Thought Matrix challenge: “What’s so heroic about ‘Heroes’”?
5 September 2007 at 8:41 pm | In Uncategorized | 2 CommentsTags: Quests, Updates
I actually have a post in mind with that title, but I can’t seem to find the time to sit down and write it. It’s something I’ve been wanting to do, especially now that we’re knee deep into philosophy. While I won’t give out my thesis, here is all I have to say — Heroes? Where?
Here’s an example of what I’ve been thinking:
Is Peter Petrelli really a hero? Indeed, he has done everything he could to stop the bomb from exploding. But in the end, he would’ve exploded in the city anyway if Nathan didn’t come.
Is Nathan Petrelli really a hero? Indeed, he saved the day but what intentions were in his heart? Guilt? Remorse? Regret? And let us not forget the politician’s path he walked for majority of the season.
For now, I’m throwing this idea around to those who want to write something Heroes-related for the Thought Matrix quest. What’s so heroic about Heroes? What do you think?
Those who don’t wish to write a full article may comment to this post.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Hmmmmm…napapansin ko nga. In these times mas dumadami na ngayon ang mga anti-heroes. It seems in the 21st century, things are not just plain black and white. There’s always the grey area.
BTW, Thanks
Comment by John the Atheist — 6 September 2007 #
I wish I had something smarter to say about Heroes, but I tend to look at TV shows in terms of how they appeal to their target demographic rather than their importance in teaching philosophy and moral values (hee, ’cause I’m shallow
). And in that vein, I think people love Heroes so much because despite their supernatural abilities, the characters are so relatable. If we had a Mary Sue character who both has Peter’s good intentions and saves the day like Nathan, where’s the fun in that?
In response to your Nathan and Peter blurb, I consider both Petrellis to be heroes (now, Mama Petrelli, on the other hand…), because for me it’s not about what they actually did, but what they set out to do. Peter’s spent a huge part of the season trying to save New York from himself despite coming off as deranged (and suicidal?) to a lot of people, which is pretty heroic to me. And while Nathan is a shark by nature, I think Hiro said it best: “You pretend you do not care about anyone. But you care too much.”
Also, to me, Nathan does care about others, but his distrust of people in general (because hello, politician) makes him apprehensive about acting on it or letting it show. And I think he saved New York because of three things: 1) he knew he was the only one who could; 2) he loves his little brother; 3) wouldn’t it suck having the state you just got elected senator for blow up shortly after your victory?
So summarily, yeah, they’re all heroes to me.
And all flawed, which I like.
Wading back to the shallow end of the pool now: Whyyy did they have to kill Isaac? Apparently there’s some unwritten rule somewhere stating that the hottest guy in a big ensemble cast gets killed off in the first season (see also: Boone from “Lost”).
Comment by JC — 11 September 2007 #