Heroes 2.22 Landslide

[selenak]

Rain in Berlin, which means hotel time, which means opportunity to post.



Firstly, I want to live in tv world, where one always learns sword fighting in minimal time and maximum efficiency.*g* But seriously, who cares, when it's possible to geek out about the George Takei trains Masi Osada sequence (and how long before someone uses icons with Sulu caps from The Naked Time, hm?)? It's just irresistable. On a more serious note, I think Hiro's interpretation of the story his father told him as a child gets the point wrong, though whether or not Kaito Nakamura also gets the point wrong or just allows Hiro to in order to let Hiro learn by himself isn't yet clear. Also, Hiro isn't the only one currently on the wrong interpretation track. The hero, wanting to unite a country, gets his power from the dragon. And his power is granted. And finally the dragon asks the hero to sacrifice the princess. Whereupon the hero plunges the sword in his own heart instead. Now call me somewhat single-minded, but I think I'm seeing certain parallels to certain speculations and predictions for another character here.

But back to Hiro. Who thinks it means to cut out his own heart - i.e. become future Hiro; meanwhile, Ando I think has the right idea, because what it means is NOT to sacrifice someone else, no matter who the princess is - a stranger or the person you love most - and it doesn't mean to take your own humanity away, either; it means to sacrifice your own life. Which Ando, "non-special Ando", is currently prepared to do in order to save the world from Sylar. I love him quite a lot, and still think he'll survive because we need "normal" people on this show in addition to the super-powered ones, and because Ando's survival or death is directly tied to Hiro remaining his true self.

Meanwhile, storylines converge everywhere. Molly telling Mohinder about her "other hero", Matt, currently on his way to kill her without being aware that this is what he signed on for, being nearby brought to my attention that the phrase "my hero" is used repeatedly on this show; Claire of course used it in regards to Peter in Fallout, Molly uses it here, and Nathan uses it in his conversation with Linderman in regards to the late Mr. Petrelli, when Linderman tells him that his father failed to save the world, was weak and despaired: "My father was my hero." (More about that in a moment.) Then we have Micah asking Candice why she doesn't use her ability to "be a hero". Candice gaining depth in her scenes with Micah looks pretty much like a death sentence - see also: Eden and Isaac - but it's still neat to see, and I feel somewhat smug about having observed several reviews earlier that we have no way of knowing whether her "Candice" appearance is her real one. As the invidiual specials have powers which you usually can connect and/or contrast to something in their personality, it makes Candice the illusionist, who delights in taunting people, would have a natural appearance that got her mocked and scorned before her abilities kicked in. Also, interestingly Candice appears genuinenly convinced of the Linderman plan, as opposed to being just a pragmatist working for the richest guy on the block.

Linderman's conviction of being able to read and predict people is what turns out to be his Achilles heel here. He thinks he knows how Jessica ticks, and he's not completely wrong, but the one issue he never factored in was the possibility that Jessica would voluntarily allow Niki control so that Niki might resist temptation. No matter whether you think of Jessica as an alternate personality created by Niki in the wake of the death of her sister Jessica, or genuinenly seperate entity, Jessica came into existence to protect Niki. That was far from her only goal later on, but it was the first and original one, and Jessica knows Niki does not want DL dead and could not, literary, live with herself if Jessica took Linderman's money, shot DL and ran. In the Five Years Gone future, we saw Niki grieving for Jessica; here, we see Jessica giving up her supremacy for Niki. That's what Linderman didn't factor in. He knew that Jessica cared for Micah, but he had ignored what Jessica feels for Niki.

Is DL dead or just mostly dead? When last seen, he still moves, and given his phasing ability he could use that to get rid of the bullet at least. If he dies, though, it means we're already on a different time line than the Five Years Gone one, as DL there survived long enough for Sylar to take his ability. Either way, despite what he told Nathan I hadn't seriously believed DL would be the one to kill Linderman, so kudos to the show for surprising me, and again, Linderman's confidence in his control of people becomes his downfall; he didn't count on DL being ever more than a tool.

Mr. Bennet and Matt continue to be great foils, and if they both survive, I hope these won't be the last scenes we get with them. I love that the show continues to keep Bennet ruthless, despite his joining the White Hats; he was aware "the Walker system" was a person, and deliberately didn't tell Matt or Ted, because he knew they'd balk at murder. He just didn't know it was a little girl, which stunned him. Mind you, even without the Mexican stand-off with Mohinder, I don't think the show would let kill Bennet Molly, because Bennet is a sympathetic character now, and sympathetic characters aren't allowed to kill children, so he'll probably stop at the last minute. With Mohinder, the show has given him an excuse for doing so.

Audrey is back! I was so hoping we hadn't seen the last of her. You know, as cadesama said the other day, it would be a lovely irony if none of the superpowered folk but Audrey were the one to eventually take out Sylar, he of the "I'm the most specialest ever" complex: a policewoman doing her job. Granted, in this episode he used her, but I think by giving her the name "Isaac Mendez" he might have made a crucial mistake. She has seen him now, and soon the police will discover Isaac is dead, and has been for a while, so Audrey will know whom she talked to, and how he looks like. And Sylar hasn't got Candice's illusions yet.

Claire wanting to be a patrolling superhero once the world is saved was wonderful, though I wonder whether more trauma is in store for her that is responsible for having chosen NOT to do that in the "Five Years Gone" future. If we're already on a seperate timeline, the point is moot, I guess; if the timeline hasn't separated yet, I have some guesses relating to the second promo, which I'll mention later.

This was the first episode in which we saw Peter use the telepathy he absorbed from Matt since Fallout; presumably meeting Matt again has reminded him he can do this. Very useful in the Sylar regard, and perhaps others.

Most heart-breaking scene of the episode: without question Hiro and Nathan. The friendship that had sprung up between them had been a very unexpected and always very delightful aspect of the show, and to see Hiro disappointed by his Flying Man was incredibly sad. Even more so because what Hiro hears and what Nathan says are two different things - what Nathan says is resignation - "this will happen" ; what Hiro hears is a taunt - "you can't stop it". And yet Hiro's cries of "villain" (echoing their conversation in Godsend) serve an emotional truth here, and I think it's important for the continuing story that Nathan hears them. (The counterpoint to the Linderman-and-Angela uttered justifications, and pronounced by the one person outside the family Nathan was shown as genuinenly liking and being nice to without getting an advantage of his own.) Paradoxically, this scene also confirmed to me they'll go for the non-evil route with Nathan, though whether they'll go for the last minute act of heroism and death or for survival I still don't know. Why? Because Hiro getting disillusioned if Nathan actually stays on the dark side path would serve no purpose in this episode, it would come in the last one, and presumably would lead directly to a showdown and/or death scene.

The Nathan and Linderman scene and Nathan's acceptance speech at the end frame the episode in a way, and in quite a layered way; they also need to be considered together. On one level, Nathan's speech is the usual political double talk, a standard victory speech of a voted politician, and hypocritical at that because to get to this point, he has made Faustian deals. (Also, his election is a fraud, though it's interesting Linderman never told Nathan that; he did say he'd make sure Nathan wins in .07%, but he never specified the method, and since Nathan starts their early conversation by bringing up the polls, it's obvious he still doesn't know.) (If Nathan survives the season, though, I bet the next one will have an investigation into the vote subplot.) On another, the speech is full of echoes. Linderman's "healing the world" phrase, yes, but more pointedly, all the references to family: children, brother, father. "Pa would have me committed for even considering this insanity," Nathan tells Linderman (incidentally, it's interesting that Nathan calls their parents "Ma" and "Pa" whereas Peter refers to them as "Mom" and "Dad"), and, as quoted above, there is the "my father was my hero" retort to Linderman's "your father was weak".

Speculation: Petrelli Senior was the one originally meant to go to the White House via major catastrophe first, but he couldn't go through with it and killed himself. That, or he was killed, which is also an option.

Linderman then heals Heidi, providing a miracle, which was probably meant as an example (as well as a way to put Nathan even more in his debt): the healing of an injury he himself caused. He puts his emphasis on both the inevitability of the explosion, and the "what we do next, that is what counts" lesson. What does come next, though? Especially given the question of parental examples? When Linderman just before DL and Jessica showed up later mentions on the phone with his flunky that the Petrelli family will be extracted and emphasises to make sure "they're all there", it solved one question for me - if Nathan has come to believe the impending explosion will be inevitable, why let his wife and children stay around? - and set up another speculation, which Nathan's final speech strengthened: he'll let Heidi and the boys - and presumably Angela Petrelli, too - be brought to safety via Linderman's flunky... but he himself will stay in New York. Now whether at this point this is because he knows he could fly to safety on his lonesome, or because he actually intends to die (father as example), especially given that Hiro told him the future and he himself will be bad (and I think Nathan believes in Hiro's abilities at least as much as in everyone else's predictions), or whether he still hasn't made up his mind and wants to find out where Peter is, I don't know. But I think this is why Nathan is present in both of Peter's visions of the explosion.


And now some Claire-related promo speculation, based on the Canadian promo:

Claire saying "the future is not written in stone" is making the most eloquent case for free will on this show yet. She could say it to Peter or Nathan. The clip which has her saying "how can you not do something to stop it?" with Angela standing behind her has to be adressed to Nathan. On the other hand, the clip where she says "I trusted you" can't be addressed to Nathan, as she doesn't (trust him, that is) - the two people Claire trusts right now are Mr. Bennet and Peter. Of the two, Mr. Bennet could be the adressee if he tries to get her out of town against her will despite Claire's declaration that she wants to say and help save world, or it could be Peter, but then I'm stumped for a reason. Maybe whatever the reason is could explain why Five-years-gone-Claire isn't in the heroes business and definitely not anywhere near Peter?

Comments

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

However, right now I wonder how Niki could be stopped from killing her once she gets upstairs (and I do think she doesn't need Jessica for that, in this particular situation)? Perhaps by Candice surrendering Micah voluntarily or Micah pleading (since he appears to like Candice)?

Niki does have something else on her mind, at the moment, so so may not be quite as revenge driven. Candice might well surrender him voluntarily. He's done his job, and I think Candice assumes she's done babysitting, now. Although, I think Niki will still smack Candice around a little bit.

OTOH, I don't think Candice will take kindly to Linderman being dead.

(I also wondered whether they had her mention she's "large" because once she dies we'll see her revert to her original form, but that's academic, I suppose.)

Good point. I think there will be pay off on that line somehow.

Nathan has what I call the Londo Mollari effect on me. The Londo Mollari effect is best described as wanting to shake/punch a character and hug him in the same episode. How I made it through two years of B5 before Londo saw the light, I don't know....

Ahahaha. That's what I call the Anakin Skywalker effect, personally.

Wow. I never thought of that, and it would be an absolutely awesome twist, with some serious dark side issues for Peter to deal with next year. Could this be what some guy is referring to when he tells Angela that Linderman is betting on the wrong brother in the global promo?

Very possibly. I think that the scene with Claire talking to Nathan and Angela probably also has Peter in it (Peter and Claire haven't separated for two episodes now, and the angle is too tight to see how many people are really there in that clip) -- and that they are trying to convince Peter to blow up on purpose. Given Claire's "The future is not written in stone" I think they may actually convince him. Rejecting his family, believing the worst of Nathan ... those are not Peter's talents.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

OTOH, I don't think Candice will take kindly to Linderman being dead.

Nope. I'm curious how Angela will take it, other than pragmatically, too. Also, Angela better meet Keito Nakamura in the finale, because I want to see her with someone from the old days so we can figure out more backstory.

Incidentally, Keito gave his son virtually the same explanation Linderman gave Nathan as to why they all broke up. Seeing how the Nakamuras, Linderman and the Petrellis are ALL wealthy in the present, I wonder who started the "using power for money" thing, as the others obviously saw that as a permision to do the same, whether or not they agreed.

I think that the scene with Claire talking to Nathan and Angela probably also has Peter in it

But doesn't that promo make it look like Claire jumps out of the window next, with Angela and Nathan rushing after her? That she does definitely alone. If Peter were present during that scene, especially under those circumstances, it would make more sense for her to grab him first.

Incidentally, in the "who knows what?" category: Claire and Peter now know Sylar has Ted's power, but Nathan doesn't, and neither does Angela (unless she is clairvoyant somehow). He does, however, think there is an alternative candidate for the exploding man walking around, i.e. Ted, and when he asked Thompson about this Ted person in The Hard Part, Thompson said they "have it all under control". If Nathan really is convinced by now the explosion will happen one way or another, no matter what anyone does, it would make sense to assume what even Peter has suggested to him earlier - if Peter doesn't blow up, someone else will. To actually ask Peter to explode wouldn't just be an unforgivable step to villaindom, it wouldn't make sense under those circumstances.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Nope. I'm curious how Angela will take it, other than pragmatically, too.

I hope she's at least a little emotionally affected. ::waves Angela/Linderman flag::

Incidentally, Keito gave his son virtually the same explanation Linderman gave Nathan as to why they all broke up. Seeing how the Nakamuras, Linderman and the Petrellis are ALL wealthy in the present, I wonder who started the "using power for money" thing, as the others obviously saw that as a permision to do the same, whether or not they agreed.

Hmm, I need to rewatch. Did he actually say they used it for money, or personal gain? Because I think they all kind went bad in different ways. The Petrellis probably didn't use their powers for money, since they were already rich, but it looks like Linderman may have even before they started.

That she does definitely alone. If Peter were present during that scene, especially under those circumstances, it would make more sense for her to grab him first.

Unless he's starting to believe Nathan and Angela. In which case Claire would just want to get the hell out of dodge. Or maybe he makes his escape one way (makes a distraction?), and she makes hers another. I just think it's odd to split them up now, when they been together for two episodes and have no reason to separate until the jumping out the window incident.

To actually ask Peter to explode wouldn't just be an unforgivable step to villaindom, it wouldn't make sense under those circumstances.

Ah, but if they're talking to Peter (maybe if he goes to them for help, which may be why Claire wants to leave, since she thinks the worst of Nathan right now), he could tell them about Sylar taking Ted's power. And then the explosion is in the hands of a wildcard, and may be off the prophecy map. So I could see them trying to convince Peter because they want more control of what's going on.

That said, I don't think Angela and Nathan are that evil. They don't seem to want to involve Peter in all this if they can avoid it, because a) they know he can't handle it and b) they want to heal the world for him.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I hope she's at least a little emotionally affected. ::waves Angela/Linderman flag::

I read the unspoilery interview excerpts sparky77 posted and where Christine Rose and Malcolm McDowell speculate about Angela and Linderman at Woodstock, and someone has to write that fanfic!

Did he actually say they used it for money, or personal gain?

Come to think of it, I seem to recall that both Linderman and K. Nakamura used the phrase "for personal gain", which as you say does not have to mean "money" in all circumstances.

They don't seem to want to involve Peter in all this if they can avoid it, because a) they know he can't handle it and b) they want to heal the world for him.

I think that's definitely why they both (in silent agreement, it seems, or perhaps it's so self evident neither has to ask) did not tell Peter about what Linderman said and suggested and avoided talking to him on a one-to-one basis (well, save for the one conversation between Nathan and Peter immediately after); presumably if he cornered either of them alone, they'd spill.

However: I think that the inevitability of the explosion to Angela's, and certainly to Nathan's self-justification now. (I don#t think he's lying to Hiro.) If the explosion happens no matter what, then they're not sacrificing Peter - not Peter's life, but Peter's future well-being, to put it mildly. If, however, Nathan believes again that the explosion can be avoided, then he no longer has that justification; so I don't think he'd make the step of making Peter a deliberate fellow culprit in asking him to make it happen.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

presumably if he cornered either of them alone, they'd spill.

Hmm, I wonder how practiced they are at keeping family secrets from him. I'd say very, but I think a lot of that relies on the fact that Peter often doesn't even know the right questions to ask because the secret issue occured before he was born. So what they've been doing so far fits with standard Petrelli family secret keeping. You don't lie, you simply never bring it up and control how much information the others have.

If, however, Nathan believes again that the explosion can be avoided, then he no longer has that justification; so I don't think he'd make the step of making Peter a deliberate fellow culprit in asking him to make it happen.

I'm torn on this. Because I don't think Nathan quite sees the explosion as his purview. It's the realm of these crazy miracle workers who come back from the dead and heal permanent spinal damage with a touch. Which is why I don't think he could bring himself to be an active culprit. It's not his world anymore, as far as he's concerned -- flying doesn't make him one of Them. But, at the same time, he does believe it the explosion's inevitability and, to a degree, destiny now. Might he try to convince Peter that it's his destiny to explode? Maybe. Even though it would destroy Peter emotionally -- who's to say Nathan even thinks he knows Peter, or what would hurt him anymore?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Even though it would destroy Peter emotionally -- who's to say Nathan even thinks he knows Peter, or what would hurt him anymore?

Several things here - for Nathan, the turning point, the point at which he started to consider Linderman's "your destiny is to unite the country etc." spiel was when he realized that Peter/Destiny wasn't an either/or choice for him, but could be a both/and choice - i.e. that he could have Peter and the whole leader-of-the-future destiny. I just find it unbelievable Nathan wouldn't realize that to ask Peter to kill people (well, people other than Sylar) deliberately would both destroy Peter emotionally and would destroy their relationship. He might think he'd get his both/and if Peter doesn't find out about what Linderman told him etc., but definitely not in such a scenario.

Secondly - there's the matter of writing and story structure etc. We're due at least one scene with Peter and Nathan without Angela and Claire being present; given the way the pilot ends, and Peter's two visions of the explosion which both have Claire present but also have her, too, back away after first running towards him, and end with him and Nathan, it's inevitable. This could either be a big confrontation or the often speculated about rescue thing or first one or the other. Granted, this could come after a big family scene, but if the big family scene has something as clear cut as Angela and Nathan ganging up on Peter and Claire being the angel of light there, some of the emotional impact will be squandered.

So I think we'll first have the scene with Nathan and Angela trying to get Claire out of town (presumably that's still the plan), either along with Heidi and the boys or separately, ahead of the explosion, and Claire confronting them, specifically Nathan, with the "how can you not do something to stop it!" and making her jump through the window, but it will center on Claire, not on Peter, whether or not he's there (and I doubt he is). For Peter to be there would mean for Peter having to deal not just with Nathan's take on the explosion matter but Angela's, and I don't think they'll load that additional amount of angst - his mother wanting him to explode and wipe out half of NY - on him at this point, which is why I think the matter will come up in a scene with Peter and Nathan alone, and neither Angela or Claire around.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Several things here - for Nathan, the turning point, the point at which he started to consider Linderman's "your destiny is to unite the country etc." spiel was when he realized that Peter/Destiny wasn't an either/or choice for him, but could be a both/and choice - i.e. that he could have Peter and the whole leader-of-the-future destiny.

Okay, but here's the idea I'm toying with -- does Nathan still think he knows Peter, or has Peter's resurrection made him into a stranger to Nathan? Nathan reacts differently to Peter. He doesn't know what to make of him, or how to integrate the knowledge that his brother is an angsty little god with everything he's known about Peter up until then. Remember, he only saw Peter only after his training, and it wasn't really clear what was going on with him there. To Nathan, Peter's power is very sudden and tied up in that resurrection, rather a the progression we witnessed.

So, I agree that Nathan could never do any of this to the Peter he loved before the resurrection, and I don't think he could handle it after, either. But does he realize the effect is still the same now? Or does he think everything has changed, Peter included?

(Here I really wish we knew how religious the Petrellis are. Because I can see this paralleling Mrs. Bennet's reaction to Claire's resurrection in Company Man if had reason to think Nathan was even somewhat religious.)

but if the big family scene has something as clear cut as Angela and Nathan ganging up on Peter and Claire being the angel of light there, some of the emotional impact will be squandered.

Hmm, maybe and maybe not. It depends on how the scene is meant to read. Is it supposed to be a betrayal scene? Because, yes, then Claire would lessen the impact, because someone would still be on Peter's side. But if it's supposed to be a manipulation, wooing Peter to the dark side because he simply can't resist his family, then I think Claire being there trying to save him would work wonderfully -- and then it can play as betrayal from her POV.

Of course, as we've said elsewhere, Petrellis like to manipulate on a one to one basis. It's easier to control the information that way. So any confrontation that featured all four of them would most likely not be premeditated on the part of the manipulators.

Peter having to deal not just with Nathan's take on the explosion matter but Angela's, and I don't think they'll load that additional amount of angst - his mother wanting him to explode and wipe out half of NY - on him at this point

I'd like to see that, though. I really want to know what her motivation is there if Peter truly is her favorite.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

To Nathan, Peter's power is very sudden and tied up in that resurrection, rather a the progression we witnessed.

Good point, and one I hadn't considered. Although, you know, he doesn't react completely surprised when Peter gets visible in his office despite the fact this isn't just a freaky power but something Peter could not have done when last they met. Mohinder had told him Peter absorbs powers, so at least in theory, he might have figured out he'd see Peter use them sooner or later. Practice is different, though. And in any case, the emotional impact of Peter's death and resurrection is just much stronger than one display of invisibility, during which Peter was very much in distress and they played their usual roles of Peter in distress and Nathan to the rescue, as opposed to their conversation post-resurrection, when Peter was all zen and calm and Nathan was the one with the emotional declarations. So okay, I'll grant this opens up the possibility that he thinks newly resurrected Peter might be a different creature. Otoh, he doesn't tell newly resurrected Peter about what's troubling him re: Linderman, either, and he certainly doesn't tell him their mother is involved in all this, which argues that he still thinks Peter is vulnerable.... I don't know.

(Sidenote: leaving all the angst of the situation aside, I do find it amusing that Nathan isn't surprised Peter would play invisible guest in his office.)

Here I really wish we knew how religious the Petrellis are.

You and me both. We don't see any crucifixes or statues at their houses, and I note an utter lack of some archbishop or cardinal showing up in Nathan's campaign vid - which would make sense for a New York Italian candidate, no? -; but they could simply be discreet about their religion. Or they could be collectively agnostic. We just don't know.

In any case, though: theologically speaking, suicide is the one sin God can't forgive because the sinner can't repent it before he dies. Hence it leading directly to hell. On a more Protestant and Miltonian level, Lucifer's cardinal sin in Paradise Lost is believing himself to be dammed either way, that God couldn't forgive him even if he repented, because it's presumptious hubris. Both interesting to consider, hm?

I'd like to see that, though. I really want to know what her motivation is there if Peter truly is her favorite.

I want to know whether she knows what Peter told Nathan - that he could survive it. Although, you know, ithe "favorite" thing could be because she thinks Peter will die young. Whereas Nathan is supposed to stick around and create utopia.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Otoh, he doesn't tell newly resurrected Peter about what's troubling him re: Linderman, either, and he certainly doesn't tell him their mother is involved in all this, which argues that he still thinks Peter is vulnerable.... I don't know.

Yeah. I'm not sure what to make of that either. Is it that he doesn't want to burden Peter? Or is it that he doesn't want to face Peter's reproach for even considering it?

(Sidenote: leaving all the angst of the situation aside, I do find it amusing that Nathan isn't surprised Peter would play invisible guest in his office.)

nd I note an utter lack of some archbishop or cardinal showing up in Nathan's campaign vid - which would make sense for a New York Italian candidate, no?

I don't know if that would make sense, actually. I've certainly never seen any clergy show up in our local political ads, and I'm from a strongly Catholic state. But I don't know if it's because it's not done, or because there's no point when so much of the population is Catholic. And I don't know enough about NYC politics to know if being overtly Catholic would help him sway the Italian, or hurt him with the liberals, or both.

On a more Protestant and Miltonian level, Lucifer's cardinal sin in Paradise Lost is believing himself to be dammed either way, that God couldn't forgive him even if he repented, because it's presumptious hubris. Both interesting to consider, hm?

That's a good parallel for Nathan. And, of course the primary sin of the elder generartion would be hubris. I think that's how they went bad in the first place. Even Kaito Nakamura seems to have it, what with the fact that he was sitting around judging whether Hiro was worthy of knowing how to save the world. I mean, really. How can he be worthy if you don't give him the tools?

want to know whether she knows what Peter told Nathan - that he could survive it. Although, you know, ithe "favorite" thing could be because she thinks Peter will die young. Whereas Nathan is supposed to stick around and create utopia.

That's awful enough to be true. Poor Peter. If he found out that's why Angela loved him, he'd be shattered. Their relationship would never be the same. And, okay, so maybe it shouldn't be, since it's not clear if Peter really gets how scary their mother can be.

Normal people freak out when their brothers spies on them. Normal people ask how long they've been standing there. Nathan just tries to fix everything for his messed up little brother. ♥

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Is it that he doesn't want to burden Peter? Or is it that he doesn't want to face Peter's reproach for even considering it?

Could be either. I guess we'll find out for sure if/when Peter does find out, and from whom, and how Nathan reacts to this.

Even Kaito Nakamura seems to have it, what with the fact that he was sitting around judging whether Hiro was worthy of knowing how to save the world. I mean, really. How can he be worthy if you don't give him the tools?

Yes. And the Nathan-Peter-Hiro generation was kept in ignorance deliberately by their parents, which in Nathan's case backfired badly, in Peter's case made for extra enthusiasm once the "specialness" comes along but also a violent reaction when it looks like it's not true, and in Hiro's case becomes life threatening, as he for the longest time had no means of defense against someone like Sylar other than flight.

Micah, otoh, gets informed by his parents. Claire doesn't, but she's growing up in circumstances created by her grandparents' generation.

That's awful enough to be true. Poor Peter. If he found out that's why Angela loved him, he'd be shattered. Their relationship would never be the same. And, okay, so maybe it shouldn't be, since it's not clear if Peter really gets how scary their mother can be.

I don't think he does. Looking back to the pilot, the scene where Peter defends her and says to Nathan he's being heartless to Angela and that she just wants a little attention, and Nathan gives him the "you're kidding me" look? Looks a tad different now. Also, we never see Angela pulling out the full scariness when Peter is around; as in "Run" (the "you only have yourself to blame" scene with Nathan), her "we hide it" reaction when Nathan is torn up about Peter being dead, and of course the big one, her conversation with Nathan in his office (and I don't think it's a coincidence Angela went to see him there, as opposed to talking to him at home where Peter could show up at any moment), the "I know what you're capable of" - "Being a mass murderer?" exchange. It's a side she never shows Peter.


Normal people freak out when their brothers spies on them. Normal people ask how long they've been standing there. Nathan just tries to fix everything for his messed up little brother. ♥

♥ a lot, too.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Also, we never see Angela pulling out the full scariness when Peter is around; as in "Run" (the "you only have yourself to blame" scene with Nathan), her "we hide it" reaction when Nathan is torn up about Peter being dead, and of course the big one, her conversation with Nathan in his office (and I don't think it's a coincidence Angela went to see him there, as opposed to talking to him at home where Peter could show up at any moment), the "I know what you're capable of" - "Being a mass murderer?" exchange. It's a side she never shows Peter.

Now I'm comparing this mentally to Nathan's relationship with Peter, and wondering at the implications. Nathan does pull out the scary around Peter. Not the full depth of it, where he apparently considers mass murder because the pay off sounds good, but then again, I don't think he even considered himself that dark until recently. Nathan doesn't generally protect Peter from himself. Why is that? Is Peter his confesser? Is it a deliberate choice not to be two faced to the one person is his life he needs the most, or out of desperation so that he doesn't have to be two people (as he says to Niki about parenting)?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Nathan does pull out the scary around Peter. Not the full depth of it, where he apparently considers mass murder because the pay off sounds good, but then again, I don't think he even considered himself that dark until recently.

Oh, agreed. I don't think he knew he'd be capable of considering it, let alone go through with it before the current situation. Which is not to say that he thought himself to be a champion of humanity before, but seeing yourself as a cynic and a shark is one thing, and believing yourself capable of deliberately allowing something like the big explosion to happen in order to get to the top a completely different thing altogether. I think what puts the whole conversation with Angela on yet another level of disturbing for him is that she essentially says yes, she always believed him capable of this. She always saw him like this. (And she is his mother.) Never mind the "presidential" euphemism; going by the fact he points out to her that using the atom bomb in a war just doesn't compare and uses the phrase "nuclear wasteland" later with Linderman, he's still clear on the just what they're talking about and doesn't sugar-coat it to himself.

But back to Peter and Nathan's behaviour around same: absolutely, Peter gets to see the "don't pull a Roger Clinton on me" ruthless bastard side. (And Peter, not Heidi, gets the adultery "I just wanted to be with someone who doesn't make me feel guilty all the time" apologia.)

Is Peter his confesser? Is it a deliberate choice not to be two faced to the one person is his life he needs the most, or out of desperation so that he doesn't have to be two people (as he says to Niki about parenting)?

For one thing, I think it's definitely that Peter falls outside the parent/child parameters and yet is family. No matter how active (or not) a part teenage Nathan took in Peter's upbringing, he wasn't the father, and wasn't completely formed himself; whatever expectations Peter had, they weren't of parenting, nor were they the expectations his parents had. So their relationship would have started as one where Nathan didn't have to project a persona or was obliged to be a role model. Later on that probably shifted a bit, when Peter got older, as I think in part Peter did become Nathan's conscience and some kind of confessor, but more on a subconscious than on a conscious basis.