The Helen of 1-05 is the most problematic aspect of her characterisation, especially viewed in the light of what comes in S2. Why *does* she save Claudia?
Or, and this has only just occurred to me, is it a case of saving *Nick* and Claudia costs her no extra?
Helen has obviously been watching Nick - her comment in 1-06 about Nick having left Claudia shows us she has been following events. She knows Nick well enough to know there is no way he’ll sit in the ambulance and wait for Ryan and his men to rescue him and Claudia - assuming they arrive in time to save Claudia. She needs to get rid of the pterosaurs before they get rid of Nick. Claudia (unlike Stephen in the tunnel) is on her feet and fighting so it is no extra effort to grab Claudia, set up the explosion in the kitchen and run for it. It has the added benefits of placing several people in her debt and confusing Nick’s response to her.
The events of 1-06 do raise some questions. What *has* Helen been doing for the last three days? Given what we later learn of her relationship with Leek is it possible that, far from being chased by the predator, she *lured* it through the anomaly? And then she and Leek found it impossible to control/capture so they threw control over to Lester’s crew? This would explain her defence of the babies. They are smaller, weaker and easier to control. She can probably capture them. This also explains her misreporting that all the babies are dead. In fact she wants the two free so she can return and grab them. This, of course, makes it much less likely that the babies are responsible for the change in the timeline. It’s still possible Helen had (or, given this is time travel, *will have*) an experimental hand in that.
Of course we don’t know when or how Helen hooks up with Leek. I think it’s quite possible that by 1-06 they’re working together. It’s even possible they’ve had an alliance all along.
(And I agree about the Futurepredator. It’s smart but nowhere near human smart.)
I think Nick, during their marriage, did have a clear view of what and who Helen was. That memory may have become clouded during her time away through romanticising her, focussing on the good stuff, ignoring the bad - the usual things that happen when we grieve. Now she’s back and Nick is rapidly remembering the *real* Helen: the sexually manipulative, selfish, cold woman.
Actually I think that’s why Nick seems at least as devastated by *Stephen’s* betrayal as Helen’s. I think he probably knows that Helen’s affair with Stephen was partially about punishing him but Stephen’s response to Helen (slashfic aside, ) is nothing to do with him. Stephen has a degree of understanding of this but he seems to romanticise Helen and attribute to her feelings we have no evidence she experiences. I think he explains away the sheer spite Helen shows to Nick as the feelings of a woman scorned. Who knows? Perhaps Stephen is aware of Nick’s shortcomings as a husband and has some sympathy for Helen?
The Helen of the series, as you point out, seems unable to empathise with others. The only way she knows how to connect with another human being is sexually. I don’t only wonder about their marriage I think it’s a fascinating example of a completely *wrong* human relationship!
Interestingly, to me, Helen comes across as a woman with some serious abuse in her past. I don’t say that to excuse her actions in any way but the way she seems only able to relate to men via the medium of her body as though that is the only thing about her that gives her esteem, the way she judges her relationships in terms of what she can gain from them… These are characteristics common in women abused at a young age, probably, though not definitely, in a sexual manner. Helen gives sex as a reward for her men being good and cooperative. She doesn’t seem able to conceive of an emotional connection. When she asks Nick if he’s in love with Claudia she is contemptuous and dismissive. It’s not an emotion she particularly values. No wonder she has been able to live alone for so long with so little damage. It appears she was suffering some form of damage beforehand.
There are potential problems with his existence before the altered timeline but there are problems with the conspiracy between Helen and Leek, anyway. When did it start? Helen is like Cutter and would have no knowledge of the history of the altered timeline so how did she hook up with Leek before 2-01? The creepy!soldiercleanerguy in the shopping centre suggests something is going on then - and he and his clones seem to be Helen's not Leek's.
It seems like they got things organised very fast if Leek didn't exist prior to 2-01. Bu it's quite possible.
1. clones are impossible, and there is no evidence to the contrary. (however, there are several sci-fi books in which one individual is woven through past and future so much that it appears to be clones, when its really just one person)
2. the assumption in your argument is that its the same Helen from Series 1, like its the same Nick; rather than a slightly different Helen - like Lester or Abby.
Huh? May I introduce you to Dolly the Sheep? Not to mention the nearest set of identical twins! Clones are not only scientifically possible but they occur in nature on a regualar basis, even in the higher mammals. There's nothing mystical or particularly exciting about them. One thing I'll happily predict is that within the next century AT MOST we will have the technology to successfully clone a healthy human being. Ethically, maybe we shouldn't, but we will definitely be able to if we so decide.
Creepy!cleanersoldier guys must be either cloned or multiple iterations of the same guy plucked from different points in his timeline except that produces mid-bending paradoxes. You pull C!csg out of his timeline, right? To get another C!csg you have to go earlier... except then he's not there when you went for him the first time because he's already gone... The only way round this is if we are dealing with a many-worlds scenario and the writers have explicitly said that's not so.
Cloning seems far more likely. What is more of an SF concept is the necessity for mind-control techniques to create a group of clones who are mentally very similar (otherwise they will be no more alike than two identical twins).
"the assumption in your argument is that its the same Helen from Series 1, like its the same Nick;"
Very true. However that assumption does appear to be correct based on a comment made by Helen in 2-06 (not quoting it because you comment you haven't seen all series 2 and I don't want to spoil you if you don't want to be!)
>Very true. However that assumption does appear to be correct based on a comment made by Helen in 2-06 (not quoting it because you comment you haven't seen all series 2 and I don't want to spoil you if you don't want to be!) that was what I meant by "cloning is impossible"...hit "send" before I could think to add "in the primeval realm".
I assumed Rodlox meant that the Primeval world is the same as ours "now" except for the anomalies and so far we can't clone humans. Not successfully anyway.
she seems only able to relate to men via the medium of her body as though that is the only thing about her that gives her esteem
I have felt, and maybe I've picked up on this as a scientist, that there was a sub-text in season 1 that Nick (and presumably others) rubbished her theories so she set off to prove them wrong. Now she has been conclusively proved right she's not prepared to leave it as a simple "told you so" but wants Nick to acknowledge she's right by effectively dropping his agenda and taking up hers... and you can easily imagine the past conversation where he advised her to drop her research (which was receiving widespread derision) and why not pursue this interesting line he'd thrown up. Again her self-esteem seems to be very bound up here in earning Nick's approval, more so than you would expect from an otherwise independent and able woman.
She certainly does seem very dependent on others for her self-esteem. And, yes, I think Nick was very dismissive of her more outlandish ideas before she disappeared. He may have been already aiming for senior position at that point and being associated so closely with a scientisy who is, in the eyes of his peers, losing it, would not be good for him.
I think Nick is one of the few men able to provide Helen wih a challenge. He's clever enough and emotionally cool enough to pique her interest. Perhaps she married him precisely because he had some partial immunity to her little head games. Thus, I agree, his approbation is very important to her. It's interesting to compare Nick/Helen to Stephen/Helen. Nick is much more an equal partner. Stephen is more of a toy for her. He amuses her, entertains her but isn't much of a challenge. He's also a tool: to punish Nick, to bolster her own faith in her sexual powers, to drive a wedge into Cutter's team.
Or, and this has only just occurred to me, is it a case of saving *Nick* and Claudia costs her no extra?
Helen has obviously been watching Nick - her comment in 1-06 about Nick having left Claudia shows us she has been following events. She knows Nick well enough to know there is no way he’ll sit in the ambulance and wait for Ryan and his men to rescue him and Claudia - assuming they arrive in time to save Claudia. She needs to get rid of the pterosaurs before they get rid of Nick. Claudia (unlike Stephen in the tunnel) is on her feet and fighting so it is no extra effort to grab Claudia, set up the explosion in the kitchen and run for it. It has the added benefits of placing several people in her debt and confusing Nick’s response to her.
The events of 1-06 do raise some questions. What *has* Helen been doing for the last three days? Given what we later learn of her relationship with Leek is it possible that, far from being chased by the predator, she *lured* it through the anomaly? And then she and Leek found it impossible to control/capture so they threw control over to Lester’s crew? This would explain her defence of the babies. They are smaller, weaker and easier to control. She can probably capture them. This also explains her misreporting that all the babies are dead. In fact she wants the two free so she can return and grab them. This, of course, makes it much less likely that the babies are responsible for the change in the timeline. It’s still possible Helen had (or, given this is time travel, *will have*) an experimental hand in that.
Of course we don’t know when or how Helen hooks up with Leek. I think it’s quite possible that by 1-06 they’re working together. It’s even possible they’ve had an alliance all along.
(And I agree about the Futurepredator. It’s smart but nowhere near human smart.)
I think Nick, during their marriage, did have a clear view of what and who Helen was. That memory may have become clouded during her time away through romanticising her, focussing on the good stuff, ignoring the bad - the usual things that happen when we grieve. Now she’s back and Nick is rapidly remembering the *real* Helen: the sexually manipulative, selfish, cold woman.
Actually I think that’s why Nick seems at least as devastated by *Stephen’s* betrayal as Helen’s. I think he probably knows that Helen’s affair with Stephen was partially about punishing him but Stephen’s response to Helen (slashfic aside, ) is nothing to do with him. Stephen has a degree of understanding of this but he seems to romanticise Helen and attribute to her feelings we have no evidence she experiences. I think he explains away the sheer spite Helen shows to Nick as the feelings of a woman scorned. Who knows? Perhaps Stephen is aware of Nick’s shortcomings as a husband and has some sympathy for Helen?
The Helen of the series, as you point out, seems unable to empathise with others. The only way she knows how to connect with another human being is sexually. I don’t only wonder about their marriage I think it’s a fascinating example of a completely *wrong* human relationship!
Interestingly, to me, Helen comes across as a woman with some serious abuse in her past. I don’t say that to excuse her actions in any way but the way she seems only able to relate to men via the medium of her body as though that is the only thing about her that gives her esteem, the way she judges her relationships in terms of what she can gain from them… These are characteristics common in women abused at a young age, probably, though not definitely, in a sexual manner. Helen gives sex as a reward for her men being good and cooperative. She doesn’t seem able to conceive of an emotional connection. When she asks Nick if he’s in love with Claudia she is contemptuous and dismissive. It’s not an emotion she particularly values. No wonder she has been able to live alone for so long with so little damage. It appears she was suffering some form of damage beforehand.
Reply
but that's just my suspicion/hunch.
Reply
It seems like they got things organised very fast if Leek didn't exist prior to 2-01. Bu it's quite possible.
Reply
2. the assumption in your argument is that its the same Helen from Series 1, like its the same Nick; rather than a slightly different Helen - like Lester or Abby.
Reply
Huh? May I introduce you to Dolly the Sheep? Not to mention the nearest set of identical twins! Clones are not only scientifically possible but they occur in nature on a regualar basis, even in the higher mammals. There's nothing mystical or particularly exciting about them. One thing I'll happily predict is that within the next century AT MOST we will have the technology to successfully clone a healthy human being. Ethically, maybe we shouldn't, but we will definitely be able to if we so decide.
Creepy!cleanersoldier guys must be either cloned or multiple iterations of the same guy plucked from different points in his timeline except that produces mid-bending paradoxes. You pull C!csg out of his timeline, right? To get another C!csg you have to go earlier... except then he's not there when you went for him the first time because he's already gone... The only way round this is if we are dealing with a many-worlds scenario and the writers have explicitly said that's not so.
Cloning seems far more likely. What is more of an SF concept is the necessity for mind-control techniques to create a group of clones who are mentally very similar (otherwise they will be no more alike than two identical twins).
"the assumption in your argument is that its the same Helen from Series 1, like its the same Nick;"
Very true. However that assumption does appear to be correct based on a comment made by Helen in 2-06 (not quoting it because you comment you haven't seen all series 2 and I don't want to spoil you if you don't want to be!)
Reply
that was what I meant by "cloning is impossible"...hit "send" before I could think to add "in the primeval realm".
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
sorry.
Reply
Reply
Reply
no worries.
Reply
I have felt, and maybe I've picked up on this as a scientist, that there was a sub-text in season 1 that Nick (and presumably others) rubbished her theories so she set off to prove them wrong. Now she has been conclusively proved right she's not prepared to leave it as a simple "told you so" but wants Nick to acknowledge she's right by effectively dropping his agenda and taking up hers... and you can easily imagine the past conversation where he advised her to drop her research (which was receiving widespread derision) and why not pursue this interesting line he'd thrown up. Again her self-esteem seems to be very bound up here in earning Nick's approval, more so than you would expect from an otherwise independent and able woman.
Reply
I think Nick is one of the few men able to provide Helen wih a challenge. He's clever enough and emotionally cool enough to pique her interest. Perhaps she married him precisely because he had some partial immunity to her little head games. Thus, I agree, his approbation is very important to her. It's interesting to compare Nick/Helen to Stephen/Helen. Nick is much more an equal partner. Stephen is more of a toy for her. He amuses her, entertains her but isn't much of a challenge. He's also a tool: to punish Nick, to bolster her own faith in her sexual powers, to drive a wedge into Cutter's team.
Reply
Leave a comment