Favourite Villains

[selenak]

linaerys asked about these. Let's see, and start by excluding specimens. For example, morally ambigous trickster types who spend most of their time helping the protagonist (Methos on Highlander would be a good example) do not count as villains, even if they turn out to have a villainous past. Similarly, monsters are a category of their own (and I already did that meme) - for example, the Gentlemen in Hush (BTVS) or the Angels in Blink (DW). One episode scary creatures out of fairy tales, not interacting on a longer basis with the regular lot of characters; different category. Also, no characters whose fate and hero-or-villanhood is still undecided (looking at you, Snape, and you, Abigail Brand).

Another thing in advance: Villain love usually does not mean for me that I want these characters to win, though I most often want them to survive (that would be where the "favourite" part comes in) . Also, it it doesn't mean I dislike the heroes of whatever book/movie/tv show they happen to come from, because if I find a primary text where I can like only the villains, I give up on the text. (This happened to me with Earth: Final Conflict.)

There are two categories for me: villains I love, villains I love to hate (different thing), and villains I neither love or hate but find so interesting that they are listed here anyway.

So, most loved villains:

Servalan (Blake's 7). Best Evil Overlady ever. Had one of the best "why am I surrounded by idiots?" looks, managed to play mind games even when chained against a wall, and was the origin of that line recently stolen by G. Martin, originally written for her by Tanith Lee: "Come on, a woman like you?" "There are no women like me." No one said it with her panache.

Darla (BTVS/AtS). My favourite of the Fanged Four, my favourite AtS character, and my favourite vampire, full stop, though I love her no less when she's human. See also: lots of fanfic and roleplay.

Scorpius (Farscape). Is that rarity, a villain who gets a happy end in his primary text without this feeling wrong. Which caught me by surprise, and a very pleasant one it was, given I had other issues about The Peacekeeper Wars. As opposed to the two ladies mentioned above, Scorpius is a great example of the "villain as hero in his own story" type, given that he's absolutely convinced he's working for the greater good (in addition to personal revenge) here. Which brings me to:

Alfred Bester (Babylon 5). Who has the same idea, sans personal revenge. It's significant that one of the worst things Bester does from the pov of the shows heroes' is actually not about said heroes at all (he couldn't care less what happens to Sheridan, good or bad, in Face of the Enemy; it's all about saving "my telepaths"; whether the emphasis is on "my" or on "telepaths" is the dilemma of Bester's life).

Arvin Sloane (Alias). One of my all time favourite characters, villains or heroes or ambiguous types all included. I'll be lazy and just link my essay about him when it comes to the reasons.

Livia Drusilla (I, Claudius). Here's a woman who manipulates, schemes, kills, outlives most of her family and victims (frequently the same thing) and is absolutely convincing when she says she did it for Rome. (Incidentally, whether or not she did is another question, but you believe she believes it.) She's ruthless, she's relentlessly witty and she gets the hero to make her a goddess after death. Who can beat that?

Winn Adami (Star Trek: DS9). Not Kai Winn, alas, but she's great with the manipulation and the scheming as well, and you know, she's also convinced she does it for Bajor (with her as the best thing for Bajor, naturally). Winn is the female version of a Renaissance Cardinal, and her fall-out with her gods, the Prophets had me rooting for her all the way (but then I always loathed the Prophets). I think it was deborah_judge who once said that Laura Roslin is Winn witten as the hero, and the reverse is somewhat true as well: Winn is Roslin written as the villain of the story.

Erik Lehnsherr, aka Magneto (X-Men movieverse and 616 verse, but not Ultimate): And another "I'm doing this for the greater good" villain with a tragic background. Though alas, he's subjected to the whims of various writers in several of his incarnations, which makes him at times too monomanic. In fine form, however, Magneto is for the win.

Lucas Buck (American Gothic): Now here's a man (? actually, for all we know he's a different entity altogether) who's intriguingly limited in his ambitions for a Luciferian villain. Lucas isn't interested in what goes on beyond Trinity (small fictional town in South Carolina), and he definitely doesn't want to rule the world or lead any group to victory, but within Trinity, you tend to end up mad, bad, or dead if you don't do exactly what he wants you to. He has a number of supernatural tricks at his disposal, but mostly succeeds via sheer manipulativeness.


Most love to hate villains:

Mr. Morden (Babylon 5): Because even Wolfram and Hart lawyers have nothing on him when it comes to evil smarminess. Enjoyed every one of his appearances, did not feel sorry a bit for him when he finally was dispatched with (by My Darling Londo, in style).

Emperor Cartagia (Babylon 5) and Caligula (I, Claudius): Basically the same character, only one has sci-fi tech at his disposal. When it comes to crazy cruel lunatics in power who are at the same time far from stupid, these two can't be bettered. Also, they're along just long enough - if either was around any longer, the genuine horror they inspired would have faded.

Palpatine (Star Wars prequels): Was necessary but somewhat dull in the OT as the Emperor, but creepily good in the prequels. No one says "I love democray, I love the Republic" the way Ian McDiarmid does. (Definitely not certain current politicians...)


Most interesting but not loved or hated villains:

Warren Mears (BTVS): as with many other aspects of season 6, the decision to make the Trio the seasonal villains until Willow takes over in the finale is controversial. Some people thought three geeks Buffy went to school with weren't threatening enough, some people felt betrayed by the fact they were geeks and portrayed in a negative manner. To me, Warren was the most interesting villain since the Mayor, and actually more interesting than Angelus (Angelus solely in his function as villain, not as a part of Angel). Precisely because he wasn't a monster, and was a fanboy gone bad. If you think that can't happen, you're lucky in the types you've met. My Warren interest led me to lengthy fanfic, which basically sums up why he fascinated me on the show.

(Sidenote: it also occured to me that if Winn and Roslin are versions of each other written as hero and villain respectively, then Owen Harper on Torchwood is Warren written as one of the heroes, which is probably why Owen is the most interesting character on that show to me.)

Daniel Holtz (AtS): arguably the most complex of the AtS villains. I admire the way the show on the one hand never made it look as if Holtz' hatred towards Angel wasn't entirely justified but on the other made it equally clear that the actions this hatred caused were beyond the pale.

The Operative (Serenity): another entry in the "villains convinced of working for the greater good" club; if he had been on the show (Firefly, that is) instead of only appearing in the movie, he might have made it into the loved category. As it is, I found him fascinating, and he was the element of the film I thought most worthy of exploration.

The Female Founder (Star Trek: DS9): actually, as with all the Founders, we don't know whether she's female, but the form she chooses to appear in was. In many ways the embodiment of the Great Link, and a great mixture of serene, creepy and alien. I very much enjoyed each of her appearances on the show.

Comments

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

Great list, and I add a ditto to several names, such as Servalan and Scorpius. And as usual you make me wish I were more of a Trekkie, in order to appreciate those DS9 characters whose storylines grew after I lapsed from the fandom.

(And I hear there's going to be a DVD release of The Young Indiana Jones Adventures, meaning I might finally get to see the episode in which both Jacqueline Pearce and Ian McDiarmid appeared!)

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Oh, I do love the idea of Roslin and Winn as reverse sides of the coin!

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Nice list! It's an interesting question to think about; I think, in general, I actually prefer the ambiguous trickster types to out-and-out villains, but I do agree with a lot of your choices as being interesting and/or characters I love. Warren is an exception, but I think I despise him precisely because of the point you mention: he hits a little too close to home, I've definitely met men like that.*brr* (well, there is also a fact that I found the three geeks together incredibly annoying, and wasn't much fond of the show keeping Andrew on afterwards, but that's a completely different story altogether.)

Roslin being Winn written as a hero (and vice versa) is a fascinating thought; I do remember reading in an interview (or hearing it in one of the commentaries?) that Moore et al originally planned to have Roslin go much more in a ruthless leader drunk on power direction, making her an antagonist to Adama (I'm very glad they refrained from that, not least because Adama being positioned as automatically right by the text really wouldn't sit too well with me. I find a lot of his choices incredibly questionable.)

In this list, where would the cylons fall for you? Are they villains, are they alternative protagonists, are some models villains, or can individual cylons of all models be villains?

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

This may possibly sound insane, coming from me, but I'm not a big fan of villains. I enjoy a lot of them, but I'm rarely so invested in a villain that I don't want him or her to die. And also possibly because I have trouble actually thinking of them as villains after a while. I mean, I know intellectually that Darth Vader is a villain, and I certainly don't want to woobify him or want to diminish that, but that's just not the way I categroize him in my head.

Biiiig yeses to Darla, Scorpius, Winn Adami, Palpatine, and Holtz, though.

I think there are two different levels I like villains on: pure writing, where it's obvious that the writers have thought about the consequences of this villain and what his/her plan is, and enjoyment. I like villains who have fun being evil.

So I'd also add:

Angelus, the Mayor, Sylar, Mr Lyle from the Pretender (er, it's a bit worrisome that the first four on my list have eaten people, isn't it?), Gul Dukat, and Knives from Trigun. Knives particularly hits my writing kink, since his story is one of the best examples I've ever seen for giving a villain a plausible reason not to kill the hero, while maintaining his menace. Plus, he's completely insane. I love that in a character. ;)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

And now you're making me with I had watched more episodes of Young Indy (I liked the show and watched sporadically, but the schedule was tricky here in Germany!), as I missed that one, too!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Given the Ron Moore connection, I think that theory is extremely plausible.*g*

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I do remember reading in an interview (or hearing it in one of the commentaries?) that Moore et al originally planned to have Roslin go much more in a ruthless leader drunk on power direction, making her an antagonist to Adama

I think that was in the early s1 interviews, yes, I remember. Of course, in the hiatus between s1 and s2 you had a lot of people bashing Roslin as a religious power mad maniac anyway...

(I'm very glad they refrained from that, not least because Adama being positioned as automatically right by the text really wouldn't sit too well with me. I find a lot of his choices incredibly questionable.)

Absolutely, and that's actually why I'm a bit uneasy with the harmony between him and Roslin through later s2 and throughout s3, because they no longer function as checks and balances to each other. Zarek might come in handy there, but alas the writers hardly remembered him after New Caprica! On the bright side of things, they did remember Lee works best in an ethical dilemma storyline, not a romantic one, and gave him the job of challenging Adama's and Roslin's choices both in the last episodes of the season.

In this list, where would the cylons fall for you? Are they villains, are they alternative protagonists, are some models villains, or can individual cylons of all models be villains?

There's a reason why I didn't list any of the Cylons, and it's that they - and Baltar, for that matter - are impossible to categorize. They definitely started out as not only antagonists (which is the world I'd still use for them) but villains, but even within s1, that became muddier and muddier. And no, I don't differentiate between "nice Cylons" (i.e. Athena and pre-discovery Boomer) and bad Cylons in this regard. One major reason why I don't think one could describe them as the villains in this particular story is that there is no way this story is going to be solved with a Cylon defeat, i.e. heroes defeating villains. (Or even the reverse if you want to be completely dystopian - Cylons wiping out humans for good.) Between all the "shape of things to come" talk, the emphasis on the Cylons as a young, developing race who has just started to individualize and the need for the humans to not just survive but keep reasons for survival, it's pretty clear that it can only end in a human-Cylon convergence, a merging of the species. Not of the enforced variety as tried on New Caprica, but voluntarily, with the various human-Cylon relationships and Hera as tentative pre-models.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I mean, I know intellectually that Darth Vader is a villain, and I certainly don't want to woobify him or want to diminish that, but that's just not the way I categroize him in my head.

Oh, same here, which is why I didn't list him. In the SW saga as a whole, he falls more in the category of tragic antihero, narratively speaking, though I hesitate to use the term because too many people confuse "tragic" with "excuse". (Forgetting that MacBeth and Othello are both the tragic heroes of their plays, not the villains, and most certainly still get blamed for their actions.)

Dukat as a character I like, but have issues with his post-Waltz characterisation, which is why he didn't make my list. As for insane, gleeful villains, that spot has been occupied by Cartagia and Caligular for me.*g*

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

This may possibly sound insane, coming from me, but I'm not a big fan of villains. I enjoy a lot of them, but I'm rarely so invested in a villain that I don't want him or her to die. And also possibly because I have trouble actually thinking of them as villains after a while. I mean, I know intellectually that Darth Vader is a villain, and I certainly don't want to woobify him or want to diminish that, but that's just not the way I categroize him in my head.

I do feel in a similar way, although there is the occasion where I want villains not necessarily to get away, but to get something different than getting killed. (I can't come up with a specific example right now, but if Heroes had killed Angela instead of Linderman, I would have been majorly pissed. With him, I'm okay, he really had a lot of impact for the short amount of time he was on, and it was earned that they checked him out. With Angela, it would have had a much different vibe, much more like they'd kill her for being a bad mother, not a Big Bad.)

I do sometimes like insane villains and/or those that have fun with being evil as well - the Mayor is a brilliant example - but I usually don't like serial killers, because they freak me out a little too much. On the same level, I find fannish devotion to someone like Sylar - you know, the "but he's sooo cute!" kind, not the "how fabulously devilishly evil" kind - a bit... creepy. I guess that goes back to my first internet fandom being Profiler. (And I can't really believe I just admitted that in public.)

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

In the SW saga as a whole, he falls more in the category of tragic antihero, narratively speaking, though I hesitate to use the term because too many people confuse "tragic" with "excuse".

And sometimes they then categorize you as a crazy fangirl (not that I'm not), but yeah. It's a tricky term to use, even when applicable.

Dukat as a character I like, but have issues with his post-Waltz characterisation, which is why he didn't make my list.

I've never really had a problem with it, weirdly enough. But I do love my crazies dearly, even when it may not be the best characterization for them.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

I do feel in a similar way, although there is the occasion where I want villains not necessarily to get away, but to get something different than getting killed.

I usually just want a fitting death, but there are times when I want the villain to live and cause mayhem another day. Although, really, the times I don't want bad guys to die are when they are complete matched sets with the good guys (who probably aren't that good) and I want them locked in battle for eternity. I don't know if you've read the book "in Conquest Born", but the situation there is a good example of this.

With Angela, it would have had a much different vibe, much more like they'd kill her for being a bad mother, not a Big Bad.

Ugh. Yeah, that would have been terrible. As it is, I'm not actually convinced that she's a villain. I think there's a good chance her "Company Man" episode will reveal her to be much more ambiguous, especially RE: Peter (aka: the most important factor for fannish sympathy).

I guess that goes back to my first internet fandom being Profiler. (And I can't really believe I just admitted that in public.)

Aww, but I just admitted to watching the Pretender (and obviously I watched the crossovers with Profiler!). Oddly, my fascination with serial killers is an almost direct offshoot of my X-Files days. I loved the Mulder-as-a-profiler angle. And I like figuring how people that deranged function anyway.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Of course, in the hiatus between s1 and s2 you had a lot of people bashing Roslin as a religious power mad maniac anyway...

*blinks* What? My Laura, a maniac? I totally missed that! (Then again, I'm not exactly *in* BSG fandom per se)
Seriously, the religious phase was one of the two major points where I felt distant from the character - who otherwise, hands down, is my favourite BSG character next to Six - but even then Roslin was never anything but collected and rational. Those were the calmest freakouts with added hallucinations in a religious context that I have ever seen on a TV show. As for power hungry - well, a politician who doesn't want power is a weird construct indeed, but being power hungry is something very different, and I didn't really see Roslin show that (besides, what did these people think Adama was doing at the same time?).

Absolutely, and that's actually why I'm a bit uneasy with the harmony between him and Roslin through later s2 and throughout s3, because they no longer function as checks and balances to each other. Zarek might come in handy there, but alas the writers hardly remembered him after New Caprica! On the bright side of things, they did remember Lee works best in an ethical dilemma storyline, not a romantic one, and gave him the job of challenging Adama's and Roslin's choices both in the last episodes of the season.

Word to this whole paragraph; and seriously, I missed both Zarek and principled Lee, and am glad that at least the latter seems to be back.

And no, I don't differentiate between "nice Cylons" (i.e. Athena and pre-discovery Boomer) and bad Cylons in this regard.

*g* I see it the same way. I mean, I don't claim Six as my favourite character(s?) for nothing - and I don't just love her because she is fearsome, but also because she can be so very vulnerable and loving and yet still tough - but I also disliked Boomer for quite a long time, because it seemed to me that the show was forcing her niceness a little on the viewers (call it the Cally syndrome). And even the male Cylons, who are arguably somewhat less well developed than the women, have traits that differentiate them a lot from merely villainesque characters, especially Leoben and Simon. And of course the end of Season 3 muddled all of this up again, in favour of them not being "just villains."

One major reason why I don't think one could describe them as the villains in this particular story is that there is no way this story is going to be solved with a Cylon defeat, i.e. heroes defeating villains. (Or even the reverse if you want to be completely dystopian - Cylons wiping out humans for good.)

I definitely agree; it also seems that finding a means to co-exist and work together is the only way both groups will really manage to survive in the end.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

*raises hand*

I watched the Pretender, too. Well, from the second season onwards, I missed the first one. In my case, it was Miss Parker all the way, though. Never mind the menfolk. (Except for Sydney and Broots!)

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you've read the book "in Conquest Born", but the situation there is a good example of this.

Never read it, sorry. Fictional or Non-fictional?

As it is, I'm not actually convinced that she's a villain.

I think at the moment she is posited as such, which, given the show's delight in double and triple fakeouts, probably doesn't mean so much, especially if they now use her similar to how they used Nathan in the beginning, i.e. make her look like the Most Evil One to distract from the real bad guy (which I still think will be her husband, and yes, I probably won't stop harping on that until Season 5, or at least until we see his corpse at least once!).

I think there's a good chance her "Company Man" episode will reveal her to be much more ambiguous, especially RE: Peter (aka: the most important factor for fannish sympathy).

Yeah, and at the same time she can emotionally cripple Nathan to her heart's delight and no one will care because he is not nice. *adores fandom*

Aww, but I just admitted to watching the Pretender (and obviously I watched the crossovers with Profiler!).

I think I saw one of the cross-overs, but I only watched Profiler regularly in the first two seasons, so I likely missed them.

Oddly, my fascination with serial killers is an almost direct offshoot of my X-Files days. I loved the Mulder-as-a-profiler angle. And I like figuring how people that deranged function anyway.

Still a far cry from drawing little hearts around Zach Quinto's picture, trying to dismiss Sylar's deeds as "but he only needs love!" and actually meaning it.

Also: favourite x-files agent? Mulder or Scully?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

*blinks* What? My Laura, a maniac? I totally missed that!

*g* Here is my Laura defense post written at the time: A tale of two visions (http://community.livejournal.com/13th_colony/55183.html).

And even the male Cylons, who are arguably somewhat less well developed than the women, have traits that differentiate them a lot from merely villainesque characters, especially Leoben and Simon.

Quite. I'm so glad they brought Leoben back for s3; and word on the Six love, in all her incarnations.

And of course the end of Season 3 muddled all of this up again, in favour of them not being "just villains."

*nods* I've seen people conclude that well, these four (plus the unknown fifth) are obviously "good Cylons" who will help the humans defeat the others, which made me go back right to the earlier voiced argument: this is NOT going to end in a A defeats B scenario but co-existence.

(I think the best on show verbalization was when Baltar asked Three to leave, and Three said "and if we do, then what? Will you teach your children to hunt the Cylon in revenge as soon they are old enough?" To which Baltar said "it has to stop somewhere. It has to stop". Harking right back to s2 and his dialogue with Head!Six on Kobol when she called murder the human art and we got:

Baltar: You did plenty of killing on your own, I think.
Six: We are the children of humanity. What do you expect?
Baltar: So you keep killing us and we keep killing you - what is the point? What is the point of it all?

Gaius B. might be the most selfish character on the show, but he's also the least ideological and being well and truly between both species gets to make these points.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Also: favourite x-files agent? Mulder or Scully?

*interrupts*

SKINNER!

[resolute.livejournal.com]

(Sidenote: it also occured to me that if Winn and Roslin are versions of each other written as hero and villain respectively, then Owen Harper on Torchwood is Warren written as one of the heroes, which is probably why Owen is the most interesting character on that show to me.)

Oh my god.

That's so absolutely true.

Er. I don;t have anything more witty, just, that's so true . . .

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Well, Skinner is the best, that's without question.*g*

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Winn's best moment is in "Reckoning". I don't care much for her in bed with Dukat later -- except in the subjective, hey women over fifty get to have sex too, sense. But oh "Reckoning". I agree about Winn/Roslin as well.

Basically, what you said.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Ohh, and I did want to ask you if you watch Dexter, as I'm pretty sure you might find it interesting.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Of course I do! I've been pimping it to all my friends here, who have largely been backing away slowly and reminding me that they find serial killers scary not scary/fascinating.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

It's absolutely Miss Parker all the way for me (I wanted to be her), but Mr. Lyle is an awesome, awesome villain. He's eats people! And lost his thumb to the Yakuza! And he hits on his sister!

And as much as my pre-teen heart belonged to Miss Parker/Jarod, I still liked the Centre plots more than anything else happening on the show.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Never read it, sorry. Fictional or Non-fictional?

Fictionaly, sci-fi by one of my favorite authors, CS Friedman. It's about two empires with diametrically opposite cultures who have been warring for centuries. The book follows the mutual obsessions of the two generals leading each people. I've never read another book that so was so completely devoid of sympathetic characters, yet filled with fascinating ones.

(which I still think will be her husband, and yes, I probably won't stop harping on that until Season 5, or at least until we see his corpse at least once!).

I'm not convinced he will be evil. I think he's got to be at least as sketchy as Angela -- because I don't believe for a second they would have him as a victim to her machinations -- and I doubt he was at all nice, given the comic, but it still seems like he will be the road not taken for Nathan. Conflicted and torn apart by his unethical decisions, while unable to change from the path he's on.

Yeah, and at the same time she can emotionally cripple Nathan to her heart's delight and no one will care because he is not nice. *adores fandom*

Hee. Hey, I think people might get defensive of Nathan now! After all, we know how much he loves Peter!! :D And he's going to be "redeemed."

I think I saw one of the cross-overs, but I only watched Profiler regularly in the first two seasons, so I likely missed them.

There were three, I think. Two with the original Profiler and one with the replacement. The one with the chess prodigy was the best, I think.

Still a far cry from drawing little hearts around Zach Quinto's picture, trying to dismiss Sylar's deeds as "but he only needs love!" and actually meaning it.

Eugh. As much as I love him, he needs anti-psychotics, a rubber room, and a psychiatrist with a steel stomach. Or, alternatively, for your hero of choice (I vote Audrey!) to kill his ass, because we all know how well Arkham works.

Also: favourite x-files agent? Mulder or Scully?

Ohhh, tough choice. I'd say Mulder, if only because Scully episodes tended to bore me to death. But they really work best when complementing each others' skills. And by that I mean bitching at each other.

[bitterbyrden.livejournal.com]

I like your brain. Can I have it?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

How many of you zombies are out there? Weren't you supposed to be on the rampage yesterday? *g*

[kernezelda]

ICB is one of my all-time favorite books.

[kernezelda]

Servalan, Scorpius, Bester, Buck - fabulous.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

It occurs to me that I can really ONLY like villains if I can conceive them as the hero of their own story. And I have to have something to be interested in/ relate to in that story, or I just go into my "please go away and leave my heroes along with their angst." So, like, I probably should read that Warren fic of yours at some point, but I haven't been able to do it yet because I have a really hard time imagining that I'd want to be part of the story he's the hero of.

On the other hand -- the Operative as samurai with tunnel vision is a story I can get behind even though he's one of the most chillingly cold-blooded villains in a text I like. (Have you watched the commentary to Serenity? Whedon says that he wrote the line 'I didn't bring my sword' before he realized that the Op was going to pull it out -- and then when the character turned out to actually have a sword, Joss understood everything he needed to know about him)

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced he will be evil. I think he's got to be at least as sketchy as Angela -- because I don't believe for a second they would have him as a victim to her machinations

After the comic? No. Someone who at once finds the possibly most perverted use of healing won't turn into a fluffy bunny just because he's in more civilized circumstances. Besides, he could have read "Saving the World" as some kind of war, at least initially. On the other hand, he apparently gave up The Plan, so he apparently didn't quite reach Angela and Linderman's megalomania.

but it still seems like he will be the road not taken for Nathan. Conflicted and torn apart by his unethical decisions, while unable to change from the path he's on.

I don't quite see it that way. After all, he continued working with and for Linderman, even though he was obviously involved in organised crime, and from what admittedly little we've heard I didn't exactly get the impression that he felt conflicted. More like he had to do this, for whatever reason.

Hey, I think people might get defensive of Nathan now! After all, we know how much he loves Peter!! :D And he's going to be "redeemed."

Nah, I suspect one group will think that he did it all for [insert selfish reason here], and not because he loves Peter, and most of the rest will probably be so hypnotized by The Beard that they'll find themselves unable to state an opinion on anything. (Incidentally, its wearer confirmed that the facial hair is indeed for Season 2, so we'll either get the amnesiac/homeless combo, or Nathan somehow mysteriously ends up with an Amish family.)

(I vote Audrey!)

Definitely Audrey, with support from Mohinder, Sandra and Molly, provided that doesn't traumatize her even more.

Ohhh, tough choice. I'd say Mulder, if only because Scully episodes tended to bore me to death. But they really work best when complementing each others' skills. And by that I mean bitching at each other.

Agreed; however, I'd still choose Scully, because she's just cool. While Mulder is a bit of a muppet. (not that I don't adore him, anyway.)

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Here is my Laura defense post written at the time: A tale of two visions.

Nice comparison.

I've seen people conclude that well, these four (plus the unknown fifth) are obviously "good Cylons" who will help the humans defeat the others

But why should they do that? They are Cylons, after all, that has to make them stop and think. I mean, why are they here? Where does it come from this need to solve life's mysteries? Oh, no, wait, that's a Movoiceover. Argh. But seriously, I suspect that they are there to connect the Humans and the younger models. (I suspect the final five have to be older, given that Tigh has been around at least for forty years)

And good point about Baltar as the one between the groups being the voice of reason here. (Irony upon irony.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Where does it come from this need to solve life's mysteries? Oh, no, wait, that's a Movoiceover. Argh

ROTFLOL. He's infectious, like measles!

Final Five and Tigh's age: which would mean they weren't created by the Cylons themselves, you realize? Because Tigh fought in the first Cylon war, back when they still all looked like Tin Men. So someone/i> started earlier with the humlons.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, the Warren tale has him as the villain in some parts, too. It's a "five things which never happened to Warren Mears" tale - first time I tried out the concept - and while in some he avoids going evil, in others he's actually worse than he gets in canon. Two of the five explore the parallels to Willow, which was one of the s6 things which interested me about Warren, so if you're interested in Willow, you might give it a try for that reason, too.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Final Five and Tigh's age: which would mean they weren't created by the Cylons themselves, you realize? Because Tigh fought in the first Cylon war, back when they still all looked like Tin Men. So someone/i> started earlier with the humlons.

The gods, I presume. I've been guessing for a while that they actually might be real, rather than mythical. (See also Thrace, Kara, mysterious survival of)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Same here, and even before Kara's survival; I started to suspect when Baltar had his opera house vision on Kobol and Roslin had hers up on Colonial One...

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Also, the Cylon religion: for something that is just "copied" from the Humans it's very elaborate, and it seems to involve concepts that I don't see just developing from what they knew of the "Human" pantheon. This whole idea about a stream Leoben elaborated on in Flesh and Bones - I'm not completely firm on it, it has been ages since I saw that episode, but the notion of everything being connected and history basically working in cycles, with individual people taking on different roles in each new turn - I would be endlessly impressed if a species as young as the Cylons are, actually developed such a sophisticated mythology and philosophy of life, but so far I'm rather thinking they were either programmed like this, or they had "help" in discovering it, i.e. their "God," who apparently was once one of the Colonial gods.

Which brings me to another candidate we have for creating the Final Five: that mysterious thirteenth tribe, who went away thousand years ago. Maybe they did develop the technology earlier than the colonies and send the Final Five back to check on their brethren, and maybe guide them to Earth?

(Other theories I have on this involve the humans actually being artificial lifeforms created by the "gods" themselves; so that they would basically be first or second generation androids - depending on whether they were there before or after the Final Five - who again created androids, who then evolved.

That solution would certainly leave many people up in arms, but it would also turn a lot of concepts about the show on their heads without being too implausible I think.)

[counteragent.livejournal.com]

Just rewatched "Angel" today, and was again impressed at how charismatic Julie Benz was, even then, in the role of Darla. And she only got better. That sweeter than sweet voice, saying all those terrible vampire-y things. Chilling!

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Someone who at once finds the possibly most perverted use of healing won't turn into a fluffy bunny just because he's in more civilized circumstances. Besides, he could have read "Saving the World" as some kind of war, at least initially. On the other hand, he apparently gave up The Plan, so he apparently didn't quite reach Angela and Linderman's megalomania.

Not fluffy, no, but I definitely think civilization had to have had a stabilizing effect on him. And Angela herself probably did too, as much as one can on a Bipolar, likely PTSD vet who probably had anger issues to begin with. She just wouldn't stand for that kind of crap. Which probably exacerbated some aspects, of course, since he would have put on a front for her, but I think she would have prevented him from indulging his delusions.

Which ... would be ironic. Angela kept his delusions of grandeur to a minimum for forty years and then comes The Plan, which is every delusion wrapped in a neat package and he can't go through with it. This is part of where I get the idea he may have been conflicted from. I don't think mere weakness can explain him backing out of The Plan (presuming he did, and presuming he was ever on board) -- the way he did it, yes, but the fact that he wanted out means to me that he probably had actual ethical objections. Angela and Linderman are smart enough that they would have listened to logistical ones, after all.

After all, he continued working with and for Linderman, even though he was obviously involved in organised crime, and from what admittedly little we've heard I didn't exactly get the impression that he felt conflicted. More like he had to do this, for whatever reason.

I think we just read that supposed "necessity" differently. I think it's just that. Necessary, but not good, or right, or anything he could ever be proud of. Nathan's defensiveness about their father seems almost parroted from what their father himself says. And I don't think you get defensive that way if you don't know it's wrong. Peter said that their father was "a criminal for defending criminals." Leaving aside Peter's righteousness and disappointment in his father, I don't think Peter misfires with his barbs. He knows how to hit where it hurts the most (in fact, I get the feeling that their father did too, hence the bad relationship). If their father felt righteous in what he was doing, I don't think that would wound him. But, of course, this is rampant speculation.

To be honest, I'm a bit afraid of finding out the truth about Daddy Petrelli. I'm happy the fandom at large hasn't actually read War Buddies, otherwise we would be flooded with Peter-was-abused h/c woobiefic already. If S2 Daddy P isn't a complete turn around from WB, we are totally going to see that. (Nevermind that Nathan would never think a man who hurt Peter is a hero, or that Peter could never actually hide said abuse from Nathan. And oh God, just typing this I'm willing the fic into existence, I know it.)

(Incidentally, its wearer confirmed that the facial hair is indeed for Season 2, so we'll either get the amnesiac/homeless combo, or Nathan somehow mysteriously ends up with an Amish family.)

I saw that! Hobos FTW! \o/

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

This is part of where I get the idea he may have been conflicted from.

It's a very interesting reading, from an angle I hadn't quite considered yet. Yes, it would work for me.

And I don't think you get defensive that way if you don't know it's wrong. Peter said that their father was "a criminal for defending criminals." Leaving aside Peter's righteousness and disappointment in his father, I don't think Peter misfires with his barbs. He knows how to hit where it hurts the most (in fact, I get the feeling that their father did too, hence the bad relationship). If their father felt righteous in what he was doing, I don't think that would wound him. But, of course, this is rampant speculation.

I definitely think it would work and could be rather close to what they'll be going for. My mind just automatically goes to Sopranos' characters where the mob is concerned, and they tend to rationalize away their culpability pretty thoroughly (from what I've seen of it, anyway).

Definitely agree that he probably knew how to hit where it hurts the most (verbally) and that that, aside from Peter's unwillingness to do what he is told, was the biggest obstacle between them.

To be honest, I'm a bit afraid of finding out the truth about Daddy Petrelli. I'm happy the fandom at large hasn't actually read War Buddies, otherwise we would be flooded with Peter-was-abused h/c woobiefic already. If S2 Daddy P isn't a complete turn around from WB, we are totally going to see that. (Nevermind that Nathan would never think a man who hurt Peter is a hero, or that Peter could never actually hide said abuse from Nathan. And oh God, just typing this I'm willing the fic into existence, I know it.)

Leaving fandom's complete unwillingness to acknowledge that in a family there is a dynamic between all members, and that everyone is affected by dysfunctionality, not just the sweet and caring people, aside, wouldn't Nathan have been the first one to be affected by any fatherly tendencies to corporal punishment? I mean, not that I think Petrelli regularly beat his kids, but I find it even less likely that he would have gotten violent against Peter only. (And I'm really hoping that I am not willing any woobie Nathan fics into existence with this, either)

Hobos FTW! \o/

Hee. Superpowered hobos, unite!

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Which brings me to another candidate we have for creating the Final Five: that mysterious thirteenth tribe, who went away thousand years ago. Maybe they did develop the technology earlier than the colonies and send the Final Five back to check on their brethren, and maybe guide them to Earth?

My friend has a theory that they are all Cylons, and when the reach Earth, the humans there will freak out because, "OMG, didn't we send them awaaaaaay?"

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

My mind just automatically goes to Sopranos' characters where the mob is concerned, and they tend to rationalize away their culpability pretty thoroughly (from what I've seen of it, anyway).

That's true, and I could see that It'd be interesting if, between Linderman, Angela, and Daddy P, he was actually the evilest -- if he lacked their idealism, but kept the authoritarianism, that would be truly scary. But I don't quite know how that would fit with the depression and suicide attempts, assuming those really happened.

wouldn't Nathan have been the first one to be affected by any fatherly tendencies to corporal punishment?

You'd think, but of course Nathan likes their dad, so that would be fanwanked away.

(And I'm really hoping that I am not willing any woobie Nathan fics into existence with this, either)

I think it's inevitable. I just hope that I'll never see it if I stay away from The Pit.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

It'd be interesting if, between Linderman, Angela, and Daddy P, he was actually the evilest -- if he lacked their idealism, but kept the authoritarianism, that would be truly scary. But I don't quite know how that would fit with the depression and suicide attempts, assuming those really happened.

I'd assume his threshold for disappointments was rather low - he seems to have had ridiculous expectations in both situations (telling his superiors about Linderman's powers and expecting everyone to applaud him) and people (arguably both Nathan and Peter, but especially Nathan I'd think)) and he might have gotten frustrated when the Saving the World stint didn't work out that brilliantly, not because people disappointed him ethically, but rather OMG, WHY WON'T THEY LISTEN ALREADY?!

You'd think, but of course Nathan likes their dad, so that would be fanwanked away.

I think I *may* have heard something somewhere about abused children in particular who blame themselves for the situation and continue admiring their abusers, especially if they are their parents, but that could have been just crazy talk. (Correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be more of an expert in psychological matters)

I think it's inevitable. I just hope that I'll never see it if I stay away from The Pit.

Lovely. That means that in future I'll not only have to weed out OOC stories and Father-Daughter incest and most Petrellicest , but also everything that takes place in the Petrelli family past. *headdesk*

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

and he might have gotten frustrated when the Saving the World stint didn't work out that brilliantly, not because people disappointed him ethically, but rather OMG, WHY WON'T THEY LISTEN ALREADY?!

Very true. He didn't seem like the most realistic person in the world, and may have wanted the maximum result for the minimum effort just because that's how things ought to be.

I think I *may* have heard something somewhere about abused children in particular who blame themselves for the situation and continue admiring their abusers, especially if they are their parents, but that could have been just crazy talk. (Correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be more of an expert in psychological matters)

Well, I wouldn't say expert, but I do have a BA in psych and I worked with abused children for a while. It does happen that children who were abused will defend their abuser and continue to love them, but it mostly seems to happen in cases where the child doesn't quite grasp that the abuse was abuse -- and I don't think adult survivors of abuse demonstrate that quite so often, because they get exposed to the real world and how other families work enough to see that it was abuse.

Nathan knows exactly how dysfunctional a family they are, and while his self-worth is rather tied to his family's expectations, it doesn't have desperate edge of worrying about the consequence of failure that an abuse survivor might have. Which, obviously, wouldn't stop badficcers. The raw material of Nathan's continued devotion to his father despite what were probably unreasonable expectations for achievement and what couldn't have been a very loving or supportive relationship are already there.

Lovely. That means that in future I'll not only have to weed out OOC stories and Father-Daughter incest and most Petrellicest , but also everything that takes place in the Petrelli family past. *headdesk*

I'm hoping LJ-land will be mostly immune from it (even though it hasn't been immune to woobifying Claude and Sylar). Okay, so I'll really just do what I do now and stick to authors I know and recs. *sigh*

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Well, I wouldn't say expert, but I do have a BA in psych and I worked with abused children for a while.

Hmm. I have sociology as my second, much neglected Major and the closest I ever came to doing something about child psychology was a class about the changes in the lives of boys during puberty. Interesting, but not quite the same level.

Nathan knows exactly how dysfunctional a family they are, and while his self-worth is rather tied to his family's expectations, it doesn't have desperate edge of worrying about the consequence of failure that an abuse survivor might have.

That's basically what I thought speaks against him being a victim of abuse - and I don't think Peter has it, either. Sure, he was craving his parents' approval, but he didn't seem to be particularly scared to criticize his father rather verbally, for instance.

Besides, while we have seen Petrelli get violent fairly easily, the cases were also bound to very specific situations - they either had him be a soldier in a war situation, and there is nothing that suggests to me he would have done the same in an everyday context, or they were concerned with someone whom he regarded as a fellow soldier, an adult, etc, etc. I probably would have been more weary if he had been actively and bodily cruel against the civilians in the village.

Which, obviously, wouldn't stop badficcers.

Then again, did anything ever stop badficcers in any context? :)

Okay, so I'll really just do what I do now and stick to authors I know and recs. *sigh*

Always the best plan, anyway. Btw, I wasn't aware that there is fanfiction around that is not directly concerned with lj...