful to keep the shades of greyness throughout the season, I don't think so, but I'm scarred and cannot exclude it completely due to previous examples. If they go with this scenario, allow me to predict it won't actually be Peter who takes Evil!Nathan down; it will be Hiro, and those very cute scenes between them so far will be the heartbreaking set up for that, and the man Hiro is depicted stabbing in the comics isn't actually Sylar, it's Nathan.

My other worry is that they'll go Return of the Jedi on us; i.e. the audience will be led to assume Nathan has irrevocably fallen to the dark side right until the moment he sacrifices his life for Peter and the general population. I could live with that, actually - I do like RotJ - but I'd rather not. If they do this, then Peter's second vision, which has Nathan saying "I'm not leaving you", will have predicted it. My "no they won't" arguments for that are mostly dependent on Peter; this is an ensemble show, but let's face it, Peter from the pilot onwards has been placed in something of a central position, and such a scenario would have him far too passive in finale heroics. (Otoh, see also: Luke Skywalker. Soul-saving is outwardly passive.) Moreover, while I think Peter could actually deal with Nathan's death in general better than Nathan could with Peter's, he definitely couldn't if Nathan dies in any way due to him, and much as I don't think we'll get Future!Hiro as a regular, I don't think we'll get Future!Peter, either. At least not yet.

What I hope for is an in between, i.e. Nathan ultimately sides with Peter & Co. in the final conflict, but Peter (and Claire, but definitely Peter) are aware how far he came to going through with the Ozymandias scenario, and he'll have to deal with that in the next season. Alive and in shades of grey, i.e. neither as a villain nor completely redeemed. Is that too much to ask, Kring?

Comments

[mymatedave.livejournal.com]

Really like your meta. Always insightful and interesting.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[mimesh.livejournal.com]

Ok, that's it! I have to friend you. Your Heroes meta is simply amazing. :)

I got here via friends-friends-friends and i hope you don't mind that I invade your journal and just hop into this discussion.

I couldn't agree more about the scene between Nathan and his mother. Ever since Nathan met Linderman and was told about the plan and his own role in that, you could see his inner struggle on his face. Adrian is so good with showing so much just by a subtle wince or look. But perhaps it's too subtle for some people since many think he has already gone darkside. Or I'm just in denial because he is one of my favorite characters and I want him to do the right thing. Oh, and preferably survive!

Given what they did with Nathan's character over the stretch of the entire season it would be greatly disappointing if they simply let him go darkside. The amount of time they spent on showing his inner struggle and the manipulation efforts of Mama Petrelli & Co. give me hope that it's a set up for him doing the right thing and rebel against their plans in the end. He really would have to pull the evil-overlord-speech otherwise for it to be somehow climactic and surprising after this build up and like I said that doesn't seem to make sense given his character development. But I hope that Nathan making the right choice in the end won't result in him sacrificing himself either. Your hope for an in between scenario sounds good! ;)

Btw, I don't know how you feel about spoilers but here (http://nbc.epk.tv/view.aspx?request=episode&show=heroes&episode=landslide&showEpisodeID=207) are three clips from the next episode, two featuring Nathan and they simply break me!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Adrian is so good with showing so much just by a subtle wince or look. But perhaps it's too subtle for some people since many think he has already gone darkside.

It might be. But as a viewer, I prefer it to being hit over the head with anviliousness and/or over the top acting!

Btw, I don't know how you feel about spoilers but here are three clips from the next episode, two featuring Nathan and they simply break me!

Clips are okay, written spoilers I try to avoid. Just checked on those clips, and oh, they're truly heartrendering. Especially the one with Hiro. Though the Hiro one is also comforting in a painful way, because this is the last but one episode, not the last one, and I think if we ended up with Nathan as an Evil Overlord, such a scene would come near the end or not at all. It only serves a purpose if they go with the redemption scenario. Hopefully not in a lethal way!

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

*facepalm*

I had this huge post written up about redemptive arcs/deaths and how the show handles them, and then I somehow lost it somewhere. Damn. I'll try to list my thoughts again in somewhat more condensed form (well, relatively):

- I am one of the people guilty of reading the scene between Nathan and Angela as him rejecting the idea and playing for time, but I'm moving over to your end of the debate, especially in light of the new episode clips. I guess I simply see him as much more machiavellian than he really is - my favourite Nathan scene is still the conversation with Linderman's henchwoman about the blackmail tape in Hiros, but I'm afraid they've all but abandoned that side of the character by now. Shame.

- This also ails me because while Nathan as a character with his own agenda who is playing everyone doesn't have much need for a noble sacrifice, while it is certainly a development that would fit Nathan as someone who doesn't know exactly what side he is on and who currently is flirting not only with his darker impulses, but also with ultimately accepting the role his parents decided upon when he was a child - or even earlier, in the sense of "our first son will become something greater." Going for sacrificing himself would at least be a decision he made on his own. Of course it would also be a waste of a fascinating character, but that's a different story.

- as for redemptive deaths, I'll try to keep this shorter than it was when I first wrote it up, but the gist is this: we had two examples for this, Eden and Isaac. I think both their developments prior to their deaths were pretty straight forward - Eden went from seemingly bad to showing a conscience and trying to right a wrong by going against her superiors' orders, Isaac went from screw-up to seemingly improving, only to go back to his screw-up ways at the first moments of crisis.

Of course there are also meta reasons for both their deaths - Eden was only a guest character and was always slated to die, but did so earlier because of contract reasons, and Isaac pretty much had no real development to speak of. I'm mentioning these mostly to say that there is no way that TPTB only measure their writing after storytelling aspects, and Nathan is arguably one of their most developed and versatile characters.
He was always much more ambiguous than both Eden and Isaac in his character traits, he really went back and forth between the characterizations Peter and Angela gave in the Pilot: from cold, selfish and disconnected to reliable and protective, caring and connected, and most of the possibilities in between. Even more so, his behaviour didn't always fit his intentions - he could be cold to be protective, disconnected because he was caring, etc. Since this ambiguity is so inherent in his character I would simply hope that they would find a less than black-and-white solution when it comes to him possibly joining the good fight - and preferably one where he isn't taken out permanently. It would seem to be such a waste of both character and actor, especially after only one season.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I guess I simply see him as much more machiavellian than he really is - my favourite Nathan scene is still the conversation with Linderman's henchwoman about the blackmail tape in Hiros, but I'm afraid they've all but abandoned that side of the character by now. Shame.

Oh, I loved that scene as well, and I agree that it would be fabulous if they'd use that side of him again, but I think the narrative problem is that this time, the stakes are simply too high for such tactics. When he dealt with the blackmail tape, it was his election to Congressman (and support for same); important to him, absolutely, very important, but still not quintessential. This time, it's thousand of New Yorkers, by universal prediction the world at large (ah, America!), and of course his brother; if not his brother's life, then his brother's mind. Bluffing under such circumstances is a different game.

Going for sacrificing himself would at least be a decision he made on his own. Of course it would also be a waste of a fascinating character, but that's a different story.

Agreed on both points.


Since this ambiguity is so inherent in his character I would simply hope that they would find a less than black-and-white solution when it comes to him possibly joining the good fight - and preferably one where he isn't taken out permanently. It would seem to be such a waste of both character and actor, especially after only one season.

This makes sense, and I do hope you're right, but let me play devil's advocate: didn't TPTB say for a long time they were intending to change ensembles every season, keep telling origin stories? I know they changed their mind because of the popularity of the current ensemble; however, the two Petrellis as central characters with an arc are pretty much outlined in the pilot, and it could be possible that they intended to kill off Nathan at the end of the season from the start, too...

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

didn't TPTB say for a long time they were intending to change ensembles every season, keep telling origin stories? I know they changed their mind because of the popularity of the current ensemble; however, the two Petrellis as central characters with an arc are pretty much outlined in the pilot, and it could be possible that they intended to kill off Nathan at the end of the season from the start, too...

I'm vaguely cynical on this one, since I didn't believe this announcement when it first came up, and I didn't believe that Kring "suddenly" changed his mind on this, either. I also think that what he said has been blown out of proportion, since in the interviews I read (mainly one on SciFi.com which did cause most of the fandom flailing IIRC) he stated that most of the current heroes would return.

In addition to this, I'm somewhat familiar with Kring's policy with characters that don't work back from his time on Crossing Jordan, and he is really quick in cutting off dead weight. From that angle alone I am pretty sure that D.L. is a goner, for instance, and that Niki would be gone if she wasn't played by Ali Larter. Of course that wouldn't protect Nathan if they've absolutely built it into the storyline that he has to die, but it's certainly a hint that Kring tends to be pragmatically enough to go with characters that work rather than with what they've decided in the beginning.

As for the Petrelli plotline making it necessary for Nathan to die, I'm far less convinced of this since episode 19. Before, it really seemed that it was Peter who needed Nathan's approval and protection, and it's such a common trope that once the younger character (child, sibling, whatever) has grown out of this need, the older one dies to complete this development, but by that episode they had almost exchanged places emotionally, since now it is clearly Nathan who is dependent on his brother's approval (and even more, he apparently always felt that way).

In connection to this, Peter's development has led him from a reluctant and insecure eternal adolescent to someone who is dedicated and self-confident and willing to make mature decisions, and I don't see how this can be reconciled with an ending that has him necessarily being a passive threat without the ability to act on his own and in need to be saved by his brother. It would completely reverse his own arc, as well as their mutual one.

Of course, Nathan sacrificing himself could be disconnected to Peter exploding, but that would seem rather odd to me, since he is so caught both in the bomb plot and with Peter, anyway. Dying heroically by keeping Sylar from eating Micah's brain probably wouldn't cut it in that situation.

Last not least, I still wonder if Claire will have anything to do with what Nathan ultimately decides to do, because so far I'm finding the decision of making her his daughter somewhat random. (Awesome, yes, but also a little, I don't know, pointless?)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It would completely reverse his own arc, as well as their mutual one.


*beams*

Now you've convinced me, and excellent point about the need of more follow-up on the Claire situation, too. Yay! Or rather, yatta!

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Or rather, yatta!

*g*

Now let's just hope TPTB don't prove me wrong on this. *keeps fingers crossed*

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

In addition to this, I'm somewhat familiar with Kring's policy with characters that don't work back from his time on Crossing Jordan, and he is really quick in cutting off dead weight.

You give me hope. :-)

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

I'm loving all your thoughts, even though it'll probably take me a while to process them. *g*

Peter: too many fake deaths for the genuine thing to happen.

But he did utter the BIG FLASHING RED LIGHT sentence, "Good thing I can't die, then." Which is usually a sign that the character is going to bite it. I don't know what I'll do if the Petrellis don't all make it through alive.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

But he did utter the BIG FLASHING RED LIGHT sentence, "Good thing I can't die, then."

True, and if it weren't for all the previous deaths, I'd be very alarmed as well, but this is like Frodo in LotR - Peter might "go to the west" when all is over, i.e. go in to self imposed exile or something like that to deal with his powers, only to return next season, but I'm really willing to bet money he won't die a literal death (except for a temporary one). We already had the Petrellis (and Mohinder) grieving for Peter scene; they won't repeat it.

I don't know what I'll do if the Petrellis don't all make it through alive.

I know I'll cry and be a wreck for weeks. Will I be back next season? Welllll, the show so far has been so entrancing and I do like the other characters as well, but otoh, the Petrelli brothers are really my most beloved darlings, so - yes, will probably be back. Cursing at TPTB.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

I agree that they probably won't kill off Niki or DL because of the lack of emotional impact, but...damn. I'd rather take that than have them kill off my favorites.

Characters who must. not. die: Peter, Claire, and Nathan. In that order.

Characters who I'd like to see live, but aren't dealbreakers: HRG, Hiro and Ando, Mama Petrelli, Mohinder.

Characters I don't really care about: everyone else.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I think everyone would prefer if non-favorites would get killed off, but tv rarely works that way. Well, sometimes works that way, but not in season finales when the deaths are supposed to have a major impact. Ah, curses.

[kernezelda]

Excellent meta.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I really don't get the people who instinctively take all the ambiguity out of tv. There's not trusting that the writing is actually that good, I suppose, but it mostly seems that most people want to be able to categorize everyone. Which removes the most interesting parts!

I agree that Mama Gray most definitely damaged her son, but can't possibly be held responsible for Sylar's actions. I think I do see her as a worse mother than you do, though. She managed to both instill the idea that Gabriel should become special and the idea that she and his father were "insignificant" in his mind. Passing along that kind of self-hatred is not a good parenting technique. I get some verbal abuse vibes from her, especially because Sylar seems like a good candidate for Bordeline Personality Disorder (at least, going off my old Psychopathology professor's use of The Talented Mr. Ripley as par exemplar for that that disorder), which is linked to verbal abuse.

In their ways, both Peter and Angela (and Linderman) are convinced of the right(ous)ness of their cause;

Not only that, but they are true believers in destiny. It's just that Angela and Linderman view destiny as a negative force. You cannot avoid the bomb, but you can use it to your advantage. Peter doesn't believe the bomb is destined; he believes that he and Claire are destined to stop it. But, then again, he is working from multiple prophecies, the most important of which is about saving the world. Linderman and Angela appear to be working primarily from Isaac's painting.

"He forgot that killing should be hard," Hiro says about Future!Hiro, determined not to become him; whether or not he will succeed is what we're going to see on this show. Angela, I think has definitely forgotten, as did Linderman;

Good point. I would really, really love to see Angela as a villain next season. It's so difficult to come up with villains who are serious threats, but can't be killed and won't kill the heroes. What better reason than because they are your sons?

Mr. Bennet: Hmmm. Next to Nathan the character I'm most worried about. On the one hand, he became an audience favourite, and provided the Company gets taken down, there is nothing to prevent him going home to Texas with Claire afterwards; on the other, that might be the very reason why he's in danger, if the show wants to keep Claire in New York.

Argh, thanks for making me worry. >.< Although I think I'd handle his death better than Nathan's. He's definitely had a stronger redemptive arc than Nathan, who is still playing it ambiguous down to the wire.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

There's not trusting that the writing is actually that good, I suppose, but it mostly seems that most people want to be able to categorize everyone. Which removes the most interesting parts!

Indeed it does. If all the characters were clearly predictable as villains or heroes, the narrative becomes that much less colourful...

I do see her as a worse mother than you do, though. She managed to both instill the idea that Gabriel should become special and the idea that she and his father were "insignificant" in his mind.

Hm, true, though we don't know how Father Gray figured into that one; her keeping the broking watch while obviously hating the watchmaking business and what it symbolizes is definitely open to interpretation.

Sidenote: didn't Gabriel say to Chandra Suresh he always thought as a child that he was adopted and his parents were really not these insignificant people? (When not trying to kill her, he ought to talk with Claire about the whole risk of glorifying your birth parents if they're not the same as the parents who raised you!)

at least, going off my old Psychopathology professor's use of The Talented Mr. Ripley as par exemplar for that that disorder),

He diagnosed Tom Ripley that way? Borderline, I mean? Not stronger than that?

It's just that Angela and Linderman view destiny as a negative force. You cannot avoid the bomb, but you can use it to your advantage. Peter doesn't believe the bomb is destined; he believes that he and Claire are destined to stop it.

Do you think age factors in, or that Angela and Linderman would have held the same view as young people? (Excluding what comics info we have on Linderman and going by tv impression only.) Because if they do play out the Generations theme next season, one of the questions surely will be "how do we avoid becoming our parents". In Claire's case, "how do I avoid becoming my grandmother?" would be even more interesting, especially if they play Angela as an antagonist and work with the comparisons Angela has already made between the two of them.

Argh, thanks for making me worry.

Sorry. I couldn't help myself!

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

(When not trying to kill her, he ought to talk with Claire about the whole risk of glorifying your birth parents if they're not the same as the parents who raised you!)

Totally! And then he can have a chat with Peter about what wanting to be special really means.

He diagnosed Tom Ripley that way? Borderline, I mean? Not stronger than that?

Borderline is actually a very severe diagnosis. It's the one that psychologists cringe at the idea of treating. Swinging between extremes of adulation and hatred for themselves and everyone else, risky behaviors, violence, suicidal gestures, fluid identity state ... yeah, it's not good. It's the counterpart of Antisocial Personality Disorder (because psychologists unfortunately tend to diagnosis BPD in women when they would diagnose the same symptoms/behaviors as APD in men), which probably what most people would diagnose Sylar as, but he has that shifty identity thing going on which pings me as BPD.

Do you think age factors in, or that Angela and Linderman would have held the same view as young people?

I think it must. Linderman says they tried to change the world when they were younger, and if Angela truly does have prophetic dreams, they most likely tried to defy them. That would explain why they fell apart as a team. Linderman mentions that some of them used their powers for their own gain, and while I think that's part of it, I think that consistent failure in the face of prophecy, or making changes that didn't fix things completely, would have worn them down and jaded them pretty thoroughly.

In Claire's case, "how do I avoid becoming my grandmother?" would be even more interesting, especially if they play Angela as an antagonist and work with the comparisons Angela has already made between the two of them.

Especially because if the Peter-Linderman parallels they've set up (which, okay, are from only a couple of lines, but bear with me) are continued, then the answer for Claire can't be using Peter as a moral compass. The idealists can be corrupted just the same as the ambivalent, moreso even.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Borderline is actually a very severe diagnosis. It's the one that psychologists cringe at the idea of treating. Swinging between extremes of adulation and hatred for themselves and everyone else, risky behaviors, violence, suicidal gestures, fluid identity state ... yeah, it's not good.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation; I didn't know, due to having heard the term used differently by layman (laywomen?).

I think that consistent failure in the face of prophecy, or making changes that didn't fix things completely, would have worn them down and jaded them pretty thoroughly.

It would also explain why they really want the big, radical solution so much, no matter how many people die to get it.


Especially because if the Peter-Linderman parallels they've set up (which, okay, are from only a couple of lines, but bear with me) are continued, then the answer for Claire can't be using Peter as a moral compass. The idealists can be corrupted just the same as the ambivalent, moreso even.

True. Peter and Claire can support each other as a team, but they can't bear the moral responsibility for each other; they'll have to make their own choices. And I think we already saw Claire moving from assuming Peter would have the answer to everything (because he's her hero) to figuring out sometimes he has no clue, and that she needs to come up with answers of her own as well.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation; I didn't know, due to having heard the term used differently by layman (laywomen?).

It doesn't help much that the name of the disorder is actually lingering Freudian terminology. They are on the borderline between psychotic and neurotic -- which really means they get they best of both worlds.

It would also explain why they really want the big, radical solution so much, no matter how many people die to get it.

That makes for another nice contrast to Team Save the World. Peter specifically (but I think Hiro and Claire as well) look at saving the world as something that can be done on a personal level. And, of course, it is their connections with friends than help Peter and Hiro's powers even function.

And I think we already saw Claire moving from assuming Peter would have the answer to everything (because he's her hero) to figuring out sometimes he has no clue, and that she needs to come up with answers of her own as well.

Exactly. At the end of the episode, I don't think that she's helping him just because he's the only one he trusts, and she's going to stick around even if he seems crazy. He's convinced her of the danger and she wants to help.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

They are on the borderline between psychotic and neurotic -- which really means they get they best of both worlds.

Yikes.


Speaking of Claire... (http://selenak.livejournal.com/290524.html) This was inspired by an earlier discussion we had.

[alias_sqbr]

Good point. I would really, really love to see Angela as a villain next season. It's so difficult to come up with villains who are serious threats, but can't be killed and won't kill the heroes. What better reason than because they are your sons?

Ooh! What a cool thought! She'd be great!

[paratti.livejournal.com]

If the Petrelli's are the Hero's equivalent to the X-Men's Summers/Grey clan, and I suspect they are, even if one does die, it's unlikely to take.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Excellent point. I shall cling to that!

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I really doubt Peter would put up with Nathan being dead, anymore than Hiro put up with Ando being dead.

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

This is all very smart. :)

[deevalish.livejournal.com]

You are now my go to person for Heroes thoughts. I only just came across your wonderful reviews and find that I must go back and read your earlier postings. Fantastic writing.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

*blushes*

Thank you.

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

I am totally with you via Mrs. Gray -- she pressured Gabriel somewhat, but the way that most mothers pressure most children. Most of us manage to say, "Lay off me," or to make our peace with the lives we have, instead of, oh, KILLING DOZENS OF PEOPLE. It was obvious that she had missed him and wanted very much to care for him in some way -- somehow even his rejection of her offer of a sandwich was incredibly loaded -- which makes her a far cry from a bad guy.

Mrs. Petrelli, though, is verging on Mrs. Iselin from "The Manchurian Candidate." ITA that Nathan could well end up dying in the finale, although I actually put the odds of a Mr. Bennett death somewhat higher. Fans love Mr. Bennett, but OTOH, you get more mileage out of the death that way; also, as you said, if Mr. Bennett lives, then Claire probably goes back to Texas and falls out of the action again. I don't think they can let that happen. However, if Mr. Bennett dies, Claire is thrown into the Petrelli family for good. (And another point in favor of keeping Nathan alive is that they haven't even started to plumb that father-daughter relationship yet.)

For all that I certainly don't know what they're planning, I actually don't think Nathan is considering taking the offer at all -- I think he's trying to think of a way to turn the tables on them. In other words, I think he's going to be cleared of collusion with the Linderman group altogether. However, I don't agree that this would remove the shades of gray in his character. Nathan remains focused on power, cool in his personal relationships, an unfaithful husband and a manipulative guy. You can be totally against the idea of setting of a nuclear bomb and still have plenty of moral gray area to work with, IMHO.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

(And another point in favor of keeping Nathan alive is that they haven't even started to plumb that father-daughter relationship yet.)

Amen to this. More Petrelli family interaction can *never* be a bad thing.

I really, really want Nathan to remain "morally liquid," as Pasdar himself put it. I don't want him wholly evil or wholly good--I want him to be the ambitious opportunist we've seen him be so far.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

You can be totally against the idea of setting of a nuclear bomb and still have plenty of moral gray area to work with, IMHO.

Oh, absolutely, and I don't think if he makes it out of the finale alive and in collision with the forces of good instead of evil, he'll be free of his shadier traits, either. (Nor would we want him to, right?)

Re: Nathan and Mr. Bennet as primary death candidates: I love them both, but it's not just I love Nathan a bit more, I do think that if you have to choose which one has more storytelling potential left, you'd with Nathan.

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

Yes, Nathan must remain entertainingly screwed-up from now until the end of time. And to do so, he must STAY ALIVE.

ITA that Nathan has more story left to tell. In some ways, Nathan's story seems to only be beginning, as he has finally been forced to confront the fact that he can't just hide out in normalcy -- regardless of his power, it turns out that his family and his connections are all deeply mired in this huge conspiracy. I think one of the very few things we do know absolutely about Nathan is that he doesn't like the idea that he's on a leash; he might not fight for truth, justice and the American way, but I think he'd fight like hell to preserve his own independence (and Peter's, and maybe Claire's).

Whereas, with Mr. Bennett -- we've established that he never reached the upper echelons of Linderman's organization and as such only knows a fragment of what's going on. Most of the useful information he has, our heroes either have already obtained or now have better sources for. He has no power of his own. I'm not sure where he goes from here. If he doesn't die, I predict some huge twist regarding him, b/c as things stand, he doesn't have much more story to play out.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

I agree that I'd rather have HRG die than Nathan, if one of them has to go (but damn...there are so many less compelling characters they could kill off...).

But I'd be sad if we didn't get at least one HRG-Peter scene before the finale. *hopes*

[linaerys.livejournal.com]

You're brilliant, may I friend you? (And I'm not just saying you're brilliant because I've been over a lot of these arguments in my LJ in the past weeks, but less pithily.)

Also, that scene with Nathan and Mrs. P was definitely ambiguous. Nathan doesn't agree to anything. You can see his calling Linderman/Thompson has having tacitly agreed to the plan already, but you don't have to--he could just be trying to find out more about the plan so he can more effectively foil it.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Friend away, and let me return the compliment, as I've been devouring your fanfic this last month.

You can see his calling Linderman/Thompson has having tacitly agreed to the plan already, but you don't have to--he could just be trying to find out more about the plan so he can more effectively foil it.

There's also the fact that either way, he needs to know more about this Ted person; note that when he talks to Thompson, the subject is not "Peter and Claire are trying to foil destiny" but "so there is another exploding man running around and you didn't tell me this why?"

[strangemuses.livejournal.com]

I don't think that Nathan has made up his mind yet. I think that he is still weighing all of his options, and will make up his mind in the next (or possibly final) episode. He could plausibly choose either path, which makes him very interesting to me.

I'm currently thinking that he will sacrifice himself in the end to save Peter (and NY), but I could be wrong... which is sort of fabulous, because too few tv shows surprise me or keep me guessing, and this show does both.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

TV shows that can keep you guessing are precious indeed. Though currently in a getting tortured kind of way.*g*

[counteragent.livejournal.com]

Great meta! Like you, I hope they don't Irina Nathan. I don't think they will, but I don't love Heroes for its subtlety.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'm telling myself that it's the first season, and the Irina indignity happened in the last, when shows are much more prone to such things. Here's hoping!

[princess-dexter.livejournal.com]

I found this post via someone's memories, and I just wanted to drop a line and repeat (pretty much verbatim) what everyone else has been saying. This is an excellent, insightful, and well-presented look at the leadup to the finale, and it has provided me with many things to mull over between now and tomorrow.

I liked in particular how you weighed the impacts each character death would have on us, the audience, and I agree with the general consensus. One that hasn't seemed to pop up in conversation thus far, however, is Matt - where do you stand on him kicking the bucket? My theory is that anyone Peter has been in contact with is fair game (excluding, as mentioned, Claire and Hiro) because as long as someone has the power, balance exists in tv-world. I don't want Nathan to do an Irina and I think there's less canon-basis for that occurring, since Irina was a secret agent and she did kill enemies of her country on a regular basis. Nathan can be sly and acts (mostly) for personal gain but he's not a murderer, as evidenced by his refusal to shoot Linderman.

I'm sure I had more, but you might not appreciate a random rambling here, so I'll finish off now. I was just inspired by your excellent post and wanted to let you know. Thanks for writing!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Hm, Matt hasn't met Hiro yet, so he's still on the timeline that would lead him to Five Years Ago (where he's alive). (The moment he meets Hiro or encounters an event that has not happened in the other time, all bets are off.) He's neither among the top favourites nor among the most disliked, but I think they could go with a cliffhanger - i.e. we leave Matt in a situation where he could either live or die, after the explosion does not happen (so we know the futures we already saw are no longer guarantees or damnations).

Something which will definitely happen: Matt meets Audrey again (since they brought her back). Possibly when Audrey, to whom Sylar has identified himself as Isaac Mendez and who just saw another classic Sylar victim in Ted, puts two and two together and tries to chase him down.

Less than a day to find out...

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I really like your Willy Loman/Mrs Gray comparison. I certainly didn’t get the feeling we were supposed to think she ‘explained’ Sylar. The only link I could see would have been genetic, she had a fragility that might have been passed on but if so she and Gabriel shattered in very different ways.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Now that I can see, and I'm glad the Willy Loman comparison worked for you. It really struck me back when I watched the episode for the first time - I thought Virgnia Gray was such an Arthur Miller character.

Black humour sidenote: and did you notice that Sylar actually does eat (half of) his unwanted tuna sandwich?