Nathan Petrelli, Revisited
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.
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.