Nathan Petrelli, Revisited

[selenak]

In order to keep my new resolve to remain spoiler-free for the next season of Heroes from now on, what better distraction than to write more meta about the last one? This time about the person who turned out to be my favourite character. When I met londonkds in London the other week, who had at that point watched until and including episode 5, he assumed this would be Mr. Bennet, and you know, given that Mr. Bennet is in a way a perfect amalgam of two earlier favourites of mine from another show, Arvin Sloane and Jack Bristow (especially in the early episodes), it’s easy to see why. But while I do like our Horn Rimmed Glasses man a lot, this isn’t the case. Nor is it Hiro (though Hiro is a firm second favourite – I mean, it’s virtually impossible not to love Hiro, though I assume that like the Yeti, non-Hiro-lovers do exist – somewhere; at any rate, Hiro, like Vir on Babylon 5, is adorable from the get-go, and gets even more so as his story continues), or Claire (Claire, like Sydney Bristow, is a character I like a lot and really enjoyed writing about but never feel compelled to seek out stories about because I feel that the show mostly gives me what I want regarding her), or Peter Petrelli (somewhere between Hiro and Claire in my fannish affection), or Angela Petrelli (in her case simply because I don’t know enough about her yet in order to judge whether she could be my Livia/Kai Winn/Laura Roslin on Heroes; Angela backstory is my prime demand for season 2). No, as of one complete season – because sometimes these things do change – my favourite character is Nathan Petrelli.



Nathan first attracted my attention because he so does not belong into the genre he’s in, or rather, has entirely an atypical position there. Most of the Heroes characters do conform to easily identifiable patterns in sci-fi/fantasy/comics narration; Peter in particular is practically a walking, talking Marvelverse archetype, and if you’ve read a single Marvel title, you think you know how his story will go from the moment he has his first couple of scenes in the pilot. (Emotional types with insecurities and social circumstances in which they’re derided only exist to get superpowers. It’s practically law.) Nathan, on the other hand, conforms if with any archetype then a villainous one, because let’s face it, politicians do not have a good reputation in comics. (Or elsewhere.) They tend to come in either the bigoted demagogue (Stryker, William) or evil supervillain (Luthor, Lex) variations. Assistant District Attorneys do not fare much better (Dent, Harvey); if they don’t start out as bad guys, they will end up as same. And then there’s the age factor. The occasional comic hero is allowed to age, ever so slowly, but most of these guys are teenagers or young adults and stay that way forever. They certainly are not men pushing forty, unless they’re a) someone’s father figure or b) villains. My original assumption about Nathan in the pilot was that he was there to either be Peter’s variation of J.J. Jameson (for non-Spider-man-people, that’s the newspaper owner Peter Parker/Spider-man used to work for in his civilian identity, whose dislike and derision of superheroes is mostly used as comic relief and to make Spidey look even better) or just a symbol of the mundane world Peter leaves behind once he inevitably accesses his superpowers, never or not often to be seen again. (I didn’t know who was a regular and who wasn’t when I caught up on the first eighteen episodes.) And then, of course, we got the final scene, which was a complete surprise in the best way and got me hooked on the show. Here I was, somewhat impatiently glancing at my watch, saying, okay, okay, fly already… and then Peter didn’t, and Nathan, Least Likely Person Ever To Get Superpowers In A Comicworld If Not A Villain, did. Not only did that ensure I immediately downloaded the next episode, but that I started it being very curious indeed how this Nathan Petrelli person would deal, or not, with having superpowers.

I still consider it a storytelling stroke of genius, but it wouldn’t have been enough to make me go from interested to affectionate if they hadn’t build on it, characterisation-wise. Both with the writing and the acting. (They lucked out here; arguably Jack Coleman and Adrian Pasdar are the two best actors on the show. One of my favourite examples of this is the scene between Angela and Nathan at the end of The Hard Part, in which he basically has only two lines, and she has a great deal more, but Pasdar manages to get across how torn Nathan is about the whole deal via expression and body language. And then, of course, there is the piece de resistance, acting wise, which is A.P. playing Sylar playing Nathan in Five Years Gone, managing both to capture some of Zachary Quinto’s performance and to make it plausible why everyone else hasn’t caught on to the fact this isn’t Nathan Petrelli, and to reward the rewatching audience who can go “but of course…”)

Tim Kring has said more than once his original idea for the Petrellis was based on the Kennedys – shady father with mob connections, cold mother, emotional younger son of whom initially not much is expected, overachiever older son who’s supposed to be the dazzling success that redeems the family but has hidden flaws and secrets of his own – and you can see those traces still. But you can also use another analogy, especially if you’re familiar with the genre. Superpowers in the Marvelverse, whether we’re talking comics or movies (in particular the X-Men movies), are often coded as metaphors/analogies for homosexuality. (See also: the “Have you tried not being a mutant?” scene from X II wherein Bobby comes out as a mutant to his parents, which in turn is directly stolen from paying homage to the “Have you tried not being a Slayer?” scene from Becoming, the s2 finale of BtVS, wherein Buffy comes out as a Slayer to her mother.) And the analogy works very well indeed in the case of Nathan’s storyline throughout season 1, because the whole initial reaction to the superpowers deal, the panic/self-loathing/repression, the fact that he keeps it a secret from his wife and it contributes to making his marriage rocky, going from fiercely rejecting approaches in public (Mohinder being his usual, err, self with the yelling “have you noticed anything unusual about yourself!”) about the topic, to befriending someone with the same “condition” whom he meets by accident (Hiro), someone who is enthusiastic about the whole thing but does not pressure our repressed politician to immediately out himself the way that significant other person in his own life does but simply accepts him – it all fits. (Think Angels in America.) (They even meet in a bar, sort of.) As do the two ways presented for Nathan in the course of the season – he could go Roy Cohn, and go prosecuting his own kind, and in the 5YG timeline, he at least started doing that before being killed by Sylar, or he could give up ambition and the public façade for the sake of love/saving New York the world, which he does in the actual timeline. To put it flippantly: as public outings go, that “I love you” plus clinch plus flight to the skies can’t be topped.

(Sidenote: if you despise the very idea of Petrellicest, don’t worry – I’m talking metaphor here, remember? )

The fact that Nathan reacts as he does to the whole superpowers deal was of course one big reason why I got myself attached to him. I am, after all, the person who fell in love with Quark on Deep Space Nine, rather than with Rom or Nog. (Both of whom I liked a lot.) (To non-DS9ers: Quark: the conservative ambitious sarcastic to his brother’s emotional idealist and his nephew’s heroic fighter. Initially comes across as bullying said brother and putting ambition/profit above family, but as his tale continues is shown to go to some considerable lengths in protecting said brother and nephew. Defiantly remains the one conservative in a family of rebels till the end, though.) (Why is it that I fall for Quark and Londo the arch imperialist and am very much a liberal in real life? Beats me.) His reasons for not embracing them at once aren’t the usual teenage fare, they make sense for a man completely in the public light, a well-established life (with his 38-40 years) and with serious control issues, and there is no easy way out for him there. (And then there is the whole guilt complex because the first manifestation of said powers got his wife crippled, of course, but I suspect Nathan wouldn’t have been thrilled in any case.)

And then, of course, there is the whole family mess. Twisted family relationships get me almost every time, and the Petrellis are right up in the top ten most twisted, with Angela treating Nathan as a race horse (she wants him to win for the family, but there isn’t much affection there) and Peter as a beloved pet (i.e. she loves him but doesn’t take him seriously), the dead Petrelli Senior with his legacy of suicide attempts and one of the season’s villains, Linderman, and what is arguably the core of it all, the fraternal co-dependency between Nathan and Peter. If it had been only Peter wanting Nathan’s approval, it wouldn’t have affected me nearly as much, but though it’s subtle at first (as opposed to the big scenes later on), no matter what he says, it’s pretty obvious through that Nathan is as addicted to coming to the rescue, and that they both know each other’s vulnerabilities a little too well. In my essay about Nothing to Hide, I’ve gone on at length of how this is the episode where the Petrelli family dynamic is showcased in all its shades for the first time, so I won’t repeat it here, safe to say that one of Heroes many refreshing twists is that while everyone from Angela to Claude to (in an understandable situation) Claire keeps telling Peter that Nathan doesn’t love him, the pay off for this isn’t “Peter at last sees Nathan for what he is”, which would have been the predictable thing, but “Nathan does love Peter”. Which, incidentally, isn’t an easy or comfortable kind of affection; Nathan is actually kinder and definitely nicer with people he does not love but likes, to wit, Hiro and Niki. Who don’t get the whole button-pushing and sarcastic retorts; Hiro gets trips to Vegas, language lessons and help to break into Linderman’s vault, and the saddest “I’m sorry” of the season; Niki gets a rare confession of truth both regarding what it feels to Nathan to be a father and that he actually wants to fly (though of course he phrases it in an inconspicuous way) , and in their awkward morning after scene, where he could be forgiven for suspecting her of being complicit in his kidnapping, instead an attempt to comfort her about her own self-loathing and embarrassment. Peter, on the other hand, gets arguments. I somehow suspect that if he had ever seen Nathan with Hiro, he’d have been jealous without being able to admit as much to himself because of that, but then would have concluded he still gets the more complete deal, because Peter has his share of twisted Petrelliness, too.

Which brings me to one of my favourite Nathan quotes and another trait that endeared him to me. When in Fallout Peter excitedly goes on about “that cop and that girl”, and how “that girl” is “like us, Nathan” (meaning that she has superpowers), Nathan retorts with asking: “Dysfunctional?” Leaving the neat foreshadowing of certain blood ties aside, it’s what makes Nathan’s brand of sarcasm; it doesn’t exempt himself, on the contrary, it’s usually very self aware and directed at himself as well as the people he’s talking to. Other examples would be his reaction to being taped when committing adultery and being blackmailed by Linderman’s henchwoman:


MS. SAKAMOTO: For a man whose campaign is founded on sound family values, this could be really embarrassing for you. Especially considering your wife.

NATHAN: On the other hand, that tape really isn't worth much unless I win, is it? Why don't you just give me my four million, and I'll fly back to New York and put it to good use?

MS. SAKAMOTO: Our agreement was two million. It's rather generous.

NATHAN: You know, I thought so too. And then I thought, "Gee ... it must be pretty important for Linderman to see me in office if he's willing to go to this much trouble to keep me in line." Two million makes me a candidate in your pocket. Four million makes me a Congressman.

(Nathan smiles at her.)

And then there is the reaction to being brought to the lair by Linderman himself: “You must bring all your first dates here.”

In the last case, he’s already in the weaker position because he has agreed to talk to Linderman rather than shoot him; as I said, it’s as much a self-directed quip as anything else.


Speaking of Linderman: being a fan of Londo Mollari who after making a Faustian deal spends two entire seasons of Babylon 5 doing a great many horrible things, including instigating a war in which millions die, before starting the rocky road of redemption, means I am well familiar with being simultaneously fond of a character and wanting to slap him for even considering certain horrid decisions, let alone going through with them. Nathan never takes it as far as Londo, who does go through with said decisions despite knowing just how wrong they are; Nathan spends a week between first being told about the whole “let the explosion happen, end up as President” plan and ultimately rejecting it, and being the shades of grey character that he is, you can’t pin-point the exact moment he decides not to let it happen and sacrifice his own life instead, though the scene with Claire is the latest possible point (his “you’ll understand soon” to her BEFORE she makes her jump would argue that he has by then made up his mind, but otoh, you can also argue it wasn’t until she said “the future is not written in stone”, as this is what he repeats to her later). A week isn’t long in real life terms (as opposed to, say, Charles Deveaux, who evidently knew about the whole thing for years, never saw it necessary to warn his own daughter she might end up being wiped out with the rest of New York, and didn’t do anything to stop the explosion from happening aside from a vague pep talk to Peter which might or might not have been a vision), but it took place over three episodes of the show, which was enough for a lot of viewers to declare Nathan a villain and not worthy of their sympathy. Not this viewer, and not just because I strongly suspected he’d end up coming through for Team Not Blow Up New York in the end. As I said, there are precedents in my fannish life. The fact that Nathan was ambitious enough to even consider letting the explosion happen if his brother’s survival was guaranteed makes him more interesting than if he had never been as much as tempted. Give me a character who really has to fight his darker sides, and not just in a perfunctiory manner (i.e. temptation and rejection happen all in the same episode), and I will be interested. The ambition in Nathan might originally have been produced by his parents, but that doesn’t make it less a part of him, or less real, and it certainly doesn’t make him less culpable for it; which is why there had to be a struggle.

If he had died at the end of it, as he at that point was ready to, it would have made for a complete story, but I would have kept wondering: how would he have dealt with the aftermath? Because giving up your entire life is one thing if you actually die, but if you live, and really can’t return to your old life anymore, to everything you used to want, what then? That, I suspect, will be Nathan’s second season storyline. And I’m eagerly looking forward to it.

Comments

[linaerys.livejournal.com]

(Sidenote: if you despise the very idea of Petrellicest, don’t worry – I’m talking metaphor here, remember? )

Hee!

Although I think there is a still a way to hide this--because this was in some unpopulated AU of New York, the only people who saw him make this sacrifice were other heroes. I don't think that's what will happen, but for the sake of fanfic, I think it's possible.

I love thinking about what it means to be ready to sacrifice your life and then have that sacrifice not completed for whatever reason. I hope they do it justice, because if they do, it will be fascinating.

Great meta, as always!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Although I think there is a still a way to hide this--because this was in some unpopulated AU of New York, the only people who saw him make this sacrifice were other heroes. I don't think that's what will happen, but for the sake of fanfic, I think it's possible.

So he came only out to the gay community? *g* But yes, I know, this is some strange version of New York where nobody is around in what is supposed to be a central plaza. (Maybe that's why nobody except for heroes is in Peter's vision of this event, either?) Still, he can't really go back to his old life, even if no one else saw him. If you die, you don't have to question your decisions, or wonder "what if I hadn't..." but if you live, you do, and I'm curious whether this will happen.

I love thinking about what it means to be ready to sacrifice your life and then have that sacrifice not completed for whatever reason. I hope they do it justice, because if they do, it will be fascinating.

Season 2 Nathan Petrelli = Season 6 Buffy Summers? (I mean that in a good way; I know it was a very controversial season, but I'm on the pro-s6 side of the Force, and I do think Buffy's characterisation was good and made it clear that there was a price for resurrection...

[linaerys.livejournal.com]

I was not a fan of S6 Buffy in general, but her characterization was interesting.

I don't think Nathan would go that way, simply because this is the first time he's had to make a choice like that, and Buffy had many many similar choices over the years. She was already a hero, this is the choice that made Nathan a hero.

Nathan could go many different ways, also depending on what happens to Peter. I can't even speculate what I think the series will do, but in my Big Boom, I have a Nathan who is not good at self-sacrifice unless it's everything. The small, ongoing sacrifices do not come easy to him, so he can still be selfish, petty and self-aggrandizing. Plus, although I don't spell this out, I feel like he could feel he has a mandate (from God, fate) to continue on his chosen path, because he was saved.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

a Nathan who is not good at self-sacrifice unless it's everything. The small, ongoing sacrifices do not come easy to him, so he can still be selfish, petty and self-aggrandizing.

Oh, that fits with how I see him, too. Everything-or-nothing is a very different thing than waking up each day and having to do the daily stuff.

I feel like he could feel he has a mandate (from God, fate) to continue on his chosen path, because he was saved.

That's interesting, and could tie with being raised with the idea that he's supposed to be A Man of Destiny. And of course in the Heroes verse "you have a destiny!" is the pitch used on most of not all the characters, and their response drives the plot.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

Great meta!

one of Heroes many refreshing twists is that while everyone from Angela to Claude to (in an understandable situation) Claire keeps telling Peter that Nathan doesn’t love him, the pay off for this isn’t “Peter at last sees Nathan for what he is”, which would have been the predictable thing, but “Nathan does love Peter”.

YES. This is one of the things I love most about this show: it presents as strengths to be discovered and cherished, what most other stories present as weaknesses to be overcome and outgrown.

Nathan first attracted my attention because he so does not belong into the genre he’s in, or rather, has entirely an atypical position there. Most of the Heroes characters do conform to easily identifiable patterns in sci-fi/fantasy/comics narration; Peter in particular is practically a walking, talking Marvelverse archetype, and if you’ve read a single Marvel title, you think you know how his story will go from the moment he has his first couple of scenes in the pilot.

You know, your explanations of how Nathan fits (or rather, doesn't fit) in the usual genre tropes really makes me understand better why I have had such a different reaction from my LJ friends, on the whole, to the characters in Heroes. Obviously, it's not the only reason, but apart from Buffy and Angel I have no experience in sci-fi/fantasy, and it's like I'm discovering this world, and its rules, for the first time: probably part of the reason why I latched onto the "guides" or "POV characters."

And the homosexuality metaphor for Nathan's powers tickles me pink. It's perfect.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

And the homosexuality metaphor for Nathan's powers tickles me pink. It's perfect.

*beams* Isn't it just? I tried it first out on cadesama a couple of months ago during the hiatus and she agreed; this is a somewhat more elaborate version. Though I haven't found it anywhere else regarding Heroes in general and Nathan in particular, I still can't claim complete originality, since the "mutant powers = homosexuality" thing really is tradition with the X-Men (both in meta and in what the creators back then have even publically said later what they intended - those comics started in the 60s, after all). But as I said, with the X-Men, it's tied to teenagers discovering their sexuality mutant power.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

I still can't claim complete originality, since the "mutant powers = homosexuality" thing really is tradition with the X-Men (both in meta and in what the creators back then have even publically said later what they intended - those comics started in the 60s, after all)

That's really interesting. It's a lot of fun discovering all these things that many of my LJ friends take for granted.

I did know about the "werewolf = homosexuality" metaphor from HP fandom, although for obvious reasons Rowling didn't take it very far. But it fits almost frighteningly well with Nathan's storyline.

But as I said, with the X-Men, it's tied to teenagers discovering their sexuality mutant power.

I wonder if the age thing influences how I view the show, too, since I'm pretty much right between Claire and Peter. Hmm.

(Oh, BTW: I quoted you in my picspam, as you saw--is it OK if I quote you in my meta, too?)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Quote away! Oh, and entirely OT, and speaking of HP, I have just read a story you might like, as it is about Percy and Ron post DH, and to be found
here (http://dilly.greatestjournal.com/3742.html).

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

Percy and Ron! Oh, yay, thank you!

[g_shadowslayer]

So, so much word.

And I'm still avoiding the spoilers as much as I can, but I watched the 'hosted' re-air of Homecoming last night, and they ran a season 2 preview. There was a quick flash of a scene that has me BOGGLED. Utterly, completely boggled. As in I cannot possibly imagine how it happens unless certain abilities are involved...

And how's that for skirting around spoilers and being confusingly vague... :O

[selenak.livejournal.com]

You are a bad person with your teasing, and this is so revenge for sicking the "Sylar-killed-Nathan-while-pretending-to-be-Peter" plot bunny on you. But I won't look! I won't!

[g_shadowslayer]

*smile*

[g_shadowslayer]

Just FYI, I got a copy of the promo, and it wasn't what I thought I saw, so I'm not as freaked out now. The scenes towards the end of the promo are so quick-cut that when I saw it on one airing, I thought it was a different actor. However, nope.

So, nevermind! :D

Part One

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

First of all, I love you for arguing Nathan= possible Roy Cohn, because that has been my favourite comparison for a while also. It just fits the self-loathing, the suspicion and the rigorous way he deals with the special powered in the 5YG universe. (This also, incidentally, highlights one point about his parents and Linderman I've never understood: if they really wanted him to be a leader who united ordinary and extraordinary humans, why on earth didn't they tell him about powers in the first place, so that he had no reason to be scared of them? Sometimes I wonder if a houseplant has a better grip of psychology than the Petrelli-Linderman branch of Evil Elders.)

Also, not surprisingly, our favourite characters turn out to be largely the same, except that I currently find Angela more interesting in principle than really liking her. (And I have this odd soft spot for Matt.)

I did have the same reaction to the end of the pilot, right down to wanting Peter to "fly already;" I never had problems to integrate Nathan into a story structure, though, since while I agree that he is not a typical comic character, Heroes is more a patchwork of genres for me than anything else. Nonetheless, there is the fact that he simply would have been an antagonist or villain on most other shows (including Heroes' direct timeslot competition 24, which with it's jaded, tough characters seems initially like a world he is better fitted in).

I also, most astonishingly, agree on everything you say about Pasdar's acting, and the fun aspects of Petrelli dysfunctionality! (And I don't mind the Petrellicest as a metaphor, as it seems very apt. :))

When in Fallout Peter excitedly goes on about “that cop and that girl”, and how “that girl” is “like us, Nathan” (meaning that she has superpowers), Nathan retorts with asking: “Dysfunctional?” Leaving the neat foreshadowing of certain blood ties aside, it’s what makes Nathan’s brand of sarcasm; it doesn’t exempt himself, on the contrary, it’s usually very self aware and directed at himself as well as the people he’s talking to.

Yes. This is something very few people seem to notice, for whatever reason (okay, mostly because they likely don't pay attention to the character). One part of the interest here is that Nathan is self-aware (except in a few specific matters), and the other is that he is very funny, if not in a particularly nice way. I have to admit that it often helps me get over the more desperately serious aspects of the show (which do have their place, of course, but can get a bit overly much, sometimes), and I really hope he can retain some of that, no matter how angsty next season might get for him.

Re: Part One

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I wonder if a houseplant has a better grip of psychology than the Petrelli-Linderman branch of Evil Elders

LOL. Well, yes, though for all we know, we might learn something that explains this behaviour, because it's not just the Petrelli-Linderman branch. Kaito never told Hiro anything (though he might have figured the first time child!Hiro geeked out that he was safe there, no way Hiro wouldn't be delighted), Charles never told Simone anything.

One part of the interest here is that Nathan is self-aware (except in a few specific matters), and the other is that he is very funny, if not in a particularly nice way.

Which is, btw, why I think he'll retain that trait no matter how angsty it gets, though the humour could get rather cruel. (I don't think Nathan is the type to make a nice depressed/drunk/whatever he'll be when the season starts; am thinking Edward Albee or Tennessee Williams character here.) It seems to be ingrained and could serve as something like a vehicle.

Re: Part One

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, though for all we know, we might learn something that explains this behaviour, because it's not just the Petrelli-Linderman branch. Kaito never told Hiro anything (though he might have figured the first time child!Hiro geeked out that he was safe there, no way Hiro wouldn't be delighted), Charles never told Simone anything.

I think the key difference for me is that Kaito doesn't seem to have discouraged Hiro's flights of fancy the least. He not only read Kensei stories to him as a child, he indulged him dawdling about and even running to the States on some sort of weird quest - and yes, he checked on him, but he essentially let him go on his way (I wonder what ripping apart the painting was about, btw. Presumably a writers' red herring, but did Hiro say he needed to bring it to Linderman? I assume Kaito wouldn't have been too happy about that). He never told him anything, but he also didn't raise him to be a raging homophobe, if we stay with your metaphor.
Charles I agree with, although I think Simone not being powered plays some ugly sort of role here also.

(I don't think Nathan is the type to make a nice depressed/drunk/whatever he'll be when the season starts; am thinking Edward Albee or Tennessee Williams character here.)

Now, that sounds encouraging.

It seems to be ingrained and could serve as something like a vehicle.

Yes, definitely. I'd be inclined to say this is Pasdar, also, except Nathan already had a pretty nasty kind of humour in the Pilot, and I think they rather toned it down. (I'm still sad he didn't get to call Angela a crackwhore, seeing all that came after - and because he played it like he was aware at that very moment that this word was probably a little too out there.)

And Part Two

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I am well familiar with being simultaneously fond of a character and wanting to slap him for even considering certain horrid decisions, let alone going through with them. Nathan never takes it as far as Londo, who does go through with said decisions despite knowing just how wrong they are; Nathan spends a week between first being told about the whole “let the explosion happen, end up as President” plan and ultimately rejecting it, and being the shades of grey character that he is, you can’t pin-point the exact moment he decides not to let it happen and sacrifice his own life instead, though the scene with Claire is the latest possible point [...]. A week isn’t long in real life terms (as opposed to, say, Charles Deveaux, who evidently knew about the whole thing for years, never saw it necessary to warn his own daughter she might end up being wiped out with the rest of New York, and didn’t do anything to stop the explosion from happening aside from a vague pep talk to Peter which might or might not have been a vision), but it took place over three episodes of the show, which was enough for a lot of viewers to declare Nathan a villain and not worthy of their sympathy.

Hee. You've been way more patient with this stretch of the story than I was; not because I thought he would turn out a bad guy, mind you, it's because I really couldn't deal with his indecision and the fact that he so obviously seemed unhappy with the solution (and, well, because the plan was totally nuts! Whatever were the Evil Elders thinking?) Of course, this gives credit to cadesama's argument that Nathan was so overwhelmed by the whole powers aspect, that he kept waiting for someone to tell him all of this was just a joke. I think I could have managed way easier if he actually had decided to actively go through with it and I admittedly felt better once he started plotting against Linderman. (I always liked Londo, too, but I don't know how you survived several seasons with him as a favourite. I'm more used to dealing with Jack Bristows and Marshall Flinkmans.)

If he had died at the end of it, as he at that point was ready to, it would have made for a complete story, but I would have kept wondering: how would he have dealt with the aftermath? Because giving up your entire life is one thing if you actually die, but if you live, and really can’t return to your old life anymore, to everything you used to want, what then? That, I suspect, will be Nathan’s second season storyline. And I’m eagerly looking forward to it.

Well said!

Lovely meta. :)

Re: And Part Two

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I always liked Londo, too, but I don't know how you survived several seasons with him as a favourite.

In retrospect, I wonder the same thing.*g* It was tough, let me tell you that. I remember reviews at the end of s2 comparing him to Goebbels. (Don't ask my why G. as opposed to any other Nazi, but that was SFX' choice, and the comparison turned up in "Dreamwatch", too, I think.) And back then, there was no precedent for a character doing bad stuff for that long a while and STILL not end up as a villain to be defeated in the series finale, and that's leaving out the ending Londo himself dreamed of all the time. I think my straw of hope was Vir keeping believing in Londo and Londo's redeemability. And THEN, of course, there was War Without End in late season 2 and I sat there, going ZOMG! Yes, sure, he died in that flashforward, and arggggh, the horror of the Keeper, but "old Friend" and the reason for Londo's death being turned upside down, the prospect of Londo and G'Kar being not just allies but friends in the future - I completely felt validated in my Vir-ian insistance on Londo's redeemability.

Re: And Part Two

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

(Don't ask my why G. as opposed to any other Nazi, but that was SFX' choice, and the comparison turned up in "Dreamwatch", too, I think.)

Doesn't seem an apt choice, no matter if you think of the Centauri as Nazis or not (and I always thought they were either vaguely Wilhelminean, or, much more likely, late Roman). Goebbels is intricately connected to controlling and distributing propaganda, and the basic type for Londo seems more someone who foolishly gave in to temptation at the wrong time and went down from there. (Of course my grasp of the second and third season, while nominally present, isn't all that great, so this assessment could be off the mark.)

And back then, there was no precedent for a character doing bad stuff for that long a while and STILL not end up as a villain to be defeated in the series finale

Hm, this is an interesting aspect. I hadn't thought about it, but yes, characters this morally grey haven't been along for that much, have they? It reminds me of the controversy about letting Dukat remain grey, which seemed out of the question for Ira Behr (?) at the time.

I have currently come in a similar situation, since Gaius Baltar has sneakily become one of my favourite BSG characters (which says a lot, since there are few I really don't like, or don't care about in some capacity), and he doesn't even have a Vir to speak for him. Nor would he deserve one, for that matter, but his "evilness" is so mundane, it becomes accessible. He is more flaws than cackling.

Yes, sure, he died in that flashforward, and arggggh, the horror of the Keeper, but "old Friend" and the reason for Londo's death being turned upside down, the prospect of Londo and G'Kar being not just allies but friends in the future - I completely felt validated in my Vir-ian insistance on Londo's redeemability.

I'm wondering if my adoration of Nathan has Hiro-esque aspects. Hmmm... no, I don't think so. Maybe the flying, but the rest is pretty much:"I like you, I feel sorry for you, you annoy me, and your political ideas suck. Also, you really should stay away from your mother, and have you ever thought about counselling? No? Okay, then."

Re: And Part Two

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, the Centauri were so late Romans in general, but after starting them that way in s1 and most of s2, JMS did deliberately go for some WWII imagery with the "peace in our time" thing at the end of s2 and the concentration camp stuff in early s3, so that when he afterwards went back to the Roman imagery for the Centauri, especially in s4, some people were thrown because they expected the Nazi comparisons to come true and pay off the way they generally do in American shows, i.e. by the people in question being condemmed by all good guys and defeated. Anyway, I never understood why Goebbels; my own comparison for Londo at the time (i.e. s2) was MacBeth, as he both knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway.

I hadn't thought about it, but yes, characters this morally grey haven't been along for that much, have they? It reminds me of the controversy about letting Dukat remain grey, which seemed out of the question for Ira Behr (?) at the time.

It was mainly Behr, yes, and no, they haven't. As I point out in my big Londo essay (http://community.livejournal.com/idol_reflection/17374.html), which I hereby shamelessly pimp, usually if characters are meant to be redeemed we see their dastardly deeds via a few flashbacks or just in one episode. We do not see them over several seasons. It makes far more convenient for the viewers to absolve them, and I truly admire the hell out of JMS for having the guts to pull off Londo's arc.

Gaius Baltar sneaks up on you that way. It happened to me, too. First I found myself writing an an essay about him (http://selenak.livejournal.com/191337.html) in mid season 2, then I posted some early season 3 Baltar meta (http://selenak.livejournal.com/246197.html), and by the time we had arrived in the middle of season 3, I was writing a Gaius-centric episode review (http://selenak.livejournal.com/269592.html).

I'm wondering if my adoration of Nathan has Hiro-esque aspects.

And now you've made me wonder, too.*g* But no, I have pretty a pretty similar attitude to yours. Mind you, it would take someone with superpowers of persuasion to make Nathan see a psychiatrist. Too bad Eden is dead!

Re: And Part Two

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Oh, the Centauri were so late Romans in general, but after starting them that way in s1 and most of s2, JMS did deliberately go for some WWII imagery with the "peace in our time" thing at the end of s2 and the concentration camp stuff in early s3

Ah, okay. Like I said, my knowledge of s3 in particular is fuzzy. (I might get myself to rewatch B5 once I worked through everything else) I'm glad JMS didn't stick with Nazi parallels only, though, it does tend to make stories rather simple.

Macbeth is an interesting comparison.

my big Londo essay, which I hereby shamelessly pimp

Heh. I think you already did before, actually. :)

usually if characters are meant to be redeemed we see their dastardly deeds via a few flashbacks or just in one episode. We do not see them over several seasons. It makes far more convenient for the viewers to absolve them, and I truly admire the hell out of JMS for having the guts to pull off Londo's arc.

It definitely is, although I'm more fond of redemption-via-deeds than redemption-via-death stories in general. (This doesn't entirely fit Londo, since while he died, the development until then was different, it's more characters who opposed "our hero" the whole time and then see the error of their ways at the last minute. In other words: no, I probably wouldn't have been all that grateful for Nathan dying in the finale, although of course his storyline is more complicated as well.)

Gaius Baltar sneaks up on you that way. It happened to me, too. First I found myself writing an an essay about him in mid season 2, then I posted some early season 3 Baltar meta, and by the time we had arrived in the middle of season 3, I was writing a Gaius-centric episode review.

Funnily enough, I hated him in the miniseries - for completely irrational reasons unworthy of being mentioned here - and since my "B5 Forever!" friends all looove him, I was hesitant, but really, he grew on me. To the point where I actually hope he survives, although the chances seem to be perilously small. (I know that I will miss James Callis the most when the show is over though, him, and Tricia Helfer)

And now you've made me wonder, too.*g* But no, I have pretty a pretty similar attitude to yours.

What I find most disturbing is that I actually think he is attractive, despite all the flaws...

Mind you, it would take someone with superpowers of persuasion to make Nathan see a psychiatrist. Too bad Eden is dead!

Hm. Peter met her, though...*g*

Re: And Part Two

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

my big Londo essay, which I hereby shamelessly pimp

Heh. I think you already did before, actually. :)

...except you didn't, because I don't think I read it before. No, wait, you linked the story with him and the Endless! That was very beautiful. (As is the meta. It actually makes me feel like I missed out by not following the show more closely)

Re: And Part Two

[selenak.livejournal.com]

To the point where I actually hope he survives, although the chances seem to be perilously small.

I know. I mean, I'm pretty sure he'll survive until the very last one or two episodes, but then? The only reason why I think there's a small chance he might survive is that deleted scene from s2 where Head!Six, on Kobol, tells him that he's going to be the only human currently living in the fleet who will set foot on Earth. Cylon prophecies, though ambiguously phrased, have a way of coming through. Mind, given the reappearance of Kara at the end of Crossroads and her claim to have seen Earth that could be jettisoned already.

Nathan:
What I find most disturbing is that I actually think he is attractive, despite all the flaws...

That's not mutually exclusive. *g* Luckily for us, he's fictional, so one can't act on the attraction anyway!

Mind you, it would take someone with superpowers of persuasion to make Nathan see a psychiatrist. Too bad Eden is dead!

Hm. Peter met her, though...*g*

ROTFLOL. Good point, though. Otoh, while Peter is entirely capable of using Eden's power on Nathan to make him go to therapy, Peter is also the type who went himself in his late teens or early 20s just because his family would disapprove and came to the conclusion it doesn't work anyway (mostly because he didn't want to give up any of his hang-ups and so never went more often than twice).

I maintain that Dr. Melfi after a session with the Petrellis would find Tony Soprano wholesomeness itself...

Re: And Part Two

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

The only reason why I think there's a small chance he might survive is that deleted scene from s2 where Head!Six, on Kobol, tells him that he's going to be the only human currently living in the fleet who will set foot on Earth. Cylon prophecies, though ambiguously phrased, have a way of coming through. Mind, given the reappearance of Kara at the end of Crossroads and her claim to have seen Earth that could be jettisoned already.

Do they tread deleted scenes as canon?

Of course, this could simply mean that Baltar literally is the only human being in the fleet, and all the others are some sort of Cylons. (and some maybe gods, because I'd argue that Starbuck might actually be a goddess. I can see RDM loving the idea.)

Luckily for us, he's fictional, so one can't act on the attraction anyway!

Oh, yes. *g*

I maintain that Dr. Melfi after a session with the Petrellis would find Tony Soprano wholesomeness itself...

Either that, or she might decide to give up the profession altogether. Seems healthier, anyway. :)

[kelly-girl.livejournal.com]

Love this. I like to get thinky about Nathan and heroes too but can never organize my thoughts enough to get them all out.

I think I go back and forth on either Nathan or Peter being my favorite character, but your essay points out some great things about Nathan and I think we're lucky Adrian Pasdar rocks and took to Nathan so well.

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

(See also: the “Have you tried not being a mutant?” scene from X II wherein Bobby comes out as a mutant to his parents, which in turn is directly stolen from paying homage to the “Have you tried not being a Slayer?” scene from Becoming, the s2 finale of BtVS, wherein Buffy comes out as a Slayer to her mother.)

IMHO, this is not a XMM steal but an example of both BTVS and XMM borrowing from the classic/cliche parental protest to the child coming out.

I still don't think Nathan was tempted, at least not the way you're portraying it here -- I think anybody who is ambitious enough to considering letting the bomb go off to be president is not interestingly morally gray but, essentially, Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot/mass-murdering despot of your choice. A drama that seriously, actually wants me to think that somebody was perfectly happy to murder millions to get power but said, "Aw, shucks, never mind, my daughter's so endearing" is just not a very good show -- and while "Heroes" is not high art, I think it's better than that.

I personally think the test for Nathan was of his faith, not his conscience. I think he loathed Linderman's plan from the get-go but believed for a long time that he could not stop it, that nobody could. Isaac painted it, after all, and the last time Nathan tried to stop one of Isaac's painting from coming true, Peter ended up getting himself beat-up in Texas anyway. And I think that, while he believed the bomb inevitable, Nathan did consider going along with Linderman and his mother to get that power -- after the apocalypse, can anything else matter? Only Peter's survival, which is assured. That's where I think the temptation comes in: Making the most of the inevitable, instead of doing what a lot of us would (like to think we'd) do, namely, spitting in Linderman's face.

But I think that Claire's role in the story was not to convince Nathan that he should stop the bomb, but to convince him that he could. Once Nathan realized that he could make a difference (IMHO, this moment probably happened when he discovered DL and Niki actually took Linderman out -- Pasdar's reaction shot there is genius), I think he was wholly committed to seeing it through. The careful nuances in the writing of those scenes -- the countless chances Nathan has to voice approval or even interest to Linderman and Angela, but skillfully avoids saying anything committal at all -- argues this to me pretty strongly.

[g_shadowslayer]

The more I think about this, the more I think you're right -- the "should" vs. "could" aspect of the whole thing. *nods* Yep. I really, really love Nathan :)

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I personally think the test for Nathan was of his faith, not his conscience.

I agree with g_shadowslayer, this does sound about right. Well thought out!

(Ohh, I love Nathan meta. Why isn't there more of that?)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Actually, we don't differ in our interpretation there, but perhaps I should have phrased it differently and included Nathan's fatalism, the belief that it the bomb was inevitable was crucial there (and ironically, the "prophecies come true" thing was what Peter, Angela and Linderman all in their different ways insisted on). I absolutely agree that the temptation was in "if this happens anyway, why not make the most of the inevitable" BUT I think it (the temptation) was real enough, hence the difference between his reaction when Linderman first suggested it ("You're insane") and the later careful neutrality and playing along - in the first case, he's not even tempted because he assumes it will mean Peter's death, and inevitable or not, his life after isn't of interest to him anymore in such a scenario.

[mimesh.livejournal.com]

For me Nathan is the most interesting character on the show but that doesn't keep me from loving Peter just as much.

Nathan is actually kinder and definitely nicer with people he does not love but likes, to wit, Hiro and Niki. Who don’t get the whole button-pushing and sarcastic retorts; Hiro gets trips to Vegas, language lessons and help to break into Linderman’s vault, and the saddest “I’m sorry” of the season; Niki gets a rare confession of truth both regarding what it feels to Nathan to be a father and that he actually wants to fly (though of course he phrases it in an inconspicuous way) , and in their awkward morning after scene, where he could be forgiven for suspecting her of being complicit in his kidnapping, instead an attempt to comfort her about her own self-loathing and embarrassment. Peter, on the other hand, gets arguments.

That's a very interesting observation. One could argue that the lack of responsibility and guilt in his relationships with Niki and Hiro is the reason he was able to connect with them the way he did and why he was just genuinely nicer. Both the feeling of responsibility and guilt seem key factors in his relationship with his family - Heidi, Angela, Claire and Peter. He doesn't argue with any of them the way he does with Peter though - which makes me wish we could see what his relationship with his father was like.

Because giving up your entire life is one thing if you actually die, but if you live, and really can’t return to your old life anymore, to everything you used to want, what then? That, I suspect, will be Nathan’s second season storyline. And I’m eagerly looking forward to it.

So do I, so do I. Great meta! :)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

One could argue that the lack of responsibility and guilt in his relationships with Niki and Hiro is the reason he was able to connect with them the way he did and why he was just genuinely nicer.

Oh, absolutely. They're both strangers when he meets them, he doesn't owe them anything. And Hiro never makes a demand of him (until of course the "you become a bad person in the future, please don't!" scene), so Nathan is free to offer help. With Niki, he never expected to see her again, but I still find it fascinating that at a point where he absolutely refuses to admit to Peter that there is anything about the fact he's able to fly he likes or enjoyes, he is able to make that unasked and ever so casual wistful observation "have you ever wondered what it is like to fly?" to her and even elaborates on that.

Both the feeling of responsibility and guilt seem key factors in his relationship with his family - Heidi, Angela, Claire and Peter. He doesn't argue with any of them the way he does with Peter though - which makes me wish we could see what his relationship with his father was like.

Me too. For all of Angela's "both alpha males" description in the pilot (in the "Nathan doesn't love you" scene), my own speculation, mostly based on the repeated suicide attempts, Linderman's "weak" taunt and Nathan's "Pa would have had me committed for even contemplating this atrocity", I suspect that Petrelli Senior was actually temperamentally more like Peter than Nathan, which is why he didn't get along with Peter but did with Nathan.

[mimesh.livejournal.com]

BTW, on a completely unrelated note:

I just read that the Heroes World Tour stop in Munich next week will be for press only and not for fans. Perhaps you and me and wee_warrior can feel a little less down now for not being able to go in the first place (although it's very disappointing for the people who planned to go).

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I shall think of that while being cruelly away in the provinces.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Nathan’s second season storyline

Ah. I think you just spoiled me.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I actually have zero idea about his season 2 storyline; this is just speculation based on the fact Adrian Pasdar is still on the cast, nothing more.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I assumed they were both dead, and rather admired it as a plotline. But if one's going to survive, I'd prefer Nathan, as Peter's appeal remained a mystery to me throughout.

[the-grynne.livejournal.com]

one of Heroes many refreshing twists is that while everyone from Angela to Claude to (in an understandable situation) Claire keeps telling Peter that Nathan doesn’t love him, the pay off for this isn’t “Peter at last sees Nathan for what he is”, which would have been the predictable thing, but “Nathan does love Peter”.

I would have been completely mystified had they chosen to go with the first option. Nathan's love for Peter was something I'd taken for granted from the start (and felt was confirmed without a doubt by his destroying Isaac's painting which showed Peter "dying"). Looking back, I think accept his love from the moment when Peter insisted it to his mother (after the sock incident) in the pilot, because Peter, whatever else he may be, is nobody's bitch; he's sympathetic, empathetic, able to relate positively with everyone (including Angela), but that doesn't equate to being blind to another's flaws. If anyone was reading appearances mistakenly, seeing only the way that Nathan was impatient, abrupt and disinterested with Peter, then it couldn't be Peter - Peter could not be that close to someone and still not see them for what they are - so it had to be us.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I would have been completely mystified had they chosen to go with the first option.

Me too, but have you read the reviews by what's his name at HeroSite or the Wiki entries? Quite insistent on Nathan's lack of emotion. Mind you, I don't think they were talking for the majority of viewers (at least not online viewers), but it demonstrated the surface interpretation was making the rounds.

Peter, whatever else he may be, is nobody's bitch; he's sympathetic, empathetic, able to relate positively with everyone (including Angela), but that doesn't equate to being blind to another's flaws.

I concurr (though of course, pilot viewers didn't know Peter any more than they did Nathan); my evidence A for "Peter isn't looking at Nathan through rose-coloured glasses" from the early episodes would be that while he's mad as hell about the suicide speech incident, he's not that surprised and shows up chez Nathan a day or two later to get Nathan to get him his painting. Now he could have asked Simone - Linderman is her client, after all - but no, he goes to Nathan and correctly supposes he knows what buttons to push to make Nathan help him. He knew Nathan wasn't perfect and had a ruthless side, but he also knew, and never doubted it, that Nathan loved him.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

(Emotional types with insecurities and social circumstances in which they’re derided only exist to get superpowers. It’s practically law.)

Hee hee hee.

Nathan, on the other hand, conforms if with any archetype then a villainous one, because let’s face it, politicians do not have a good reputation in comics.

Well, you know my favorite example of the phenomenon *g*. And in other verses, I repeat my rec of Ex Machina (http://www.dccomics.com/graphic_novels/?gn=2500).

I don't really feel informed enough to reply to the essay overall, except that it's very interesting and I do like Nathan (though Bennet's by far my fave; you and I may have switched archetypes for this one). I'm mildly surprised anybody really thought Nathan would turn out to be a baddie in the end.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, they did, they did. Which allowed me to feel somewhat smug, I must admit.*g*

Re: archetypes - you know, it's similar to BTVS, where Giles ought to be my favourite, he has all the middle aged mentor played by actor with great voice earmarks - and yet he's not, much as I like him.

[elyssadc.livejournal.com]

Aaaaaaaand, I'm not even gonna try to fight it. I'm totally fangirling you. This is by FAR the most thorough expression of everything that makes me utterly, obsessively in love with Nathan Petrelli. Magnificently written and so insightful that I fing myself loving him even more for having read it. You are rocking my world ronight.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Shared obsessive love is the best.*g*