Heroes and Writing
May. 25th, 2007 12:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sinanjuI watched the season finale of Heroes this week. I enjoyed it. But I am aware--as are many other people--that there are holes in the plot, as there have been all along. In an earlier episode we witnessed Mohinder Suresh capture Sylar, the superpowered sociopathic serial killer, with a drugged cup of tea. Then he tied him up, ostensibly to get a DNA sample and a sample of spinal fluid.
He didn't kill him, despite the fact that Sylar is insanely dangerous, what with being a sociopathic killer with a number of superhuman powers. He didn't kill him despite the fact that you can take DNA samples and spinal fluid from a corpse as easily as from a live subject. Oh, eventually Mohinder got around to trying to kill Sylar--but by then it was too late. Sylar got free.
Then Peter Petrelli showed up, got his ass kicked, got killed* and then Mohinder knocked Sylar unconscious with a large piece of furniture. And failed, again, to kill Sylar, choosing instead to grab Peter's body and flee. Is Mohinder really that stupid? I say yes. If you have a chance to end the threat of a superpowered serial killer--one, furthermore, who views you as a tool he will not willingly relinquish--you take it at the very first opportunity unless you're a complete moron. It isn't rocket science.
And yet....
When I posted comments to this effect in various places, I got arguments. People argued that Mohinder's behavior wasn't odd, inexplicable, stupid, etc. Some of the arguments were practical: the writers didn't want Sylar killed off, so Mohinder suffered from bad writing. Not a good reason, but plausible. Others posited that Mohinder didn't have it in him to kill Sylar in cold blood, that he had to work himself up to it. Again, plausible I suppose, but I find that attitude hard to empathize with.
Now, admittedly, I've never killed anyone. Never even been involved in a serious fight. So I'm an armchair general here, but--I've thought about these things. A friend of mine who has been involved in numerous violent conflicts--it's his job--and has spent a lot of time over the years thinking about the subject has talked about the necessity for working out your views on violence ahead of need. That is, the chaos and terror of a fight for your life is no time to begin trying to decide what you're willing to do to another human being in order to protect yourself.
He's not the only person to say that to me. It's not an original thought. So I've thought about it. Does it mean that I know how I'd react in such a situation? No. I might freeze. I might find that I can't actually bring myself to injure or kill someone. But at least in principle I am committed to doing what I must to defend my life, my wife, and various other people important to me. I've thought about what specific situations constitute my "line in the sand" where violence--as swift and sudden and vicious as I can make it--is an appropriate response.
But it isn't just the question of killing someone. There are other, less violent situations where the characters don't behave reasonably--in my view. D.L. (who can become intangible and walk through walls, and bring others along with him by touching them), who is confronted (along with his wife) by a man with a gun doesn't grab his wife and become intangible, thereby negating the threat. He chooses instead to step in front of his wife and take a bullet.
Stupid. "Yeah, but--" the naysayers cry. Yeah, but he didn't have time to think. Yeah, but he didn't think to use his powers in the heat of the moment. I find those arguments unconvincing. My very first thought when the bad guy produces the firearm is grab Nikki and go intangible. Yeah, I'm watching a tv show in the safety of my living room. But I also don't actually have that power, yet the defensive potential of such a power is immediately obvious to me. Why the hell isn't it obvious to the character?
Yeah, it's bad writing again. The writers wanted D.L. wounded so they wrote him stupid. And that is bad writing. They could write him smarter and quicker on the uptake and still get him shot and wounded if they really wanted. They just have to have him shot by surprise, so he doesn't have a chance to react. (If that was the intended read on this scene, it failed.).
They could have done it better pretty easily. Did the writers not think of it, or did they dismiss it because this was easier than writing him smart and still getting to where they wanted to go? Either way it was disappointing, but the latter case would be more troublesome. Heroes creator Tim Kring is reputedly not a comics fan, but was interested by the idea of people with superpowers in the real world. Okay, fair enough.
But that's no excuse for not thinking through the implications of the powers he gives his characters. Maybe I'm spoiled by reading SF all my life--though there's plenty of bad SF out there too--but as a rule, SF readers expect the writers to have worked out the implications of their magic/science/whatever. A lot of SF is about the exploration of all the consequences that flow from an initial premise. So when writers overlook some of the most basic, most obvious implications of an idea, I am always disappointed.
I like smart characters. I'll overlook turgid dialogue, wooden acting, flimsy sets, laughable special effects and absurd story premises as long as the plot is logical and the characters are smart. And by smart, of course, I mean that they don't fall prey to idiot plot conventions and use their brains at least as well as I do while I'm watching the movie. It's always a thrill when the characters are smarter than I am, and make connections I missed but which are logical and often inevitable in retrospect. But at the very least I want to see them be as clever as I am.
Hiro's timestop power should be horrendously powerful. Hiro faces a roomful of SWAT guys with weapons and armor? Cut to a roomful of dead or unconscious SWAT guys and Hiro standing in a different place. When you can move and nobody else can, how can you NOT win? If that makes Hiro too powerful, then you should have thought about that when you gave him that power.
D.L.'s ability become intangible. Matt's telepathy. These powers have broad-ranging implications that could be exploited ruthlessly. But too often the characters never seem to think about what they could do with even a little planning. It's frustrating. When you're shouting at the television for the character to do something obvious but they don't, it's frustrating and usually--though not always--bad writing. Heroes has provided enough enjoyment for me that the occasional idiot plot moment hasn't turned me off--but it concerns me. I hope that the second season will do better.
*Fortunately for Peter, his death was only temporary.
He didn't kill him, despite the fact that Sylar is insanely dangerous, what with being a sociopathic killer with a number of superhuman powers. He didn't kill him despite the fact that you can take DNA samples and spinal fluid from a corpse as easily as from a live subject. Oh, eventually Mohinder got around to trying to kill Sylar--but by then it was too late. Sylar got free.
Then Peter Petrelli showed up, got his ass kicked, got killed* and then Mohinder knocked Sylar unconscious with a large piece of furniture. And failed, again, to kill Sylar, choosing instead to grab Peter's body and flee. Is Mohinder really that stupid? I say yes. If you have a chance to end the threat of a superpowered serial killer--one, furthermore, who views you as a tool he will not willingly relinquish--you take it at the very first opportunity unless you're a complete moron. It isn't rocket science.
And yet....
When I posted comments to this effect in various places, I got arguments. People argued that Mohinder's behavior wasn't odd, inexplicable, stupid, etc. Some of the arguments were practical: the writers didn't want Sylar killed off, so Mohinder suffered from bad writing. Not a good reason, but plausible. Others posited that Mohinder didn't have it in him to kill Sylar in cold blood, that he had to work himself up to it. Again, plausible I suppose, but I find that attitude hard to empathize with.
Now, admittedly, I've never killed anyone. Never even been involved in a serious fight. So I'm an armchair general here, but--I've thought about these things. A friend of mine who has been involved in numerous violent conflicts--it's his job--and has spent a lot of time over the years thinking about the subject has talked about the necessity for working out your views on violence ahead of need. That is, the chaos and terror of a fight for your life is no time to begin trying to decide what you're willing to do to another human being in order to protect yourself.
He's not the only person to say that to me. It's not an original thought. So I've thought about it. Does it mean that I know how I'd react in such a situation? No. I might freeze. I might find that I can't actually bring myself to injure or kill someone. But at least in principle I am committed to doing what I must to defend my life, my wife, and various other people important to me. I've thought about what specific situations constitute my "line in the sand" where violence--as swift and sudden and vicious as I can make it--is an appropriate response.
But it isn't just the question of killing someone. There are other, less violent situations where the characters don't behave reasonably--in my view. D.L. (who can become intangible and walk through walls, and bring others along with him by touching them), who is confronted (along with his wife) by a man with a gun doesn't grab his wife and become intangible, thereby negating the threat. He chooses instead to step in front of his wife and take a bullet.
Stupid. "Yeah, but--" the naysayers cry. Yeah, but he didn't have time to think. Yeah, but he didn't think to use his powers in the heat of the moment. I find those arguments unconvincing. My very first thought when the bad guy produces the firearm is grab Nikki and go intangible. Yeah, I'm watching a tv show in the safety of my living room. But I also don't actually have that power, yet the defensive potential of such a power is immediately obvious to me. Why the hell isn't it obvious to the character?
Yeah, it's bad writing again. The writers wanted D.L. wounded so they wrote him stupid. And that is bad writing. They could write him smarter and quicker on the uptake and still get him shot and wounded if they really wanted. They just have to have him shot by surprise, so he doesn't have a chance to react. (If that was the intended read on this scene, it failed.).
They could have done it better pretty easily. Did the writers not think of it, or did they dismiss it because this was easier than writing him smart and still getting to where they wanted to go? Either way it was disappointing, but the latter case would be more troublesome. Heroes creator Tim Kring is reputedly not a comics fan, but was interested by the idea of people with superpowers in the real world. Okay, fair enough.
But that's no excuse for not thinking through the implications of the powers he gives his characters. Maybe I'm spoiled by reading SF all my life--though there's plenty of bad SF out there too--but as a rule, SF readers expect the writers to have worked out the implications of their magic/science/whatever. A lot of SF is about the exploration of all the consequences that flow from an initial premise. So when writers overlook some of the most basic, most obvious implications of an idea, I am always disappointed.
I like smart characters. I'll overlook turgid dialogue, wooden acting, flimsy sets, laughable special effects and absurd story premises as long as the plot is logical and the characters are smart. And by smart, of course, I mean that they don't fall prey to idiot plot conventions and use their brains at least as well as I do while I'm watching the movie. It's always a thrill when the characters are smarter than I am, and make connections I missed but which are logical and often inevitable in retrospect. But at the very least I want to see them be as clever as I am.
Hiro's timestop power should be horrendously powerful. Hiro faces a roomful of SWAT guys with weapons and armor? Cut to a roomful of dead or unconscious SWAT guys and Hiro standing in a different place. When you can move and nobody else can, how can you NOT win? If that makes Hiro too powerful, then you should have thought about that when you gave him that power.
D.L.'s ability become intangible. Matt's telepathy. These powers have broad-ranging implications that could be exploited ruthlessly. But too often the characters never seem to think about what they could do with even a little planning. It's frustrating. When you're shouting at the television for the character to do something obvious but they don't, it's frustrating and usually--though not always--bad writing. Heroes has provided enough enjoyment for me that the occasional idiot plot moment hasn't turned me off--but it concerns me. I hope that the second season will do better.
*Fortunately for Peter, his death was only temporary.
