Sylar and the Petrelli brand of manipulation: hm, I see it half between Peter's and Angela's variation. Just think about the way he played Mohinder in s1 and Maya in s2; he became whom they needed/wanted him to be. Angela manipulates by spotting other people's buttons and by using them against each other, true, but she doesn't change herself; she maintains the persona she projects. (Though you could argue Peter saw her differently than Nathan did until after the end of s1, I suppose, but not so completely different as the way Sylar's impersonations appear.)
And she does seem truly heartbroken over Peter's loss of innocence, and Nathan's anger. But she's still not above trying to manipulate Nathan, right to the end, framing Peter's absorption of Sylar's power as a "sacrifice." i.e. Don't let your brother's sacrifice go to waste. Help me. It's the truth, but only part of the truth, in classic Angela style.
Oh absolutely. In the Apocalyptic Future Mark II, the one with the virus, she did the same thing with Peter, using Nathan's "sacrifice"; assuming in this timeline, Nathan died in the first outbreak, this would be another truth yet not not complete truth, given that she pointedly didn't tell Peter in Out of Time where that virus came from and who originally produced it. And of course back at the start of s2 when accusing Nathan of being at fault for Peter's death she wasn't just angry but trying for a guilt button in order to make Nathan listen to her again. She always tries to use them against each other. (And Claire gets a variation of that in .07% when Angela gives her "my two boys, getting along for a change" description, thus making it clear to Claire that Nathan does not get along with her hero and that Angela is the one to be trusted.)
...yet the reason why all of this often is effective is that she feels and believes a lot of it. I found it striking in the deleted s2 scene with her and Nathan that this basically was her way of saying "I want you back", and she seems to have believed she could keep Peter somehow in that state of innocence despite using him.
And she does seem truly heartbroken over Peter's loss of innocence, and Nathan's anger. But she's still not above trying to manipulate Nathan, right to the end, framing Peter's absorption of Sylar's power as a "sacrifice." i.e. Don't let your brother's sacrifice go to waste. Help me. It's the truth, but only part of the truth, in classic Angela style.
Oh absolutely. In the Apocalyptic Future Mark II, the one with the virus, she did the same thing with Peter, using Nathan's "sacrifice"; assuming in this timeline, Nathan died in the first outbreak, this would be another truth yet not not complete truth, given that she pointedly didn't tell Peter in Out of Time where that virus came from and who originally produced it. And of course back at the start of s2 when accusing Nathan of being at fault for Peter's death she wasn't just angry but trying for a guilt button in order to make Nathan listen to her again. She always tries to use them against each other. (And Claire gets a variation of that in .07% when Angela gives her "my two boys, getting along for a change" description, thus making it clear to Claire that Nathan does not get along with her hero and that Angela is the one to be trusted.)
...yet the reason why all of this often is effective is that she feels and believes a lot of it. I found it striking in the deleted s2 scene with her and Nathan that this basically was her way of saying "I want you back", and she seems to have believed she could keep Peter somehow in that state of innocence despite using him.
Reply
Leave a comment