indecision: (Default)
[personal profile] indecision
i was gonna do a poll, but then i found the idea tedious, so let's do it this way instead!

peter's relationship with nathan is/was(cries!):

a) a loving, supportive one between brothers
b) unhealthily co-dependent
c) far more complex that what the writers have had time to show in four years
d) controlling and destructive

in peter's mind, his relationship with nathan is/was:

a) a loving, supportive one between brothers
b) unhealthily co-dependent
c) far more complex that what the writers have had time to show in four years
d) controlling and destructive

their sexual relationship with one another is:

a) pretty much canon
b) ha! delusional bat
c) PEAS
d) really though, right? lovers.

did the sex make them better or worse for one another? AND DOES SYLAR KNOW.

apparently on my gmail status you can see what music i'm listening to? that is disturbing on so many levels, 1) i don't recall having signed up for that particular feature and 2) because all i listen to nowadays it adam lambert's Fever and then i vid nathan/peter to it in my head. DO NOT JUDGE ME.

cm

Date: 2010-02-18 08:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] miss-miso.livejournal.com
Ummm...

bc, a, cd, (I like peas), worse and yes.

Does that make sense? I think it's hard to pretend they had a completely loving and normal relationship after everything that went down in the first half of S1 and the whole of S3. But Peter seems pretty intent on convincing himself and the world that was the case! Don't get me wrong - I love the Nathan character; he's so fascinating. But a benign, benevolent man he wasn't. Then again, neither is Peter, entirely. Not anymore, anyway. It's funny though, I was listening to a 10th Wonders podcast (I don't often do that; I rarely have time), and the guys reviewing the funeral episode commented on Peter's eulogy, saying he must have been either deluding himself or editing things out of respect, since Nathan had always been a "jerk" to Peter. Which is hard to deny, even for a fan of the character such as myself.

apparently on my gmail status you can see what music i'm listening to?

Uh, HOW? And haha, I thought you didn't like Adam Lambert? From your last post on AI? *checks* Yep, here it is: "just, no adam lambert or kris allen this year, please, guys." You deceiver.

Date: 2010-02-18 09:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
no yeah, that makes total sense. like, even in s1, when he was with claire, he basically told her "no i'll just go to nathan even though you told me not to trust him he's my BROTHER he will take care of it", and i feel like, is he speaking from past years of experience or something because there's been no indication that nathan actually does anything but be condescending towards him. although i guess when peter was imprisoned he got him bailed out and then he offered to take care of the simone situation? maybe peter gets himself into these type situations all the time! s3 was kind of just "..." though, the whole way through. i read a review of s3 that went "and then nathan retroactively decides that he's always hated peter", which is sad, but also true.

oh the eulogy was so sad, and haha so full of lies! all lies!

ps. it is also true that peter is sometimes a bratty bitch, ha.

(at some point, i might actually attempt a gen story between them. but who am i kidding, that will never happen, they will just stumble into bed no matter what i do.)

Uh, HOW? And haha, I thought you didn't like Adam Lambert? From your last post on AI? *checks* Yep, here it is: "just, no adam lambert or kris allen this year, please, guys." You deceiver.

I KNOW, I DON'T, I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT. just that someone set like, a profit vid to one of his songs and ever since then his songs have been popping up on vids and they are SO CATCHY OMG. also i don't know how gmail can do it, i was talking to co-journaller and she was like "hahaha your gmail status states what you're listening to!" CREEPY. linked to itunes maybe? or maybe it's my chat client linking through my OS or something. but it's disturbing and i don't know how to turn it off!

Date: 2010-02-18 01:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com
1. d) controlling and destructive

It's really, really difficult for me to characterize a relationship that featured one person attacking, drugging, attempting to imprison, and chasing across country the other person. Yes, there are a lot more complicated feelings involved and positive sides. But destructive? Yes. Very.

2. I think this really depends on when we are talking about Peter. Even in S1, I think he would have variously described his relationship with Nathan as controlling (think the fundraiser), co-dependent (when Nathan destroyed the painting), supportive(after Simone died), and extremely complex (finale). These days, I think he is naturally biased towards seeing Nathan as wholly supportive and ignoring the negative aspects of their relationship. Over time, though, I expect that some amount of reality will set in and he'll adjust more fully to the complete picture.

3. Erm. When it comes to the sexual relationship stuff... I can't parse it with canon. It's just not. It makes Peter too damaged and Nathan too awful a person. It's interesting to write and to play with in fic, but it's actually pretty hard for me to mentally insert into gaps in canon.

Date: 2010-02-18 05:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
1. NATHAN WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU SRSLY. :(

2. yeah, i don't disagree. although he spent five years in sylar's head and he STILL thinks nathan built him up, so, sigh, maybe he was just wanting a snappy comeback to samuel.

3. not so random aside: i don't actually think that they were written as brothers-who-fuck, text wise, much like how i don't see, say, arthur sexually abusing peter as the reasoning behind why milo chose to play peter as disliking arthur so much. that said, i like to pretend it's true. the former at least, the latter i can't even bring myself to touch. i suppose i see it as far less destructive towards both parties than you do? i have no issues with incest between two consenting adults, so it might just be a matter of how much power imbalance one sees in their relationship. twelve years is a lot. on the other hand, the peter in my head is kind of bat-shit insane, obsessive and tends to be a bitch towards nathan constantly, so it's not so much with the nathan taking advantage of his younger brother then. (but also they are blindingly hot together, ahem. i feel that is the explanation for most of the incest ships in fandom, honestly.)

Date: 2010-02-19 12:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com
although he spent five years in sylar's head and he STILL thinks nathan built him up, so, sigh, maybe he was just wanting a snappy comeback to samuel.

I think the show is sort of ambiguous on how Peter experienced the time there, though. At first it very much seems like Sylar processes time as distorted and Peter doesn't. I can wholly buy into the idea that, toward the end of their time in there, Peter felt like it had been years, but on the outside his brain adjusted and normalized so it just felt like a particularly realistic dream. I do agree that saying that to Samuel can't be taken too seriously, though. Even without Peter being deluded, no one talks smack about your family except you.

i have no issues with incest between two consenting adults, so it might just be a matter of how much power imbalance one sees in their relationship.

As fandom would have it, though, it almost never begins with two consenting adults. The majority of Petrelli back story fics I've read feature the first time when Peter is a teenager. And regardless of how fanon is, the idea of a thirty something married man wanting to fuck his high school or college age little brother... it's disturbing to me.

say, arthur sexually abusing peter as the reasoning behind why milo chose to play peter as disliking arthur so much.

I think it's a reasonable extrapolation from the text, but yeah, not something that is purely intentional or canonical. Although I kinda think Milo played it with an eye toward making Arthur seem like some kind of abuser. He tends to actually read ahead in his scripts and play the character now with the knowledge of the past that the audience does not yet know.

the peter in my head is kind of bat-shit insane, obsessive and tends to be a bitch towards nathan constantly, so it's not so much with the nathan taking advantage of his younger brother then.

I'm just not really able to put that spin on things because I feel that Nathan canonically does take advantage of Peter. He takes advantage of his naivete and his idealism and his love for his brother, consistently pushing Peter around emotionally, manipulating him, and even hurting him physically. And then he turns around and asks why Peter is holding a grudge. He takes advantage of Peter's good nature and the bond between them to behave horribly before asking for a reprieve that he always gets. Adding sex into that equation just makes everything much, much worse.

(but also they are blindingly hot together, ahem. i feel that is the explanation for most of the incest ships in fandom, honestly.)

LOL, yes. This. They are blindingly hot and making it abusive actually goes a long way toward explaining some of why Peter is so nuts, IMO. I don't feel like it's OOC within most fics. I just can't romanticize and I can't fit it into canon.

Date: 2010-02-19 09:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
eh, whichever way it went or however peter remembers it it's gross and i hope the writers forget it in s5 if we get an s5, as i am trying my best to. except clearly i am doomed to not be able to due to the two billion The Wall fics that keep cluttering up my heroes comms list WOULD YOU PEOPLE STOP WRITING THE SAME STORY OVER AND OVER AGAIN GOD.

...got a bit sidetracked there whups.

The majority of Petrelli back story fics I've read feature the first time when Peter is a teenager.

yeah but most of it has also featured peter doing the chasing and nathan doing his best to resist before finally giving in? and (i think?) most people do wait until peter is eighteen at least, so there's him being practically an adult. i think i've read it almost the other way around maybe once, it was written as intentionally creepy. which isn't to say the relationship is healthy, canonically they're entirely messed up even without the sex.

He takes advantage of his naivete and his idealism and his love for his brother, consistently pushing Peter around emotionally, manipulating him, and even hurting him physically.

hrm. see, i kind of don't think that it's easy to be the big brother to someone as emotionally needy as peter is (or was?)? he's twenty six when we first meet him, blathering to nathan about how he thinks he can fly. i mean he's sensitive and vulnerable, i get it - but nathan has his own shit to deal with, from having a wife that's recently been in an accident, to dealing with an election, to dealing with a mother that gets arrested for shoplifting and then on top of that he has the FBI and linderman to worry about. and then there's peter who um, in the space of that short time, jumped off a roof, was involved in the shooting of his girlfriend, got arrested at a high school, was in a coma for three weeks due to powers he couldn't control, then actually DIED at some point. and all of that is somehow nathan's responsibility, which you know. kind of sucks to be you, nathan. i mean there's something to be said about nathan treating peter like an adult, sure? but i feel it kind of maybe should start with peter taking responsibility for his own life instead of going to nathan at the slightest hint of trouble. nathan as far as i can tell didn't actively prevent peter from living his life the way he wanted to, from going to nursing school, whatever. he may have been an asshole about it to try to get his way, but it's not as if peter ever did anything more than snap back and then do whatever the hell he wanted to do ANYWAY. nathan is kind of shit at manipulating peter, to be honest, or peter wouldn't be constantly running away from him. if i were nathan and i'd wanted to put peter in a mental institution for being unstable, i wouldn't just threaten him in front of mohinder and his ambiguously gay scarf, i'd actually go right ahead and do it. i disagree with pretty much all of v3 and v4 nathan characterization, but seeing as how it DID happen, and then if you think about v3 and v4 as direct progression from v2, where nathan had to stop peter from helping adam release the virus and then almost immediately got shot by a future version of him, it's not really a stretch to think that nathan feels peter is dangerous and out of control. i'm not justifying his actions, he's a selfish asshole (a fact that peter's always been well aware of) and he screwed up constantly, but i really feel uncomfortable in labeling peter as the perpetual victim of nathan's machinations. nathan's just not that clever. again, YMMV, and i'm saying their relationship is remotely healthy, because it isn't, but i feel their issues run both ways. although i think it's possible we see entirely different peters/nathans and we will never agree on it, but that's half the fun right? :)

in conclusion: incest porn is awesome, yay?

ETA: whoa, that got a bit long, sorry! clearly i have spent way too much time in thinking about fictional brothers getting it on. ha!
Edited Date: 2010-02-19 09:28 am (UTC)

Date: 2010-02-19 10:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com
but most of it has also featured peter doing the chasing and nathan doing his best to resist before finally giving in?

Erm, that honestly makes it much worse to me, because that feels like the author distorting the dynamic to justify what would otherwise be a character damaging and unforgivable act of abuse. A lot of fandoms do it, of course. In Heroes it's common for Claire to chase Peter, and I remember plenty of BtVS fic with Buffy hitting on Giles. Reversing who takes the initiative is a convenient way of supposedly removing power issues from a pairing that may squick people.

i kind of don't think that it's easy to be the big brother to someone as emotionally needy as peter is (or was?)?

I don't get how that's relevant. If you want to help your little brother, you do. If you don't, you don't. The middle ground is not "claim he's suicidal to score political points." It's also not "threaten to lock him in an asylum" or "agree to conspire to blow up New York City using him as a bomb." I just don't see any kind of equivalency between falling into a crisis and needing help, and any of those things.

maybe should start with peter taking responsibility for his own life instead of going to nathan at the slightest hint of trouble

Which is generally called the latter half of S1. Peter runs away to prevent the explosion. He then attempts to get training. When that falls through and Simone is shot during the confrontation, only then does he go to Nathan. And he doesn't allow Nathan to help. He goes off to try to get Mohinder to help, unfortunately getting killed by Sylar in the process. Now, we can talk about Peter's competence in S1 (not high), but his sense of responsibility is pretty strong. He tries to solve his exploding problem by himself, and even earlier than that, he saves Claire by himself. The story, in a lot of ways, is against him -- as a sort of "redemption" arc for Nathan, obviously Peter must rely on him for help and Nathan must come through in the end. But I just don't see Peter as someone who is not taking responsibility.

perpetual victim of nathan's machinations. nathan's just not that clever.

Is Nathan acting maliciously? Not generally. But do his story arcs consistently require a betrayal-forgiveness arc where Nathan is somehow victimizing Peter? YES. I cannot honestly see any wiggle room there.

it's not really a stretch to think that nathan feels peter is dangerous and out of control.

I actually completely agree there. The solution is wrong, but I feel the characterization makes sense as an outgrowth of what has happened to him. And locking Peter up is obviously not a new impulse. Nathan was never comfortable with his ability, and seeing all the destruction they've caused, I think his behavior in V4 makes a lot of sense.

Date: 2010-02-19 12:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
i honestly think we're just going to have to agree to disagree with regards to peter and his relationship with nathan, and how complicit he is when it comes to his own - i'd say victimhood but i don't really feel that's it. (disregarding v4 here, because nathan's betrayal wasn't specifically directed towards peter, it was to all specials everywhere. like in v3, he honestly thought he was doing it for the greater good. peter just...happened to disagree. vehemently. trying to kill nathan type vehemently.) i don't see peter making the first move as washing away the power imbalances at all or distorting the dynamic, because in my mind the protector/protectee relationship isn't necessarily one where the protector holds all the cards. peter is a dominant sub, is what i'm saying, essentially, ha.

I don't get how that's relevant. If you want to help your little brother, you do.

yeah i don't see how nathan's mental state isn't relevant? peter's not the centre of the universe, other people have their own shit to deal with. again, not excusing some of his behavior, he's pretty much consistently an asshole, but sometimes being under a lot of stress really means i'm not available to help someone else, or i fuck up and make bad decisions that i regret afterwards. even though as far as i can tell nathan did try his best in his own nathan way, largely because of peter's expectations, his sense of responsibility, and the history of their relationship.

i agree with you on peter gaining independence in the latter part of s1 though, so there's that.

other than that, again. agree to disagree? different nathan/peters, seriously.

Date: 2010-02-19 12:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com
i don't see peter making the first move as washing away the power imbalances at all or distorting the dynamic,

Yeah. Okay, so we are really going to have to agree to disagree here. I cannot fathom how in the world Peter would start with any of that. He's the younger partner, growing up in a relationship and a power dynamic that taught him all kinds of manipulative bad habits while locking him into it for the kind of love and support he thinks he needs to survive. Nathan got a fairly similar treatment from their parents, to be sure, so he is probably equally unequipped to break out of it. But Nathan not having a clue doesn't really excuse some of the major dick moves he pulls. And, in contrast, I don't really see any dick moves Peter pulls. So I tend to take his part in things.

Nevermind me, I'm an idiot. I forgot you were quoting back to me what I said about teen!Peter approaching Nathan sexuallly being a distortion. I think it's a distortion of reality frankly, not just their relationship. If a teenager approaches an adult relative for sex, he is mentally ill. It doesn't create a "topping from the bottom" dynamic and it doesn't make incest in that situation not sexual abuse. Fandom likes to play with it because it somehow feels that way sometimes, and also because Peter is pretty good at playing the damsel and being a submissive dom, as you say. But in those stories, I think it is wholly inappropriate.

(disregarding v4 here, because nathan's betrayal wasn't specifically directed towards peter, it was to all specials everywhere. like in v3, he honestly thought he was doing it for the greater good. peter just...happened to disagree. vehemently. trying to kill nathan type vehemently.)

Well, except that Nathan pointedly gave Angela and Claire free passes. So, actually, it is pretty specifically directed toward Peter. The entire operation makes no sense to me if it's not about Peter. It's about Nathan thinking Peter is out of control and that his super powers have been specifically damaging to the world and their relationship. Everyone else is just collateral. I'm not actually sure what incident you are referring to as Peter trying to kill Nathan. Future!Peter? Hunger!Peter? I'd question the validity of either as a measurement of what Peter will do 99% of the time.

yeah i don't see how nathan's mental state isn't relevant? peter's not the centre of the universe, other people have their own shit to deal with.

And if he didn't want to deal with it, he always had the option of not dealing with it. Like, that's the thing. I don't get how bailing your brother out of jail is a mitigating factor in whether or not using him as a bomb to blow up NYC is okay. You can do one without the other. Most people would, I think.

but sometimes being under a lot of stress really means i'm not available to help someone else, or i fuck up and make bad decisions that i regret afterwards.

I still don't understand, because we don't have a case of Nathan not helping. He does help when he's called upon. He just decides to negate that by turning around and acting like an utter douche. I don't know where stress plays into that, and I really don't think it excuses any of it. He's frequently awful to Peter, and I kinda think he's a terrible person. An interesting one, to be sure, and even sympathetically written much of the time. But not a good person.
Edited Date: 2010-02-19 01:08 pm (UTC)

Date: 2010-02-18 02:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anansie-s.livejournal.com
I feel like I can only honestly answer if I base my answers either on:

a. Season 1 and 2 and Volume 5

OR

b. Season 3 and Volume 4

But not both. Because unless Nathan was possessed by aliens (or Tim Kring) or something, the writers forgot the basic principles of believable characterisation from (a) to (b). No matter how controlling Nathan was of Peter in season 1, that could not believably translate into his actions in (b).

Date: 2010-02-18 04:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
hey, do both!

yeah, they were really horrible with the nathan characterization. my reasoning is that nathan went crazy when future!peter shot him because he couldn't handle the thought of ANY peter shooting him, and so volume 3 and volume 4 was him lashing out in rage. it makes no sense as a basis of anything but otherwise IT WILL JUST DRIVE ME CRAZY TIM KRING WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU OMG.

Date: 2010-02-19 06:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anansie-s.livejournal.com
Yeah; I wish they'd addressed, at least once, Peter's interpretation/reasoning as to what happened. Just one line, you know? Like:

-Nathan went nuts 'cos I killed him once or twice.
-Or, he went nuts 'cos I broke up with him.
-Or, he loved Dad more than he loved me so he was angry.

Much as I love the Petrellis, they were not written very well, with regards to the link between motivation and action (except for Peter, he's been a lot more consistent). Good thing I'm not really invested in fictional canons making good sense or being legitimate as a whole, because this one just doesn't :)

Answers to the first two questions: always a sliding scale between abcd. About the third: I think there's at the very *least* a mutually acknowledged (even if not neccessarily discussed or acted upon - while sober, hahahahaha) awareness that there are sexual undercurrents to their relationship. The early (pre-porn) parts of this fic pretty much describe how I see them. Unacted-upon sexual undercurrents/sexual jealousy between siblings aren't that unusual. Plus from what I've read of contributing factors to sexual relationships between siblings, the Petrelli family provides a, uh, condusive environment.
Edited Date: 2010-02-19 06:47 pm (UTC)

Date: 2010-02-19 07:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anansie-s.livejournal.com
Sorry, was just thinking about this more in the back of my head and need to get it out so that I can get back to work.

did the sex make them better or worse for one another?

Just intensified whatever was already there, for better and worse. If that make sense?

In principle, I think there are problematic power issues between Nathan & Peter, sure. But I'm cynical about relationships in general, I think, and don't really see an ideal situation/relationship type to judge them by.

IMO, problematic power dynamics are embedded in relationships between *most* people. Especially between people of different sexes/genders, currently. And between any people of different races. And between any people of very different classes. *shrugs*

For example, I think that Nathan/Monica would be an astoundingly cute ship, but quite problematic and embedded with inequality and conflict for so many reasons.

Date: 2010-02-20 04:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
IMO, problematic power dynamics are embedded in relationships between *most* people. Especially between people of different sexes/genders, currently. And between any people of different races. And between any people of very different classes. *shrugs*

yes, this. exactly this. but also i feel just because there are inherent power issues doesn't necessarily mean the relationship operates on a level of abuser/abusee? or at least not on a scale where one person inherently holds all the cards and the other one is entirely powerless?

also nathan/monica is a pairing i had not thought about before! supercute omg! but totally issue filled, yes. but also omg super-cute! i feel she should kick his ass, though, whenever he is a douche. WHICH IS OFTEN.

Date: 2010-02-20 06:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anansie-s.livejournal.com
but also i feel just because there are inherent power issues doesn't necessarily mean the relationship operates on a level of abuser/abusee?

Oh absolutely. Just means starting from a position of complicated inequality, and it takes a lot of effort/creativity to acknowledge and negotiate those issues.

i feel she should kick his ass, though

Then you should read this adorable little Monica/Nathan fic! Superboy's Got His Problems, (And Girl's Got Her Hang-Ups). I love it. On a side-note I find it really funny that there's (not enough, but still, some) fic about Monica to be found, but almost none about Niki/Tracy, even though Ali Larter's been on the show since the beginning.

Date: 2010-02-20 01:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
okay that fic just put a smile on my face that doesn't seem to want to go away. thank you for linking me to it omg. *sealclap*

i'm really not sure why there's no fic to be found about niki/tracy? i mean i'd actually thought about it, but then i was like "uh...what should i write about her?" and then i couldn't think of anything. *ponders* i don't dislike tracy/niki, even!

Date: 2010-02-20 09:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anansie-s.livejournal.com
BTW, what does the 'PEAS' mean? <-- is noob, and kind of elderly.

Yay I'm glad you liked it. That fic is exactly how I see Monica and even though we had for for what, half a season? She had SO MUCH personality and maybe that's why there's no Tracy/Niki fic? I sorta liked Niki is half of season 1 but find that she's not very relateable/doesn't have much personality. But that's just me.

Although pissed-off Tracy chained up in building 26, with her muscles and sweat and .... yeah, I could look at that all day /is being sleazy on your LJ, sorry.

Date: 2010-02-20 09:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
BTW, what does the 'PEAS' mean?

er, it means nothing, absolutely nothing at all. i think at some point everyone just started going "ticky?" at the end of polls? and i got tired of that and um, i like peas! basically i make shit up, sorry!

i think maybe that's it? the lack of personality? i mean the writers couldn't even think of more than two seasons of writing for her, they had to replace the character with an entirely new one, and no-one even cared!

oh hey, dude. in mumblemutter's lj, the sleazy usually comes to YOU. welcome to the tribe!

Date: 2010-02-20 02:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
Oh oh, I once read a short Nathan/Monica ficlet, I think it mentioned flying? I thought I had bookmarked it but apparently not! Do you maybe know what I'm talking about? Also that was adorable oh my god! She tries out superhero one-liners! He has a damn nice coat! The thought of her boot against his windpipe shouldn't be so intriguing, but it really kind of is. *shifty eyes*

Date: 2010-02-20 09:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anansie-s.livejournal.com
Hmmmm no I don't think I've seen that one, sadly :((

I *love* her superhero one-liners. She's sort of nerdy and that's wonderful. Ah I think this is why I love the idea of the pairing: Nathan would seem like some sort of alien to Monica, and she would *not* give him the respect he feels that he's entitled to, and would treat him a bit like an exotic, fascinating pet or something, and he would be weirded out by the novelty but find that he secretly loved it and they would snark at each other all day.

And hmm, yeah --- I feel like there should be more smutty fic objectifying Nathan and his clothes. I don't even care about clothes that much at all, but he works good tailoring so hard. *puts clothing-kink fic on list of things to write one day in the distant future when has time ... wonders what pairing it should be*

The thought of her boot against his windpipe shouldn't be so intriguing, but it really kind of is

I know, right? I can't see Monica as anything but a top, and a slightly sadistic (but sweet) one at that :D

Date: 2010-02-20 03:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
Yeah; I wish they'd addressed, at least once, Peter's interpretation/reasoning as to what happened. Just one line, you know? Like:

ha! i feel that would be asking too much of the writers, to actually put any thought into consistent characterization. i mean even looking at the way they write where they sometimes have a few people working on a single script, it's no wonder that they can contradict themselves in even the same episode!

(except for Peter, he's been a lot more consistent). Good thing I'm not really invested in fictional canons making good sense or being legitimate as a whole, because this one just doesn't :)


i think a lot of the reason why nathan is still so believable as a character is due to AP's efforts? and like hahaha then they killed him, which, GOOD JOB SHOW PLEASE KILL OFF YOUR MOST COMPELLING ACTOR. hey, look, months later, STILL BITTER OVER THIS.

okay wow, that fic. i wanted to just c+p my favorite bits, sorry:

He shouldn’t have done it. But when he had leaned over and kissed Peter instead, the only shocks he felt were these: that his brother’s mouth was sweeter and more yielding under his than he had expected; that when Nathan nipped at that lopsided lower lip and sucked it full between his teeth, Peter just moaned softly into his mouth and tightened his fingers in Nathan's hair.

that is so amazing. okay sorry, i know you wanted to point out the pre-porn bits (and yes!) but the porn was blindingly hot as well. o.O

Plus from what I've read of contributing factors to sexual relationships between siblings, the Petrelli family provides a, uh, condusive environment.

yes, THIS.

Date: 2010-02-20 09:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anansie-s.livejournal.com
hey, look, months later, STILL BITTER OVER THIS.

Me too :( Until I hear proof otherwise, I blame tptb for driving Adrian to sadness/the DUI.

And yes I agree entirely about Pasdar making Nathan a much much much more complex, believable and relateable character than he was written.

Date: 2010-02-18 06:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mimesh.livejournal.com
You forgot the option:

e) all of the above

Because that is the only way I could describe the schizophrenic relationship how they portrayed it on the show. Although I have to admit that I tend to ignore S3 altogether because I hated what they did to Nathan's characterization and the relationship of the brothers. It was one of the reasons I stopped watching before starting again with S4 (and catching up in-between obviously).

S1 Nathan and Peter weren't sunshine and puppies either but I could never reconcile Nathan's actions (and Peter's even though influenced by ~The Hunger~) in season 3 with what we knew of him from the first two seasons. Nathan has always been an ass but based on S1 and S2 he would have never ever willingly endangered Peter's life.

/mini rant



And Peter is now obviously in a phase where he only focuses on the positive aspects of their relationship. I think it is a natural reaction in his case at the moment and I'm not sure how much that will change. People often idealize their past when it wasn't completely horrible and particularly when the loss of a loved one is involved.

Date: 2010-02-18 06:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
er...yes that would be, yes. really stellar characterization fail? i was telling co-journaller at one point it was almost enough to drive me back into the rpf fandom, where the characterization was sketchy based on like, us knowing so little about them? but consistent due to well, people not being capable of doing 180s just like that. i actually really loved v4 because there's so much nathan and he is SO HANDSOME in it? but yeah. he caused so many deaths, and maybe it wasn't his intention, but what did he think would happen. you have superpowered beings who, very often, lose control of their powers when they're in danger, and you decide the safest course of action would be to um, terrify them into striking back? i lay every single death in v4, including daphne's, directly at his feet.

oh god that. THE HUNGER. he killed his brother! twice! i mean okay the first time maybe he was justified in his head. but the second time in the future, when nathan was just sitting there, alone and vulnerable? and this was current!peter. imagine if he'd met current!nathan.

Date: 2010-02-19 12:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com
Nathan has always been an ass but based on S1 and S2 he would have never ever willingly endangered Peter's life.

To be pedantic, how does this conflict with V4? Under Nathan, Building 26 is a no kill program. Had it worked the way he envisioned, Peter would have been taken to the building, put into an artificial coma, and "cured" of his super powers. That's not far off of his threat in S1 to put Peter in an asylum. Once the plane crash happened, Nathan went out of his way, risking his own cover twice (once to keep Peter from killing Danko, once to keep Danko from killing Peter), merely to prevent Peter from getting killed in situations he'd put himself in by acting against the initiative.

I think the best argument is not that it's out of character for Nathan to put Peter in harm's way. For one thing, S1 and V4 are actually pretty nuanced on this issue. The reason 5YG works as an episode is because we believe that Nathan could become a President who sparks a war against Specials and eventually decides to solve the problem with a genocide. The "twist" is that the latter, at least, is Sylar. But, again, that only works because we believed Nathan would do those things as well. V4 carries out that belief. And is it even a virtue to argue for? "Nathan won't let Peter get physically hurt" is not the same thing as "Nathan loves and doesn't hurt Peter." Nathan is on board with blowing up NYC, as long as Peter doesn't die. Well. That hardly seems like a loving position to me.

IMO, a bigger concern with V4 would be that it makes Nathan INSANELY naive. He genuinely believes he can pull this off without alienating Peter and without getting people killed, particularly not people he cares about. He thinks he can fix two damaged relationships through this: Peter by eliminating the powers that are "destroying" their relationship, and Claire by giving her a free pass. That is the most questionable part when it comes to a theoretically smart character, personally.
Edited Date: 2010-02-19 12:27 am (UTC)

Date: 2010-02-20 02:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mimesh.livejournal.com
To be pedantic, how does this conflict with V4?

Okay, here is my take on this. But I'm talking more about the development of his character from V1 to V4 instead of contrasting only these volumes.

For me the second half of season one and season two showed a significant change in Nathan's character regarding his relationship with Peter. Peter's multiple near death experiences made Nathan reevaluate Peter's role in his life as evident by his break down in S2. And thanks to Claire he also realized that merely keeping Peter alive wouldn't cut it but that he started caring about his emotional health as well (also evident in S2). The latter seemed admittedly never one of Nathan's priorities before.
And I can't reconcile this character development with the Nathan we got in season 3. A Nathan who didn't bat an eye when Peter told him their father hurt him, who left Peter in the middle of the Haitian Jungle without help, who beat him half to death with a pipe and who shipped him off to Guantanamo. The beating is one of my biggest issues because until that scene we have never seen Nathan raising a hand to Peter and he never physically attacked him after that again either. Peter on the other hand has always been portrayed as having a temper and being prone to fist fights. And I have serious issues with an older sibling hitting a younger one when there is that much of an age discrepancy - even when they are both adult because it must have started at some point.

And while I can concede that Nathan never wanted to physically harm Peter in Vol.4 in theory, he should have realized pretty soon that Peter was in serious danger of getting himself killed thanks to Nathan's plans. His two rescue attempts don't change the fact that he didn't show enough concern for Peter's fate for my taste. In addition to that it was insanely absurd and naive that he thought he could pull this off without losing Peter like you said.

On top of that they had to go back and poison their childhood memories in a futile attempt to back up Nathan's Vol.4 characterization with that football story. But in the middle of Season 4 they apparently realized that it would be hard to sell Peter's grief after the mess of season 3 and went overboard in the opposite direction by inserting all these wholesome Peter/Nathan childhood anecdotes and memories.

But they even undermined their S3 dynamic with the Villain's flashback where Nathan and Peter were practically attached at the hip although there could be made an argument basing on the Six Months Ago flashback that their relationship wasn't always as strained as in early S1 after Arthur's death.

I realize that you are more arguing from a Vol1 verses Vol4 point of view whereas I have been criticizing the development as a whole. I guess I just can't see how Nathan would go back to his worst S1 traits in Vol. 4 after everything that happened in between. The only explanation I could accept is that Peter killing him was such a traumatizing experience that it changed him fundamentally. But they never explored this on the show and I'm not willing to fanwank that issue.

And speaking of Peter's murder attempts, that is one of my remaining issues too although his characterization hasn't suffered as much as Nathan's over the course of the four seasons. I think from the moment he lost his powers to "The Wall" he was one of the most consistent and best written characters on the show compared to the mess they made of many others. But that Peter never batted an eye or showed the slightest bit of remorse over killing a future version of his brother - even after he lost ~THE HUNGER~ - is not the same character who let himself get imprisoned and tortured out of guilt over hurting Nathan.

Date: 2010-02-20 02:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
Oh my god I want to make love to that entire comment, hi.

I think the "you saved the cheerleader, so we could save the world" moment was absolutely central to their relationship; he's willing to die for Peter (he has no way of knowing what will happen to the time bomb in his arms once they're up there), not necessarily to prevent half of New York from getting blown apart but because he realizes that being responsible for this would destroy Peter AND HE CAN'T HAVE THAT. You can absolutely argue that being okay with all those deaths if only his Peter survives (something that is made explicit in canon) is a horrible, horrible thing (although he's been told it's nothing he can prevent, only something he has to deal with afterwards; ALSO 'SUP ANGELA HOW ARE *YOU* DOIN'), but if you look at it from a Peter/Nathan-relationship angle, it's a huge thing, and, along with the time he completely and utterly fell apart when he thought Peter was dead, it somehow seems to get swept under the rug in later seasons.

...what I'm saying is I agree with you, ahem. TL;DR! We are also absolutely agreed on the pipe thing, and in fact we spent quite some time going "HE WENT! FOR! HIS KNEECAPS!" in chat and cursing at the writers a lot, because what the actual fuck. Same for the "here, call this guy, I'll be off" Haiti thing. The only "explanation" we can come up with is the, you know, being shot in the chest by his brother thing, but even then. What the actual fuck.

~THE HUNGER~ is so completely ridiculous, it can only really be justified on a meta level (e.g. "the writers were trying to redeem Sylar" or "they had written themselves into a corner with Peter's powers"), but for the Peter arc it's just such an outlier we're usually tempted to ignore it. Much like the show *rejects canon, substitutes own*

Date: 2010-02-20 03:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mimesh.livejournal.com
I think the "you saved the cheerleader, so we could save the world" moment was absolutely central to their relationship;

Yes, I forgot to stress this. But the S1 finale showed to me that Nathan was willing to die, so that Peter would not have to live with this immense guilt and saving New York was only a second thought. He risked his life not primarily to save Peter's life - he knew he couldn't die - but for the sake of Peter's mind. Well, that his death in the process would not help Peter's emotional health is another story altogether but the thought counts. And the end of S2 with the virus was pretty much a variation of that.

The only "explanation" we can come up with is the, you know, being shot in the chest by his brother thing, but even then. What the actual fuck.

It doesn't help much because the show made pretty clear that they didn't relate to their future incarnations as they did to their actual counterparts. Angela didn't even call future!Peter her son and Nathan didn't treat him like his brother either after he found out. So I have a hard time fanwaking that Nathan projected his issues with future!Peter on real Pete as a justification for his actions. Peter didn't disown Claire after her future version hunted and shot him either.
Although I have to admit that this line of argument does undermine my issue with Peter killing future!Nathan. I still think that his first kill should have had more emotional consequences even if it happened 'under influence'.

Date: 2010-02-20 03:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
A Nathan who didn't bat an eye when Peter told him their father hurt him,

randomly, utterly, our lj name came from a discussion that arose from watching that scene. because we decided that all peter needed from nathan was a hug and for nathan to tell him "my cock still thinks you're a superhero." AND THE ENTIRETY OF V3 and V4 could have been avoided!

Date: 2010-02-20 09:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anansie-s.livejournal.com
*dead*

You two are amazing.

Date: 2010-02-20 09:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
it's true! oh nathan, we still miss you, you big and utter jerk.

Date: 2010-02-20 03:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com
Ah, see, I was pretty much working from a stand point of ignoring V3 altogether. I think that, by and large, it's best to do so. I enjoy Claire's arc and characterization, and Peter's as an independent progression, but I don't think his relationship with Nathan makes sense within the context of the rest of the show and I certainly don't think that Nathan's characterization is terribly consistent there. Unless "batshit crazy from being resurrected" really counts as consistent.

Peter's multiple near death experiences made Nathan reevaluate Peter's role in his life as evident by his break down in S2.

I can agree about that. But I think you are working from a place where you think this change is completely permanent. I'm working from a place where I think it is the extreme side of the constant seesaw that the brothers have been on their entire lives. Nathan goes from obsessing about Peter and adoring him to rejecting and ignoring and back. Within the context of S1, I think that's all laid out. Six Months Ago shows the adoration progress to rejection, and within the season we see Nathan going from ignoring Peter to being back at obsessing over him. I think, taken as a whole, the brothers are portrayed as not making forward progress in their relationship, but being caught within this cycle. It's arguable as to whether this is intentional, or a result of the writers consistently going back to the same well for plots and characterization, but I think it's a clear pattern that makes sense on its own. If you are in a dysfunctional relationship, you're pretty much going to stay there without external intervention.

In addition to that it was insanely absurd and naive that he thought he could pull this off without losing Peter like you said.

Very very naive. But is that out of character? Nathan thinks he can charm his way out of situations (see him explaining the affair with Niki to Heidi) and has pretty unrealistic expectations of what he can get away with regarding Peter. Well, possibly not unrealistic, since Peter always actually does forgive. Even in 5YG, you have Peter standing up to Sylar and claiming that Nathan would never have rounded people up and put them in camps -- and that's with a back story of Nathan allowing the explosion, being part of the Linderman Act, and probably doing exactly what Sylar claimed he did.

went overboard in the opposite direction by inserting all these wholesome Peter/Nathan childhood anecdotes and memories.

Those I definitely agree are failures, by and large, although the big problem is that they make no damn sense. "Nathan always came home for my birthday" isn't a good claim when Peter's birthday is supposed to canonically be around Christmas. Sure, a prop is soft canon, but it's soft canon we know the writers are aware of from interviews (about whether Peter's a girl :D) and is listed in the Heroes wiki, which they are hardly strangers to. Then you have the baseball anecdote, which I like and appreciate because it's extremely double edged. It only sounds nice until you realize that Peter would have been below age ten and Nathan would have been late teens or in his twenties. And, of course, Nathan walking Peter to school... which makes no sense in any universe at all and thus is not canon.

But that Peter never batted an eye or showed the slightest bit of remorse over killing a future version of his brother - even after he lost ~THE HUNGER~ - is not the same character who let himself get imprisoned and tortured out of guilt over hurting Nathan.

And hence the reason THE HUNGER is best ignored. I mean, even ignoring the trauma of killing Nathan, they make a big deal out of Peter's first kill. It's ridiculous to make it something accident, out of his control, that is never mentioned again.

Date: 2010-02-20 04:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
I think, taken as a whole, the brothers are portrayed as not making forward progress in their relationship, but being caught within this cycle. It's arguable as to whether this is intentional, or a result of the writers consistently going back to the same well for plots and characterization, but I think it's a clear pattern that makes sense on its own.

I think we'll never agree on the exact roles Peter and Nathan are assuming in their relationship, but yeah, not gonna argue with you there. Never said they were functional!

Also, seriously, all those retcon childhood memories are so fucked up. I feel a giant poster in the writers' lounge with the words "NATHAN IS TWELVE YEARS OLDER THAN PETER" would have gone a long way to prevent some of the fuckery, but alas. Apparently no such reminder existed.

-A.

Date: 2010-02-20 11:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com
<
Also, seriously, all those retcon childhood memories are so fucked up. I feel a giant poster in the writers' lounge with the words "NATHAN IS TWELVE YEARS OLDER THAN PETER" would have gone a long way to prevent some of the fuckery, but alas. Apparently no such reminder existed.


I think that would have made the most difference for the "running to school" one, but not the others. I mean, the baseball memory is very much in line with the baseball stuff from last season -- although sort of it's opposite. Peter in "1961" was blaming Nathan for screwing over a six or seven year old kid when he should have been blaming Arthur. At the funeral, he was praising Nathan for screwing with a six or seven year old kid. Both situations were more complex that Peter was willing to acknowledge, and I think that fits with how Peter often percieved their relationship. And the military leave one... TECHNICALLY I shouldn't get mad about it. TECHNICALLY they've never told us when Peter's birthday was, and TECHNICALLY that fits quite well with the age gap. What twelve year old kid wouldn't be thrilled that his big brother arranged his leave to come home just in time for his birthday?

Date: 2010-02-25 10:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
HI I'M GOING THROUGH OLD COMMENTS DO NOT BE ALARMED.

I feel that most of the childhood stuff that comes up in conversation is varying degrees of unlikely, with the running to school being one of the worst offenders. But also, Nathan took up more space than you? Like, who ignores a little baby! Oh my god! Surely Peter was completely adorable as a toddler and Nathan was a well-behaved teenager, why would you pay more attention to him than to an ADORABLE LITTLE BABY. It does not compute! And then when Peter was a teenager himself? Nathan was out of the house. I mean, it's still entirely possible (or rather, canon) that they just favored the golden boy over the dreamer, but Peter was RIGHT THERE. Granted, Angela and Arthur are somewhat... unusual parents, so who knows.

And the leave thing, yeah, I also blame that one on the writers, because while Peter is often entirely delusional, he *should* be able to put two and two together and maybe acknowledge that Nathan might just be home for Christmas. *Maybe* you aren't automatically granted leave for the holidays and he had to specifically arrange for that, but still. Of course, if they don't consider the wiki birthdate canon for some reason or other, that would be one of the few childhood memories that MAKE SENSE. And Peter's probably still making it more of a Bestest Brother Ever Thing than it was.

ALSO WHO SCREWS OVER A SIX-YEAR-OLD. OH MY GOD. I mean, okay, maybe in the sporty, "life doesn't go easy on you, so I won't either" kind of way (and I can see Nathan being like that, but come on, TINY LITTLE BABY BROTHER! Nathan!), but the baseball ticket story just seems so out there, I don't even know. *flails*

Date: 2010-02-25 11:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cadesama.livejournal.com
They often seem to write Peter and Nathan with the original intention of making them twins still in mind. The pilot in particular has this going on, since practically none of the dialogue that did not directly mention their twinship was changed. OTOH, canon is canon. It's crazy to admit to favoring an eighteen year old over a six year old to the point of visible neglect -- but Angela does that twice (Genesis and Into Asylum). I say six versus eighteen because while I think there's a good chance that Angela wasn't the most loving of mothers toward baby!Peter, he'd hardly remember that. So it must have been toddler age, and even then, Nathan would have been at military school for much of it. Which isn't to say it's impossible. It's completely possible to neglect one child for the sake of a child who isn't even there.

In the pilot, I'd say the almost twin thing is less excusable than later on, since that may have been the time the writers were most conscious of the age difference. Peter and Nathan aren't twins due to the fact that Peter, as written, was deemed "pathetic" in S1 if he was the same age as a potential Congressman. It was hardly due to casting considerations. So, when all of the lines about Peter being pushed to the side were filmed, it was with a complete awareness that Peter was in his mid twenties and Nathan was pushing forty. It's this kind of detail that make the Petrellis a special kind of fucked up, IMO.

but the baseball ticket story just seems so out there, I don't even know. *flails*

Hahaha, I still blame Arthur for that one. I mean, I get Peter blaming Nathan and Nathan not seeing it as screwing Peter over, per se, but it's all down to Arthur. That was him teaching Nathan how to make tough decision, and I think that kind of stuff is actually instrumental to Nathan's mentality of "if I do something good that benefits me, I'm being a selfish asshole; ergo, if I do something that HURTS me, it must be for the greater good!" Which then explains how he managed to feel conflicted about indicting Arthur in S1, just because it had a side effect of making Nathan look good for future voters.
Edited Date: 2010-02-25 11:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brandysniffer.livejournal.com
peter's relationship with nathan is/was(cries!):

a) a loving, supportive one between brothers


in peter's mind, his relationship with nathan is/was:

a) a loving, supportive one between brothers
and
c) far more complex that what the writers have had time to show in four years


their sexual relationship with one another is:


d) really though, right? lovers.

did the sex make them better or worse for one another? AND DOES SYLAR KNOW. <

I don't know enough canon to answer the sylar question! i only know i've dreamnt of nathan/peter cest until i saw you both felt the same love and support for it. just from watching some of 1st season i kept wanting to write this fic where peter and claire were together and nathan knew there was someone edging him out or whatever but didn't know who it was...since "what do you want from me?" is stuck in my head, i think it would be a really good song for peter/nathan from peter's pov. :)
From: [identity profile] mumblemutter.livejournal.com
ahem. well i feel him knowing might be somewhat embarrassing for peter if peter actually cared what sylar thought, which i feel he doesn't!

April 2010

S M T W T F S
     123
456 7 8 910
111213 14151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 19th, 2017 12:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios