I haven’t got much to add, as this is really very comprehensive, and all very interesting and useful, especially as I am trying to write a number of AUs where Helen is slightly different in various ways. I find it hard enough writing her as her
( ... )
I'm coming to the conclusion that she is pretty much a sociopath - that she is completely without empathy, and all her head-messing is done on the intellectual and sexual levels. She is also, apparently, the complete egoist - and yet she is fascinating, because she is also intelligent, brave, and has a wicked sense of humour. You can see why Nick and Stephen fell for her.
I think she is a sociopath - which is where the horrified fascination comes in. And the egotism, oh my.
Also, something occurred to me yesterday - you may have already thought of this and be intending to use it in s2 meta if you're doing that - in the s2 timeline, Claudia didn't exist, so therefore Helen doesn't get to do her one good deed and save her. So that gives the s2 versions of everyone even *less* reason to trust her, surely, because there's no mitigating circumstances (or if there were, nobody mentions them).
I can see why they fell for her, but not why Stephen went back...
Now there you raise an interesting point: everyone except Nick will react to Helen on the basis of things we haven't seen (save the tag on 1.06.)
What's more, there's a hellish time paradox in there, and I can see why the writers don't want to face up to the consequences.
Neither Helen nor Nick (nor Ryan) experienced the events that Lester, Stephen, Abby and Connor did. We know that because Claudia wasn't there, and the ARC was established, and there was Leek, and probably other things too. Yet a Nick and a Helen were part of those events. That Nick and Helen also went into the anomaly to the Permian, with Ryan.
What happened to that Nick and that Helen? On one hand they never existed. On the other hand, for everyone else they existed and they vanished, to be replaced with our Nick and Helen, the ones who had experienced first series.
Alternate time-lines don't start from scratch - they happen on the same time scale and in the same sort of order, only differently.
The paradox thing just gives me a headache, and makes me wish yet again that they'd had a bit more time to focus on the changes!
Or even just knew what some of them were... (I had this vague idea that Nick would go to the pub with Stephen and would try to pay but it would turn out that the currency was Euros or something)
Reply
Reply
Also, something occurred to me yesterday - you may have already thought of this and be intending to use it in s2 meta if you're doing that - in the s2 timeline, Claudia didn't exist, so therefore Helen doesn't get to do her one good deed and save her. So that gives the s2 versions of everyone even *less* reason to trust her, surely, because there's no mitigating circumstances (or if there were, nobody mentions them).
I can see why they fell for her, but not why Stephen went back...
Reply
What's more, there's a hellish time paradox in there, and I can see why the writers don't want to face up to the consequences.
Neither Helen nor Nick (nor Ryan) experienced the events that Lester, Stephen, Abby and Connor did. We know that because Claudia wasn't there, and the ARC was established, and there was Leek, and probably other things too. Yet a Nick and a Helen were part of those events. That Nick and Helen also went into the anomaly to the Permian, with Ryan.
What happened to that Nick and that Helen? On one hand they never existed. On the other hand, for everyone else they existed and they vanished, to be replaced with our Nick and Helen, the ones who had experienced first series.
Alternate time-lines don't start from scratch - they happen on the same time scale and in the same sort of order, only differently.
Reply
Or even just knew what some of them were... (I had this vague idea that Nick would go to the pub with Stephen and would try to pay but it would turn out that the currency was Euros or something)
Reply
Leave a comment