You make a good point about Tracy, and I'm now more inclined to accept her actions as concurrent with her situation, but I'm still not sold on Nathan's.
Back in the first season, I would have agreed with you. But since, we've been shown several times how family plays a key role in determining how he behaves. Granted, that's mainly Peter, as far as we've seen, but even still, Peter clearly didn't approve of Nathan's infidelity and Nathan wasn't exactly proud, either. It seemed to me that Volume 2 redeemed him somewhat, from a ~self-centered uppity jerk~ to a ~broken selfless hero~ (in broad strokes, obvs.) And at the core of this change were his ties to family: the ~sins of the parents~ as the writers put it, his drive to do right by Peter, followed by his search for Peter (lol he fucking flew to fucking Ireland), and a promise he made to his sons that he'll be coming home.
"And what do Petrellis do when they make promises?" "KEEP THEM!"
I'm not saying Nathan is the ~speshul snowflake~ of politicos (though he actually is, lolz, but that's way besides my point), nor can I blame you or anyone for holding that opinion of them to start with, but though what you say may well be true and apply in the real world to a certain extent (and what a world, eh?), I just personally don't see that that's how Nathan has been written, as an individual character, up to this point. And, again personally, I can't rely on generalities to justify the choices of one character. Real-world social trends should be entirely irrelevant. I feel that, for writers to rely on supposed "rules" in characterization is sloppy writing, and to be frank, unjustifiable, especially when they go against the target character's history as I feel is the case here.
Now, add his heightened religious faith into the mix, and what do you got? Insult to injury.
Ha, I'm sorry for the rant. Nathan is (was?) my favorite character, so this is naturally something that upsets me beyond the might of a "lol, Heroes" rationale. XD Honestly, at this point, I'd be willing to believe the Haitian removed all memories of his (ex-?)spouse and younger children, but if that's what the writers would like us to believe and accept, I wish they would at least allude to it on the show.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-16 06:22 pm (UTC)Back in the first season, I would have agreed with you. But since, we've been shown several times how family plays a key role in determining how he behaves. Granted, that's mainly Peter, as far as we've seen, but even still, Peter clearly didn't approve of Nathan's infidelity and Nathan wasn't exactly proud, either. It seemed to me that Volume 2 redeemed him somewhat, from a ~self-centered uppity jerk~ to a ~broken selfless hero~ (in broad strokes, obvs.) And at the core of this change were his ties to family: the ~sins of the parents~ as the writers put it, his drive to do right by Peter, followed by his search for Peter (lol he fucking flew to fucking Ireland), and a promise he made to his sons that he'll be coming home.
"And what do Petrellis do when they make promises?"
"KEEP THEM!"
I'm not saying Nathan is the ~speshul snowflake~ of politicos (though he actually is, lolz, but that's way besides my point), nor can I blame you or anyone for holding that opinion of them to start with, but though what you say may well be true and apply in the real world to a certain extent (and what a world, eh?), I just personally don't see that that's how Nathan has been written, as an individual character, up to this point. And, again personally, I can't rely on generalities to justify the choices of one character. Real-world social trends should be entirely irrelevant. I feel that, for writers to rely on supposed "rules" in characterization is sloppy writing, and to be frank, unjustifiable, especially when they go against the target character's history as I feel is the case here.
Now, add his heightened religious faith into the mix, and what do you got? Insult to injury.
Ha, I'm sorry for the rant. Nathan is (was?) my favorite character, so this is naturally something that upsets me beyond the might of a "lol, Heroes" rationale. XD Honestly, at this point, I'd be willing to believe the Haitian removed all memories of his (ex-?)spouse and younger children, but if that's what the writers would like us to believe and accept, I wish they would at least allude to it on the show.