Heroes Rewatch: episode 1.07, Nothing to Hide

[selenak]

Or, the one with the brunch scenes. But I promise not to squeal just about those.*g*




Nothing to Hide opens with a dream sequence that spawned endless theories and after the finale will spawn some more. In it we start with Peter reading and talking to his patient Charles Deveaux. Given that the audience knows Peter has quit his job as a nurse and that Charles Deveaux when last seen was not in a state to talk, this clues us in pretty quickly we’re either watching a memory or a dream. Or a dreamed memory that changes into a a vision. In any case, Peter is doing what he says he does for Charles in the pilot of the show – reading the stock market section. In a neat bit of continuity, he reads out loud the following: “M-Core's holding steady, but Yamagato -- Yamagato is down to 215 and an eighth. I think that's a good bargain.” Yamagato is the company Hiro works for, which is owned, as we later found out, by Kaito Nakamura, his father, and according to Kimiko, Hiro’s sister, somewhat in trouble.

But of course the stock market isn’t the point of the conversation. Charles Deveaux plays pretty much the ideal father in Peter’s dream, teasing, affectionate, full of confidence in Peter and praise. Given this is a dream, we don’t know whether it is an accurate rendition or Peter’s image of Charles. It could be either, or both. (The implication of Charles’ behaviour are not nearly as benevolent as they appear, but that’s a rant I’ve already written.) In retrospect, you can spot the switch of the dream going from what is likely a memory to a vision here:

CHARLES DEVEAUX: In the end, all that matters is love. I love you, Peter.

PETER: I love you too, Charles.

CHARLES DEVEAUX: You speak your mind. You know who you are. You know what you want. That's your power. That's your strength.

Foreshadowing both the dream sequence in the finale and a certain exchange between spoken between Petrellis. Peter then tells Charles he can fly and does in fact fly over New York, at which point he hears the buzz at his door and is woken up by the news of Charles’ death. Simone, showing up distraught, tells him Charles became coherent shortly before dying and spoke of a dream shared with Peter. Now, this more than anything caused the Peter-picked-up-his-visionary-dreams-from-Charles theory (the only downside of which is that Peter has true dream in “Six Months Ago”, directly after graduating from nursing school and definitely before meeting either Deveaux for the first time), but it’s worth noting that the dream Simone describes is not the same dream we just saw Peter having.

Here’s Simone’s description: “He said he'd been flying all over the world. But that it was a world he didn't recognize. There was so many people filled with pain. Nobody looking out for each other. He worried for them. And for me. Until you told him everything would be okay.
(…) he said that you were flying with him. And you told him it was all gonna be okay. That there were people who cared, who would make a difference. That you would save the world. After that, he just put his head down and ... he was gone. Like he was falling asleep.”

In Peter’s dream, Charles is the one reassuring him, and Peter then flies alone – something which at this point he can’t do yet. There is nothing in Peter’s dream about saving the world. In the dream Simone narrates, not only is there shared flight with Charles, but Peter is put in the reassuring, confident role, and making a pledge to saving the world to boot. But of course, Simone is only repeating what Charles told her.

So, if you want my current theory? Dying!Charles, whether or not he shared Peter’s dream, knew exactly what he was saying. He knew Simone would repeat it to Peter. It was the Charles Deveaux version of the Linderman speech in .07%, of the Angela speech in The Hard Part. The world is sick; it is your task, young Petrelli, to save it, and you’d better. You are my champion.

(The older generation is such a bunch of manipulative pullstringers. Charles actually scares me more than the other two in this regard.)

As Simone from this point onwards supports Peter’s efforts in superheroism, the speech worked on her, too. There is a great irony in Peter promising to be there for her in this scene, to “not go anywhere”, because of course the next scene they’ll have is the “off to Texas now, bye” one, and then they will never talk again. He’s be literary and figuratively gone. We have three marital or boyfriend-girlfriend relationships in this episode, Nathan and Heidi, Matt and Janice, and Peter and Simone. Two of these couples are depicted under strain by extramarital affairs, hidden superpowers and a lot of guilt; Peter and Simone, on the other hand, get the young-lovers-becoming closer via shared grief scene. But in the end, their relationship turns out to be the flimsiest, most unreal of the three; it’s questionable whether either Peter or Simone ever really knew each other at all.

Speaking of Matt and Janice: this time, Matt’s subplot improves from Hiros, not because his marriage problems become more interesting but because Audrey is back, and drafts him into her Sylar investigation again, which means Matt is back with the main plot. (Not to mention having great partner interaction with Audrey.) One thing about Matt’s marriage problems, though, i.e. the telepathic discovery that his wife had an affair with one of his collegues: he reacts by decking the guy. Matt is usually much with the nice guy everman persona, but he does have a temper, and if you like, you can see one of the potential seeds for 5YG!Matt here, as it takes physical form.

The tracking of Sylar leads Matt and Audrey to Ted, who gets introduced with this episode. The aftermath of adultery isn’t the only parallel between Matt’s subplot and Nathan’s; Nathan’s power – specifically, its first manifestation – is responsible for the crippled state of his wife Heidi, while Ted Sprague’s power not only crippled but slowly killed his wife Karen. Matt is able to help Ted via translating Karen’s thoughts for him; defusing Ted on various occasions will become something of an ongoing task for Matt later in the season. The way Ted’s power is directly tied to emotional control, or lack of same, is important to the overall plot, too. Given that this is before Fallout, the first time viewer knows only that there will be an explosion in New York, and Ted at this point becomes a prime suspect.

Claire’s subplot is relatively light-hearted, for Claire’s overall storyline: brother Lyle finds the tape where she demonstrates her superpowers, and threatens to tell on her until Claire convinces him to give it back by saying: “Don't you get it? If they found out, Mom and Dad would think it was a mistake to ever adopt me. We wouldn't be a family anymore. Please.”

Lyle rarely shows up on this show, and notably is the child Mr. Bennet doesn’t angst over, and has no problem mindwiping. Their mother seems to treat him and Claire equally, but it wouldn’t be surprising if Lyle felt completely overshadowed by Claire when it comes to their father. Here, as soon as Claire shows she’s genuinenly vulnerable and afraid, he stops with the fraternal taunting and delivers the tape. I spy another parallel, this time between the Bennet and Petrelli subplots.

Hiro and Ando have another on the road adventure, and their second meeting with another superpowered person (first one was Hiro & Nathan), though DL doesn’t notice. (Micah does.) It’s an early instance of two heroes combining their powers (inadvertendly) – DL getting the woman out of the car, Hiro by freezing time getting both the woman and DL to safety – and a great example of Hiro-Ando dynamics as Ando beams proudly at Hiro afterwards, and Hiro bows in return. It’s definitely the highlight of Micah’s day, as his father displays heroics, when the rest of his roadtrip is spent by Micah worrying about his mother. At which point we get another continuity glitch – Micah being able to tell Niki and Jessica apart on the phone. Micah is supposed to be super intelligent, but this is more insight he displays for the rest of the season. Though one can fanwank that later on when Jessica is around he has decided he’ll take his mother either as Niki or Jessica, and this in turn causes initial confusion when Candice gets into the act as well.

Meanwhile, Niki’s life gets from bad to worse as she is faced with a husband-abducted child, the realization DL got framed by her alter ego, and no idea what to do about it. Her friend Tina can’t provide more than sympathetic words. She calls Nathan (and btw, I want to know how she got the phone number, because I can’t see him giving it to her), which isn’t the best idea given not just the married situation but the fact when last he saw her, she told him their night together got taped and she knew it was a blackmail set-up, but a) I suppose she’s desperate and b) the fact Nathan had been decent to her the morning after could have impressed her. Either way, he tells her he can’t help her and hangs up. Which leads to Niki smashing the mirror and surrendering control to Jessica. Niki’s storyline is shakily written at times, but I do love the symmetry of it, as the turning point for Niki will be when Jessica surrenders control to her. Niki gives Jessica control because she feels unable to get Micah back otherwise, because she can’t face using power and violence against DL herself; Jessica will give control back to Niki during a mission to get Micah back because she knows she’s very able to use power and violence against DL, but she also knows what it would do to Niki. And when Niki makes the step to integrating both her halfs, it’s via a broken mirror again.

But the heart, the core of this episode? Are the Petrelli scenes. This is where the Petrelli family dynamic fully clicks into place. We’ve seen Angela at Nathan’s campaign speech before, but this is the first time we see that despite her cool personal relationship with him, she is majorly invested in getting him elected.

(Also, Jesse Alexander, the scriptwriter, is great with the exchanges between mother and son:
NATHAN: You're kidding.

ANGELA: No, I never kid about family brunch.

NATHAN: That's because we never have family brunch.)

Nathan’s wife Heidi has been referred to before, but this is where we actually meet her, and both the script and Rena Sofer and Adrian Pasdar manage to suggest a great deal about the marriage in a very limited time. Heidi comes across as smart, very able to tell Nathan to cut the crap:

NATHAN: I am not gonna use my family for political gain.


HEIDI: Tell that to Peter. Nathan, you've been trying to protect me since this happened. It's sweet in theory, but in practice, it's insulting. I'm not made of glass.

But also as very much in love with him. When she asks him in their last scene in this episode together whether he stil loves her, there is an undertone of desperation in her voice, and her ensuing words:

“I know what this chair means to us as a couple. But I need you to know that I'm going to walk again. The doctors say it's a long shot. But I can do it if I have a reason. We just need some hope, Nathan, that our life can be like it was. What Peter said about you checking out a clinic for him with a doctor. Tell me that's what happened. If you say it is ... I'll believe you. Just give me some hope.”

Are very ambiguous. Is she asking him to tell her the truth, or to lie to her? I’m tending to believe the later right now, if only because Heidi’s earlier “Tell that to Peter” remark indicates she’s well aware Nathan’s “my-brother-tried-to-commit-suicide” stunt with the press was for politics, not truth. But I could be wrong. At any rate, the close up of Heidi’s face after Nathan has given her the reassurance she asked for and has taken position behind her wheelchair, when he can’t see her face anymore, is such a great expression, somewhere between joy and pain, and a great contrast to her composure throughout the actual brunch scene, where she has a much better poker face than Nathan once the reporter starts with his attacks.

As for Nathan’s attitude towards his wife, again, script and writing manage to suggest a lot in brief time, such as when Heidi says, after Angela has announced the reporter will be here in an hour, “then I’d better get ready” and pushes her wheelchair out of the room, the first time the audience sees it. After she left, Nathan says “yes; good idea”, and the expression on his face and his tone suggest he feels guilty for her state long before the reporter makes his “your husband was driving, wasn’t he?” question. (Though we won’t find out the full truth until the flashback in Six Months Ago, which will provide us with a crucial information regarding Nathan’s attitude towards the entire superpowers gig, especially his own.) It’s typical that he delivers his explanation for the one night stand in Vegas to Peter, not Heidi; you get the impression he does love his wife, but he takes the easy way out, via lying, rather than risking losing her via telling her the truth about either the one night stand or the super powers. “Heidi doesn’t need the truth, she needs hope” is using the justification for lying she gave him, but it’s still his choice to use it. And it’s a contrast to his relationship with Peter, which is in no ways lacking of arguments but also based on a security that said arguments never mean the end of the relationship.

Nothing To Hide is evidence A against the perception of Peter as a naïve babe in the woods among the Petrellis. At this point of the show, only a few days have passed since the earlier mentioned press stunt, and he’s still understandably pissed off about it, but when Simone mentions the painting of Isaac Peter wants was bought by her client, Mr. Linderman, Peter does not choose to ask Simone to get it back from Linderman. Or, say, to give him Linderman’s phone number. He doesn’t tell her he knows exactly who Linderman is, either. Instead, he shows up at Nathan’s and asks Nathan to get the painting from Linderman for him, and a great mixture of fraternal powerplay, needling and unexpected solidarity ensues. Coupled with lots of shoulder kneading, since we’re talking Petrellis here. It’s typical for them that early in the conversation they have alone, when Peter says “Charles Deveaux died this morning”, Nathan takes a time out from brushing him off because of the reporter to say quietly “I’m sorry. Were you there?”, and that later on during the brunch of glorious double talk and dysfunctionality, the moment it’s apparent the reporter goes after a genuine weak spot of Nathan’s, the mysterious blonde in Vegas, Peter helps him out by providing him with an alibi.

But back to Peter as an active player in Petrelli power issues. This will always be one of my favourite exchanges between them:

NATHAN: Peter, I'm sorry. But you're gonna have to go, okay?

PETER: Hey, you know what? I'm just gonna fly off the terrace, yeah? No? Hey, I can fly. Nathan, so can you.

(Peter puts his hands on Nathan’s shoulders. Of course he does.)

PETER: I'll tell you what. Why don't we just race around the Statue of Liberty real quick, huh? Give this tweedy guy something to write about.

NATHAN: You wouldn't.

PETER: Ah?

(Peter gives Nathan a look and heads for the terrace.)

And the ensuing “sure I’m going to vote for Nathan” speech while Nathan looks daggers and Peter looks back like he’s having the time of his life is just fun, fun, fun. (Incidentally, Angela looks as if she’s impressed by Peter. Heidi looks like she wonders when they’ll grow up.) The best thing about Peter coming to the rescue regarding Vegas, though? It’s not completely altruistic and closing ranks in front of an outsider. He knows damm well Nathan will get the painting for him now.

Which Nathan does, but Nathan being Nathan, he finds away to fulfill Peter’s request and yet not. Because all things special and superpowers genuinenly freak him out, and presumably he has a suspicion about that painting, he asks Linderman to send it not to either Peter or himself, but directly back to Simone’s gallery. (Where, as we’ll see, he’ll be able to take a look at it first.) And then he shows up at Peter’s apartment, and we get more dysfunctional Petrelli fun. Because Nathan – looking casually dressed more than at any other point in this show when he’s not being kidnapped in his pjs – manages to simultanously confess one thing, explain another, share an important truth about another, and lie about a fourth. Now you’d think he’d tell the truth about the painting, but no. That’s what he lies about. (I.e. Linderman’s willingness to part with same.) Instead, Peter gets the why-I-committed-adultery explanation, and you’ve got to love Peter responding to “I just needed to be with someone who didn’t make me feel guilty every time I looked at her” with “So, did you talk to Linderman?” (Ah, priorities.)

In regards to future events, their most important exchange is probably:

PETER: With this thing, we can make a difference.

NATHAN: I'm trying to make a difference, Peter, the best way I know how. Flying around, how is that going to help anybody? What is that gonna -- What am I gonna do when I get there? I don't have a gun. I don't have a badge. I don't know karate. I guess I could put on a costume and fly around and pull cats out of trees. How's that gonna make a difference?

PETER: You're not gonna know until you try.

Indeed. *gets misty-eyed at the thought of finale again*

It present time, it says something about their constant push and pull – I once joked that the dynamic between Peter and Nathan exchanges can be shortened to:

Peter: I want.
Nathan: You can’t.
Argument: *ensues*
Peter: *does dangerous stuff*
Nathan: *ends up doing what Peter wanted in the first place*

But it’s equally viable to read the dynamic as:

Peter: You can.
Nathan: No, I don’t.
Argument: *ensues* etc.

Nathan feels challenged to justify himself and to look at those other possibilities by Peter in a way he doesn’t by anyone else (at this point; Claire later becomes a second challenger).

Telling Peter about the aborted kidnapping in Vegas is another priceless Petrelli moment, because you can tell that Peter’s “son of a bitch. You expect me to believe that?” reaction isn’t because he actually disbelieves Nathan but because helping out with the reporter or not, he’s still a bit in payback mode, and Peter’s way for paying Nathan back for being a dick is by being bratty.

But note: all this is done with the absolute certainty that no matter how much they irritate each other at times, they won’t lose each other. So “you’re still a bastard; now, get that painting for me!” and “will you shut up about the special crap? Let me tell you all about my marital crisis!” is absoutely compatible. They are so awesomely co-dependent, and I love them to bits.

Comments

[linaerys.livejournal.com]

Peter: I want.
Nathan: You can’t.
Argument: *ensues*
Peter: *does dangerous stuff*
Nathan: *ends up doing what Peter wanted in the first pace*

Totally. Anyone who thinks that Nathan has the power in their relationship, whatever you choose to believe the nature of that relationship is, is missing something huge.

I love the brunch scene so much. The only problem I have with it is that it does seem incredibly naive of their family not to think that the reporter is there for dirt, and for Nathan to think that he's not going to use his family for political gain. All politicians do, or try to.

Great meta!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Anyone who thinks that Nathan has the power in their relationship, whatever you choose to believe the nature of that relationship is, is missing something huge.

I remember reading a finale review where the reviewer (Otto from www.herosite, I think) complained re: Peter's statement to Claire that Nathan always comes through for him that this wasn't the relationship we were shown and that Nathan might have saved him at the end of the pilot but otherwise always was shown belittling him and ignoring him, and I thought, pal, what show were you watching?

The only problem I have with it is that it does seem incredibly naive of their family not to think that the reporter is there for dirt, and for Nathan to think that he's not going to use his family for political gain. All politicians do, or try to.

As for the later, I didn't think we were to assume Nathan actually believes that - espsecially given One Giant Leap happened not so long ago, and as Heidi says, "tell that to Peter" - but it's the excuse he uses so he doesn't have to say directly "I don't want to use my crippled wife". And Heidi takes it that way, too; they're not arguing about whether or not the adorable kids should be shown to the press afterwards, are they?

The former: clearly, all that embedded journalism of the Bush era has clouded their minds...

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

Totally. Anyone who thinks that Nathan has the power in their relationship, whatever you choose to believe the nature of that relationship is, is missing something huge.

I would even go so far as to say that in most cases, Peter has the upper hand--I can see Peter learning to be his own person and surviving without Nathan (though only after large amounts of angst and emo-moping), but not the other way around.

That said, I would *not* have said that near the beginning of the season. I know people have referenced Nathan taking the time to answer Peter's call in the morning, and coming to bail him out of jail, but until we were a few eps in I still wasn't sure if Nathan was motivated more by concern for his brother, or whether he was just working on damage control for the election.

too many thoughts? on the petrellis? impossible!

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

CHARLES DEVEAUX: You speak your mind. You know who you are. You know what you want. That's your power. That's your strength.

He's so hilariously, deeply wrong. Peter doesn't know any of those things. That's so much of Peter's character arc right there -- trying to find who he is, figure out what he really wants from life. But, yes, that definitely casts Charles as the Good Daddy. Even if we don't believe these things, even if they aren't true, they are exactly what we want our parents to tell us.

So, if you want my current theory? Dying!Charles, whether or not he shared Peter’s dream, knew exactly what he was saying. He knew Simone would repeat it to Peter. It was the Charles Deveaux version of the Linderman speech in .07%, of the Angela speech in The Hard Part. The world is sick; it is your task, young Petrelli, to save it, and you’d better. You are my champion.

Ohhh, I like that. I'd always just assumed that we only got the first part of the dream, and that what Simone described was the second half. I figured that Peter wasn't woken from that exact moment of the dream, it was just a good place to have a cut.

There is a great irony in Peter promising to be there for her in this scene, to “not go anywhere”, because of course the next scene they’ll have is the “off to Texas now, bye” one, and then they will never talk again. He’s be literary and figuratively gone.

And he does the exact same thing to Niki in 5YG. I get the feeling it's a pattern for him. He doesn't mean he'll physically be there. Just emotionally. (This ties in a bit with some new personal fanon of mine. I don't think Peter's ever honestly been in love. Thought he was in love, sure. But I don't think he'd ever get over it if he was in love. He's just so much that guy who answers every drunk dial and keeps running back to exs who burned him when they need help.) So wandering off to save the world doesn't make him a liar. Well, except for the part where he thinks he'll die. He's a bit flaky about that.

And when Niki makes the step to integrating both her halfs, it’s via a broken mirror again.

I do really love that. And I love how they use the mirrors throughout the season. Really, it's not that Niki's story isn't good. It's just that it should have been half as long. It meandered, and it needed to get more depth instead of length.

Are very ambiguous. Is she asking him to tell her the truth, or to lie to her? I’m tending to believe the later right now, if only because Heidi’s earlier “Tell that to Peter” remark indicates she’s well aware Nathan’s “my-brother-tried-to-commit-suicide” stunt with the press was for politics, not truth.

Ah, but what she says is that Peter was used for political gain. She could easily mean that outing his suicide attempt was the trick, not saying there was an attempt at all. Given that she doesn't know about the powers, she probably does believe Peter honestly has mental health issues. So, weirdly, I think I might be leaning toward her asking him to confirm Peter's story as true. But it's still definitely desperate. It''s proof of his love to her even if he's lying. Either he's telling the truth and didn't cheat, or he's lying because he still wants to work things out with her and doesn't want to hurt her. Win win for Heidi, because she has to know he'd never own up to an affair under these circumstances.

Peter does not choose to ask Simone to get it back from Linderman. Or, say, to give him Linderman’s phone number

Or give any hint that he knows who this Linderman character is. I would hate to play poker with him.

Re: too many thoughts? on the petrellis? impossible!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

But, yes, that definitely casts Charles as the Good Daddy. Even if we don't believe these things, even if they aren't true, they are exactly what we want our parents to tell us.

Indeed. Nobody wants to hear their failings listed or getting told to get their act together... but again, it's Peter's dream. Did Charles ever say that, or does Peter think Charles would because Peter really wants to hear it? Or both?

He doesn't mean he'll physically be there. Just emotionally. (This ties in a bit with some new personal fanon of mine. I don't think Peter's ever honestly been in love. Thought he was in love, sure.

Agreed. I think Peter wanted to be in love so he had a few relationships where he cast a couple of likely candidates as the objects of adoration, but he didn't really know them that well.

So wandering off to save the world doesn't make him a liar. Well, except for the part where he thinks he'll die. He's a bit flaky about that.

Yes. And there's a good chance he thinks that in 5YG, too.

Really, it's not that Niki's story isn't good. It's just that it should have been half as long. It meandered, and it needed to get more depth instead of length.

True. Some editing would have done wonders for the criticism it received.

It''s proof of his love to her even if he's lying. Either he's telling the truth and didn't cheat, or he's lying because he still wants to work things out with her and doesn't want to hurt her. Win win for Heidi, because she has to know he'd never own up to an affair under these circumstances.

Okay, yes, that interpretation makes the most sense to me.

Peter does not choose to ask Simone to get it back from Linderman. Or, say, to give him Linderman’s phone number

Or give any hint that he knows who this Linderman character is. I would hate to play poker with him.

*nods* Especially since as opposed to Nathan, who as a lawyer and a politician is expected to lie and keep secrets, Peter has the emo reputation making people underestimate how good he is at keeping secrets when he really wants to. I bet the first time Simone realized Peter had known exactly who Linderman was and that was why Nathan had gotten the painting was when it showed up again in her gallery.

part 2

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

(Incidentally, Angela looks as if she’s impressed by Peter. Heidi looks like she wonders when they’ll grow up.)

Aww, I thought Heidi looked amused. I think she likes seeing someone take on Nathan and win, especially his baby brother.

And I've got to say that my absolute favorite line in the whole brunch-manipulation scene is when Peter says, "That's Nathan. Even in the middle of an election year, he still takes time out to help his messed up little brother." It's a dig at Nathan to get him to do what Peter wants, but it's still absolutely honest. Peter believes every word he's saying and knows how to use them against others at the same time, because he knows how they'll react. That's what makes him a scary, scary manipulator.

PETER: You're not gonna know until you try.

Indeed. *gets misty-eyed at the thought of finale again*

I know! And it's not just the words, or the finale connection for me. It's Peter's steeling-himself-against-disappointment-again, strong!puppy expression. If their father was Nathan's hero, Nathan is Peter's, and that's always getting stomped on for him.

Re: part 2

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, Angela looks as if she’s impressed by Peter. Heidi looks like she wonders when they’ll grow up.)

Aww, I thought Heidi looked amused.

That's not mutually exclusive.*g* And yes, I think she's definitely rooting for Peter there. Of course, she has no idea that Peter wants something other than a little revenge for being used, but meanwhile, she's enjoying the sight.

And I've got to say that my absolute favorite line in the whole brunch-manipulation scene is when Peter says, "That's Nathan. Even in the middle of an election year, he still takes time out to help his messed up little brother." It's a dig at Nathan to get him to do what Peter wants, but it's still absolutely honest. Peter believes every word he's saying and knows how to use them against others at the same time, because he knows how they'll react. That's what makes him a scary, scary manipulator.

Which is why the babe in the woods interpretation is so infuriating, of course. Re: that line, the magic of it is also that because Peter believes it's true and expects it to be true Nathan does behave accordingly, both before and after the brunch. He does take time to help Peter out throughout the show, etc. Which is why the later "I don't know who I would be without you" line from Nathan rings so true.

It's Peter's steeling-himself-against-disappointment-again, strong!puppy expression. If their father was Nathan's hero, Nathan is Peter's, and that's always getting stomped on for him.

The puppy look: yet another Petrelli superpower.

Re: part 2

[linaerys.livejournal.com]

That's what makes him a scary, scary manipulator.

That's why when Peter tries, he is actually a better manipulator than Nathan. Nathan can lie and lie and lie, and a lot of people will believe him, but Peter seems to believe everything he says--even when he's lying, it's to get at what he perceives as a greater truth, and so he can sell his manipulation much better than Nathan.

Nathan is Peter's, and that's always getting stomped on for him

Wah! I know! Nathan must be a disappointing hero to have, and yet he comes through in the end and *loves*.

Re: part 2

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I find the idea of Peter as a skilled manipulator pretty fascinating; though not a "babe in the Poisonous Petrelli Woods" advocate, I never quite looked at him doing it with finesse, more subconsciously. Maybe I need to rewatch.

If their father was Nathan's hero, Nathan is Peter's, and that's always getting stomped on for him.

He's also not the only one; Claire, Hiro, Heidi and to a certain degree even Niki have all expectations that cast Nathan as someone who does the right thing, the decent and heroic thing (and they more or less all get disappointed by him one way or the other), and from his "I don't know who I am without you" to Peter he needs that, because he couldn't do what's right without their expectations.

Which is scary if you think about it, because it actually doesn't just mean he is morally flexible, it means that he is more or less unable to decide for himself when something is right or wrong; he needs someone to tell him in no unclear terms. Coming through for Peter in the finale wouldn't have been possible if Claire hadn't told him that Peter wouldn't be able to deal with killing millions of people, and I don't think that would have entirely gotten through to him if Hiro hadn't expressed his disappointment in him before and hadn't told him that he'll turn bad in the future.

[grlnamedlucifer.livejournal.com]

>Flying around, how is that going to help anybody? What is that gonna -- What am I gonna do when I get there? I don't have a gun. I don't have a badge. I don't know karate. I guess I could put on a costume and fly around and pull cats out of trees. How's that gonna make a difference?<

God, this reminds me why I love this whole rant from Nathan, for two reasons. One, like you say, it's foreshadowing of the finale. He doesn't have to do anything once he gets there, it's the actual doing it that makes the difference, that saves Peter and the world. Peter totally nails it with his "You're not gonna know until you try."

And two - because he is so full of shit in that rant and knows it. By this time his flying has saved Peter when he jumped, has saved himself from HRG and the Haitian, and (if you include comics canon) has saved a woman from a burning building. He knows that he *can* do something with his powers, but he's in the same possition Claire is at this point and it's an echo of her "I can climb through a woodchipper and live to tell about it" rant. They both are more focused on the huge potential for their powers to ruin their lives and their families (potential made actual in Nathan's case with the accident), that they can't focus on the benefits or world-saving-ness of it at this point like Peter and Hiro can.

I'm not entirely sure if that had anything to do with what you were saying, but the quote stuck out at me. :)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

He knows that he *can* do something with his powers, but he's in the same possition Claire is at this point and it's an echo of her "I can climb through a woodchipper and live to tell about it" rant. They both are more focused on the huge potential for their powers to ruin their lives and their families (potential made actual in Nathan's case with the accident), that they can't focus on the benefits or world-saving-ness of it at this point like Peter and Hiro can.

It's another neat parallel between them. The other ones I notices is that Claire, no matter whether she thought Jackie was too mean about what's her name, was ambitious enough to not only genuinenly want to be a cheerleader but to dump Zach as a friend after they used to be close as kids. Her "I'll even talk with you in public" promise as a reward in the pilot is pure condescending Nathan in political mode. And of course both Claire and Nathan are convinced that discovery of superpowers would result in disaster.

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

Ahhh, yummy delicious meta. So tasty. God, I want this DVD set yesterday -- right now I only have my memory to rely on, and I was not yet Petrelli-fixated at this point with the show. So key things slip by me. Already I sense the need for reworking the Heidi bit of the Nathanfic.

I love your take on the Nathan/Peter dynamic; Peter is the one who's holding all the cards, emotionally speaking. Nathan knows it, too. But I think he sees Peter's real character in a way that nobody else around them does. Both Charles and Angela have strong opinions about what kind of person Peter is -- and those opinions are both largely wrong. Nathan seems to be the only one who truly recognizes both Peter's weaknesses and his strengths. (Peter is not as clear-eyed about Nathan, although he comes close and certainly understands his brother more than Angela does, maybe more than Heidi, too.)

re: "I won't use my family for political gain" -- there's using your family, and using your family. Obviously Nathan has to parade them around a bit, but there's a difference between that and, say, really playing on Heidi's tragedy for sympathy (which it appears he did not do.) Nathan is trying to draw some line between politics and family here, and weirdly, he may be the first person to do so becaue politics is his safety zone and family is more dangerous!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I mailed you my beta, and I did touch on the Heidi subject. I also mailed you a link for transcripts, which I found useful for stories in the past!

I love your take on the Nathan/Peter dynamic; Peter is the one who's holding all the cards, emotionally speaking. Nathan knows it, too.

Yes. And verbalizes it in .07%.

Both Charles and Angela have strong opinions about what kind of person Peter is -- and those opinions are both largely wrong. Nathan seems to be the only one who truly recognizes both Peter's weaknesses and his strengths. (Peter is not as clear-eyed about Nathan, although he comes close and certainly understands his brother more than Angela does, maybe more than Heidi, too.)

I think this is partly due to the age gap and the older/younger sibling dynamic, too; Peter, as cadesama noted above, probably has an amalgan of the persona Nathan later develops for his sons (calling back his conversation with Niki about needing to be two people when you have children, and Peter was the first child Nathan felt somewhat responsible for, even when being a child and adolescent himself, so he'd have gotten the prototype) and real Nathan.

Nathan is trying to draw some line between politics and family here, and weirdly, he may be the first person to do so becaue politics is his safety zone and family is more dangerous!

LOL. But with this family? YES! Also agreed that politics are Nathan's comfort zone.

[kernezelda]

I'm really enjoying your meta.

It makes me want to urge you to watch Supernatural and Full Metal Alchemist. Someone needs to do a thorough analysis/discussion of the similarities and differences between the several sets of siblings: Merlynn and Caleb, Edward and Alphonse, Sam and Dean, Peter and Nathan. They're all fascinating relationships.

How similarly do the older siblings behave, and the younger? How does Merlynn's being a girl and a ghost affect the dynamic? Who has more control over the relationship? How does their various upbringing affect their relationships with other people?

I'd love to get your opinions - but you'd have to watch the source material!
:)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I might get a chance to watch Supernatural later this summer. So far, I resisted for a silly reason - the squee on lj was almost too universal for me. Full Metal Alchemist I have no source for.

However, I do have my American Gothic (for which I have to thank you), and you're right, Merlyn is a rare older sister in this bunch of brothers (even only via fannish osmosis, I know that Dean and Sam are an older protective Brother and a younger child of destiny one), and a comparison sounds like very promising meta.

Part the First

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

My! Pretty meta! *rubs hands*

CHARLES DEVEAUX: You speak your mind. You know who you are. You know what you want. That's your power. That's your strength.

I admit that sentence was a little mindboggling for me at the time, since like cadesama said, it is pretty much exactly not what Peter is; he doesn't know what he wants, nor does he know who he is. Of course, it probably is pretty much the opposite of what his own father would have said to him, and if Charles knew him, which is likely, he knows that; more proof for your manipulation theory.

(The older generation is such a bunch of manipulative pullstringers. Charles actually scares me more than the other two in this regard.)

I don't know if he scares me more than Angela, but while I was willing to go back and forth on her perceived level of humanity, I was completely convinced that he was evil as soon as he told Peter he loves him. (Not that loving Peter automatically makes you evil, mind you.) I think what makes him worse than Linderman in a way is that Charles actually seems sane, while Linderman was obviously two whiskers short of a cat - and of course the fact that Charles can cheerfully manipulate people from beyond the grave, more or less.

I wonder btw if the show wants us to take Charles' friendliness at face value for now, or if we are indeed meant to be a little weary of him. So far, none of the elders have been spotless fountains of wisdom, even though Kaito is probably the most "human" of the lot. Of course he is incidentally also the only one except Petrelli Sr. who has removed himself entirely from the situation - at least we don't have any hints that he is still in league with the others after giving Claire to Bennet, nor is it clear to me whether he knows about the bomb.

defusing Ted on various occasions will become something of an ongoing task for Matt later in the season.

These two worked really well together, and later with Bennet, too. It's a pity that this can't be continued, whether Matt survives or not... incidentally, Ted is symptomatic for one thing the writers do really well: creating believable and likable supporting and one shot characters. (One reason why I am not fond of Sylar - as opposed to many other fictional killers, you get to know his victims, and you care for them.)

Claire’s subplot is relatively light-hearted, for Claire’s overall storyline: brother Lyle finds the tape where she demonstrates her superpowers, and threatens to tell on her

I actually think this might be the part I loved most about this episode (I know, blasphemy. :) ). They are so very genuinely like siblings and Zach makes the whole dynamic only better. I wonder if we'll get more on Lyle's take on the whole situation next year, provided that Claire and Noah do collect him and Sandra (and of course Mr. Muggles) from wherever they're currently hiding.

She calls Nathan (and btw, I want to know how she got the phone number, because I can’t see him giving it to her)

He is running for office; he should be in the phone book. Or maybe she has old friends in Linderman's hotel back from the time she worked in the casino and they looked it up for her.

Re: Part the First

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Of course, it probably is pretty much the opposite of what his own father would have said to him, and if Charles knew him, which is likely, he knows that; more proof for your manipulation theory.

Being an old friend of Angela's without having known Daddy Petrelli who died only six months ago seems unlikely, not to mention friend of Linderman's etc, so I think we're safe in assuming Charles knew him, yes. He definitely knew about the Petrents' attitude regarding Peter (i.e. lovable but weak, as phrased by Angela in the finale).

So far, none of the elders have been spotless fountains of wisdom, even though Kaito is probably the most "human" of the lot. Of course he is incidentally also the only one except Petrelli Sr. who has removed himself entirely from the situation - at least we don't have any hints that he is still in league with the others after giving Claire to Bennet, nor is it clear to me whether he knows about the bomb.

His "Evil must be stopped" and the whole "some of my old friends have fallen etc." to Hiro is too vague to say whether or not he knows. He's infuriatingly Yoda-esque in his crypticness, isn't he? At any rate, he does not tell Hiro anything Hiro doesn't know already, though it's interesting that he never names Sylar by name as Hiro's opponent, which made me briefly afraid they'd have Hiro kill Nathan...

Ted: true. I mean, obviously he was going too far in Company Man, but we had seen how he got there, and I found it touching that when Audrey arrests him in the finale, basically his last words before Sylar gets him are a plea to make sure he's put in a cell with lead so he won't harm more people...

I think there's a future for more Matt/Bennet team-ups at least, if Matt survives. For one thing, they're both out of jobs, and Bennet of all the peple knows how useful a telepath is...

I wonder if we'll get more on Lyle's take on the whole situation next year, provided that Claire and Noah do collect him and Sandra (and of course Mr. Muggles) from wherever they're currently hiding.

I hope so, but that ties with our discussion that spawned your delightful list: will the show give Noah B. a free pass for his actions regarding Lyle and Sandra, or won't it?

Sandra apparantly left him in the 5YG verse, which doesn't mean she'd have to in this timeline, but if the show wants to remove some characters in order to make room for new ones without traumatizing Claire some more, I could see Sandra going for a divorce, now that the immediate threat of the Company is gone and she had time to think about it all, where she gets custody of Lyle. Then they could still bring her and Lyle back for guest apparances but would not have to explain where they are in every episode.

Hours later: Part the Second

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Niki’s storyline is shakily written at times, but I do love the symmetry of it, as the turning point for Niki will be when Jessica surrenders control to her. Niki gives Jessica control because she feels unable to get Micah back otherwise, because she can’t face using power and violence against DL herself; Jessica will give control back to Niki during a mission to get Micah back because she knows she’s very able to use power and violence against DL, but she also knows what it would do to Niki. And when Niki makes the step to integrating both her halfs, it’s via a broken mirror again.

I do have my problems with Niki's storyline and the way the character is often written, but I loved how they constantly kept the image of her connection to mirrors. As for her control issues and her inability to do actively do something on her own, I really wish they had tried to explore this a little deeper, especially because they are part of what I find problematic about Niki as a character. I understand that she is afraid of taking control of her own life, but it mostly comes across as her being a bit of a wet blanket, and I think that might easily have been avoided if they had illuminated the causes a bit more - or if they had shown her being a bit more assertive in the beginning. But maybe next season.

Alas, to the brunch:

(Also, Jesse Alexander, the scriptwriter, is great with the exchanges between mother and son:
NATHAN: You're kidding.

ANGELA: No, I never kid about family brunch.

NATHAN: That's because we never have family brunch.)

He does put his experience for complicated - and snarky - family dynamics from Alias to good use, doesn't he? *g*

Is she asking him to tell her the truth, or to lie to her?

Both, I'd say. Mostly it seems a plea for "Tell me this is still going to work out" so she needs him to assure her that an affair is basically not a sign that he is one foot out of the door, but it also seems to me that she'd rather not want him to have an affair in the first place. This opens up all kinds of questions: How would she have reacted if he had cheated on her while she was still able to walk, and would he have done it if that were the case? I think if her reaction here is a sign that she is scared he could leave her (at the very least emotionally, since a divorce in their situation would probably political suicide), he probably didn't cheat before.

(Generally speaking, I heart their scenes together, and I really hope we'll see more of her next season.)

Peter does not choose to ask Simone to get it back from Linderman. Or, say, to give him Linderman’s phone number. He doesn’t tell her he knows exactly who Linderman is, either.

This is interesting. Especially since getting the painting via Simone would expose neither himself nor Nathan to Linderman's influence, but of course Peter likely thinks that Nathan can get the painting easier, since his connection at least seems more personal. Nonetheless, it makes it look as if Peter has changed his opinion about his family's connections to the mob and what they mean quite a bit since Dad died...

“you’re still a bastard; now, get that painting for me!” and “will you shut up about the special crap? Let me tell you all about my marital crisis!”

Isn't that the best summary of their relationship I've yet read... so adorable, those two. (You guys actually make me like Peter. I can't quite believe it. Astonishing. (Not that I disliked him before, it was more ... friendly indifference.))

Re: Hours later: Part the Second

[selenak.livejournal.com]

He does put his experience for complicated - and snarky - family dynamics from Alias to good use, doesn't he?

He does, he does. And I still someone who preferably isn't me but probably will end up being me anyway to write that crossover.

(Which clearly, once the mission is completed, needs to have a scene where Sydney gets drunk with Nathan and has a "you think YOUR family is bad?" talk...)


This opens up all kinds of questions: How would she have reacted if he had cheated on her while she was still able to walk, and would he have done it if that were the case? I think if her reaction here is a sign that she is scared he could leave her (at the very least emotionally, since a divorce in their situation would probably political suicide), he probably didn't cheat before.

I have a slightly different take on this. Sure, Heidi has a good poker face throughout in the scene with the reporter, but she doesn't seem surprised at the idea Nathan COULD have been with another woman in Vegas. Moreover, I think if Niki had been the first time ever, Nathan would hesitated a bit longer between "I guess my questions end right there" and moving in for a kiss. (Also, the way he inserted that he's married, happily married, early on the conversation looked like a deliberate manouevre to make it clear he's not in the market for long term affairs.) Which doesn't mean I think he cheats on her on a regular basis. Or seeks out opportunities. For example, if Niki had not been blackmailed into setting him up, I don't think he'd have spent his free time in Vegas with things other than reading articles and opinion poll analysis. But when an opportunity was there and offered itself, he did take it, and like I said, I don't think it was the first time. Now whether he cheated before the accident - that's another question. Can't make up my mind on this one, other than I think he's by and large happily married to Heidi.

Nonetheless, it makes it look as if Peter has changed his opinion about his family's connections to the mob and what they mean quite a bit since Dad died...

It does, doesn't it? I do assume that whatever explanation Nathan gave him for switching from "I'll prosecute Linderman!" to "Linderman is my main campaign sponsor" plays into that. (Considering we know Nathan didn't tell him the truth about the FBI situation and doesn't until Peter finds out in Parasite, I really want to know what that explanation was.) Or maybe given that Hiro told him saving the cheerleader will save the world, he thinks saving the world tops squeamishness about mobsters and decides to use "the family connection" to Linderman anyway.

Isn't that the best summary of their relationship I've yet read... so adorable, those two. (You guys actually make me like Peter. I can't quite believe it. Astonishing. (Not that I disliked him before, it was more ... friendly indifference.))

He. I felt benign indifference about Peter until this episode; the brunch did it. But I remember feeling nothing but benign indifference for two characters on another show, B5, and lj debate plus fanfic made me change my mind and become emotionally invested in them (Delenn and Lennier).

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

OK, first of all--LJ, NEVER LEAVE ME AGAIN.

Now, on to the meta!

Heidi comes across as smart, very able to tell Nathan to cut the crap...But also as very much in love with him.

All credit goes to Rena Sofer for doing so much with such a small part that I was sympathetic towards Heidi, and interested in her, after her very first appearance.

I've always believed that Nathan and Heidi's marriage was--"arranged" is too strong, but, well, the result of the match being deemed highly "appropriate" in every respect by both of their families. But it was also very clear to me that Heidi loves Nathan a great deal, in the strongest sense of the word. I've never been fully clear on his feelings for her, though. I see affection, I see attachment, but I'm not sure that I see love in the full-blown, romantic sense of the word. Of course, it may be impossible for Nathan to love someone wholly, completely, and deeply to, say, the same extent that he loves Peter.

And it’s a contrast to his relationship with Peter, which is in no ways lacking of arguments but also based on a security that said arguments never mean the end of the relationship.

Exactly. They'll manipulate the hell out of each other and play mind games with each other, but that's just part of who they are. There's never a sense of *fear*, as there is with almost all other relationships on the show, that they won't love each other enough, or that they won't be enough for the other person, or that they'll stop loving each other. Whichever way you take it--familial or romantic love--it's taken for granted that the love will be constant and unchanging.

PETER: Hey, you know what? I'm just gonna fly off the terrace, yeah? No? Hey, I can fly. Nathan, so can you.

Milo Ventimiglia's delivery of this line will always, always be one of my favorite moments from the show. He just looks like he's having so much *fun*.

Incidentally, Angela looks as if she’s impressed by Peter. Heidi looks like she wonders when they’ll grow up.

It surprises me that Angela (who is, IMO, an incredibly intelligent and perceptive woman) knows so little about her own son. I think she honestly does believe that Peter is the weak one, the helpless emo-puppy born into a family of Machiavellis. Peter is idealistic and naive, it's true--but he's still a Petrelli. If she can recognize that in Claire and Nathan, why not in Peter?

Which Nathan does, but Nathan being Nathan, he finds away to fulfill Peter’s request and yet not.

It's interesting that we see Nathan displaying classic "protective father" behavior here. His actions in hiding the painting from Peter and destroying it, with the excuse that it's for his own good, are reminiscent of Noah Bennet's actions in protecting Claire by keeping her ignorant of her powers and her true birth parents.

PETER: You're not gonna know until you try.

Indeed. *gets misty-eyed at the thought of finale again*

Indeed. I think it's interesting that they've got a Follow-The-Leader dynamic going here with Papa Petrelli and Nathan, Nathan and Peter, and Peter and Claire. Nathan's hero is his father; Peter's hero is Nathan; and Claire's hero is Peter. In each case, you've got the subordinate figure believing that his or her hero can be better than they are--and their belief often spurs the other on to actions that they might not have carried out otherwise.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

Another thing I noticed about Peter needling Nathan: when they come back to the brunch table, Peter says:

"Sorry. Nathan gave me an earful about showing up in cords. I told him I'm trying to stay grounded."

Ah ha ha ha ha.

[likethemodel.livejournal.com]

I know this is months and months old but I had to respond.

It surprises me that Angela (who is, IMO, an incredibly intelligent and perceptive woman) knows so little about her own son. I think she honestly does believe that Peter is the weak one, the helpless emo-puppy born into a family of Machiavellis. Peter is idealistic and naive, it's true--but he's still a Petrelli. If she can recognize that in Claire and Nathan, why not in Peter?

In my own private canon I see Peter as being unplanned. With that in mind the difference in Angela's treatment of the two makes sense: Nathan was the one she expected, the one she prepared for, the one she had to mold; Peter was a surprise and probably the one she was more relaxed about raising. Maybe her own feelings towards his birth and childhood - innocent, happy, free and without destiny -- color her vision of Peter?

[g_shadowslayer]

Ahh... *pets my silly Petrelli brothers*

Once again, you hit all the points that I'd been thinking over and trying to figure out how to articulate. Fantastic meta as always!

BTW, saw some mentions in the comments about how people didn't like Peter until certain points of the show. I actually had that indifference towards him probably until he hooked up with Claude -- somehow that just completely sold me on the character. And then after re-viewing the earlier episodes, he's become my favourite.

And you should watch Supernatural -- I'd be very interested to see your take on those brothers and their screwed up relationship :)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'll probably give in with Supernatural this summer. I think I held out long enough.*g*

Re: Claude - the funny thing is, entertaining as those scenes with him and Peter were, they never sparked fannish interest in me in the sense of making me write more or investigate the dynamic more etc, whereas the few Claude and Bennet flashbacks definitely hooked me and made me hunt for backstory fanfic, and stories that would have them encounter again in the present. Might be because I got a far greater sense of emotional connection between them and actual investment in each other, and because friends who betray each other and end up on opposite sides are usually a bullet proof kink for me.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

"The older generation is such a bunch of manipulative pullstringers. "

Like you don't LOVE IT. *g*

"It's sweet in theory, but in practice, it's insulting. I'm not made of glass."

That was very cool. I actually like Heidi; it's a loss that they don't use her more.

"And the ensuing “sure I’m going to vote for Nathan” speech while Nathan looks daggers and Peter looks back like he’s having the time of his life is just fun, fun, fun."

ISN'T IT EVER. *ggg*

"Peter: I want.
Nathan: You can’t.
Argument: *ensues*
Peter: *does dangerous stuff*
Nathan: *ends up doing what Peter wanted in the first place*"

Spot-on. Hee.

"They are so awesomely co-dependent, and I love them to bits."

They are. This is TOTALLY your show, isn't it, what with the...very special family dynamics and the comics roots.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Like you don't LOVE IT. *g*

Oh, naturally. That's why I made Yahtzee write Jack Bristow/Angela Petrelli.

That was very cool. I actually like Heidi; it's a loss that they don't use her more.

I hope they will in the next season, since they took the trouble of making Linderman heal her, which points to some plot that requires Heidi to be up and about.

They are. This is TOTALLY your show, isn't it, what with the...very special family dynamics and the comics roots.

It is. Watch me geek out about my favourite episode (despite strong competition) of the first season here (http://selenak.livejournal.com/298589.html).

[taxidryer.livejournal.com]

Peter: I want.
Nathan: You can’t.
Argument: *ensues*
Peter: *does dangerous stuff*
Nathan: *ends up doing what Peter wanted in the first place*

But it’s equally viable to read the dynamic as:

Peter: You can.
Nathan: No, I don’t.
Argument: *ensues* etc.

Oh Lord. No words could pin it down better.

Your analysis is very interesting and deep. We could have paid you for that ;o)