There's a tangential topic to discuss here that sort of splinters from your premise. Give me a little slack, I'm approaching this from the perspective of theory.
You call Nolan a sociopath, which he is by essentially every definition of human understanding. Notably, sociopathy is sort of a cultural catch-all term rather than a diagnostic criteria, but everyone basically knows what it means, so that's largely a moot point. He's a megalomaniac that holds no value for the life/livelihood/experience of others, and has essentially no humanity as we generally define it. But that's the problem, he has no humanity because he's not a human.
Nolan views Debbie as 'a pet' because that's sort of what his existence lends his belief/line of reasoning to be. He is/will be thousands of years old, he's from another part of the galaxy, and is used to technology and systems of thought that are completely incomprehensible to humanity. He looks like a man, but is more analogous to being a man only if humans are analogously reduced to the role of insects.
To him, humans, at the very, very minimum, are like cave people learning how to utilize fire. The human race is constantly at war, has no central government or school of thought, no united purpose or vision. We collectively possess no possible way to stop Nolan as an individual (currently, I haven't seen the whole story obviously), much less stop his entire race (again, same asterisk). Nolan's race, on the other hand, is socially united, 'enlightened' by their own perspective, spans the galaxy, and wields technology which would appear, per Clark's maxim, to us to be more like magic.
Psychologically, it's not unfair to say that Nolan would view any human in the way we would view a family dog. It's 'part of the family', but it can't understand us. It makes us happy, but we can't talk with it about things that are important. It thinks it's important, but it's entire existence is subservient to the family (analogous to how Debbie couldn't help, hurt, or really understand Nolan). It will die long before we do, and we'll move on with our lives, probably getting another dog, and another one after that.
Then there's the age difference, which is something I've been thinking about for a long time. Imagine you're an 80 year old trying to form a bond with a teenager. Is that even really possible beyond a mentor/parental role? A teenager probably doesn't have the wisdom, experience, frame of reference, cultural exposure, or maturity to be able to bond with an 80 year old. They wouldn't have any shared experiences to discuss, wouldn't like the same things, wouldn't be prone to accepting the cultural norms of the other. It's not a coincidence that every generation hates the music of the generation that comes after them, or thinks that things are changing too quickly.
People that were born in the 1940's (who are now in their 80s) grew up in Jim Crow, lived through a world war, existed without TV as we understand it in the modern context, and used to drink milk out of a bottle that was delivered every morning by a milkman. I'm in my 30's and I have next to nothing in common with late teenagers today. I teach 18-22 year olds, and they tell me my movie references are out of date and that my music is considered vintage. Then I realize they were born after 9/11, have no god damn idea what a swirly is, and have had been able to google answers to things their entire lives. They don't know what it was like to have to watch TV at a certain time each day to see the show you wanted to watch, or have to ask your one cool friend to burn you a CD, or not know what the word gay actually meant because everyone used it as a substitute for dumb on the playground.
Now, multiply that concept by thousands of years and you get the gap between Nolan and Debbie. By all of earth's standards, he's a terrible human being, but again, he's not a human. Humans treat life on our planet with extreme callousness and disregard for its autonomy, for better or worse. Is it so farfetched to accept that aliens of vastly greater intellect, power, longevity, and social cohesion would treat us the way we treat chimps? We lock them up in zoos, use them for experiments, and shoot them when they're a nuisance. Chimps use tools, have social cohesion, can learn rudimentary language, and clearly possess intellect. And we treat them worse than the average dog, who at least gets to be part of the family.
Am I advocating for Nolan's actions? Nope. Do I think it's worth discussing that, within the story, there's quite a bit of wiggle room when it comes to alien ethics? Yep.
Just some tangential thoughts, not trying to throw shade on the essay.
I finished invincible not just the show but the comic book series and made sure I didn't leave any spoilers or anything like that, more so focussing on the first season.
Now when it comes to Nolan I really wanted to channel how Debbie was feeling, how Mark was feeling at the time
I wasn't trying to really dive into Nolans perspective because I want to save that for another article
More so in about the end of season 1 and when he's on thraxxa
Now if we take a look at the bigger picture Nolan is for a fact an alien, and had a completely different culture rules etc…
If you ever read the comics whenever he says
“On Viltrum” normally a very shitty action follows.
And also man thank you so much for such a detailed response I super appreciate it!!!!
I'm right with you on the Mark/Debbie angle. When I heard the 'she's a pet' line, I shuddered. That's hella good writing, and it conveys the otherworldly nature of Nolan's psychology better than anything else he did. Season 1 was about as solid as it gets for western stories (at least from my perspective). There were a few things here and there that I didn't like, such as the ep where they go to college and basically everything about Amber, but the worldbuilding, characterization, and every subplot had me hooked. Season 2 was a letdown for me, but that's mainly because of how high my expectations had been set from season 1.
When I rewatched the First season, my favorite part was just the conversation between Nolan and Cecil. The amount of undertones and coded language really resonated with me.
Both of them are playing this mental chess game to see which one is going to level the conversation with more intel than before. Also you should check out the comics, such a dope series
Thank you so much, I thought it would resonate with people really well because we all know someone who’s done absolutely nothing but be positive, receive a terrible set of circumstances
There's a tangential topic to discuss here that sort of splinters from your premise. Give me a little slack, I'm approaching this from the perspective of theory.
You call Nolan a sociopath, which he is by essentially every definition of human understanding. Notably, sociopathy is sort of a cultural catch-all term rather than a diagnostic criteria, but everyone basically knows what it means, so that's largely a moot point. He's a megalomaniac that holds no value for the life/livelihood/experience of others, and has essentially no humanity as we generally define it. But that's the problem, he has no humanity because he's not a human.
Nolan views Debbie as 'a pet' because that's sort of what his existence lends his belief/line of reasoning to be. He is/will be thousands of years old, he's from another part of the galaxy, and is used to technology and systems of thought that are completely incomprehensible to humanity. He looks like a man, but is more analogous to being a man only if humans are analogously reduced to the role of insects.
To him, humans, at the very, very minimum, are like cave people learning how to utilize fire. The human race is constantly at war, has no central government or school of thought, no united purpose or vision. We collectively possess no possible way to stop Nolan as an individual (currently, I haven't seen the whole story obviously), much less stop his entire race (again, same asterisk). Nolan's race, on the other hand, is socially united, 'enlightened' by their own perspective, spans the galaxy, and wields technology which would appear, per Clark's maxim, to us to be more like magic.
Psychologically, it's not unfair to say that Nolan would view any human in the way we would view a family dog. It's 'part of the family', but it can't understand us. It makes us happy, but we can't talk with it about things that are important. It thinks it's important, but it's entire existence is subservient to the family (analogous to how Debbie couldn't help, hurt, or really understand Nolan). It will die long before we do, and we'll move on with our lives, probably getting another dog, and another one after that.
Then there's the age difference, which is something I've been thinking about for a long time. Imagine you're an 80 year old trying to form a bond with a teenager. Is that even really possible beyond a mentor/parental role? A teenager probably doesn't have the wisdom, experience, frame of reference, cultural exposure, or maturity to be able to bond with an 80 year old. They wouldn't have any shared experiences to discuss, wouldn't like the same things, wouldn't be prone to accepting the cultural norms of the other. It's not a coincidence that every generation hates the music of the generation that comes after them, or thinks that things are changing too quickly.
People that were born in the 1940's (who are now in their 80s) grew up in Jim Crow, lived through a world war, existed without TV as we understand it in the modern context, and used to drink milk out of a bottle that was delivered every morning by a milkman. I'm in my 30's and I have next to nothing in common with late teenagers today. I teach 18-22 year olds, and they tell me my movie references are out of date and that my music is considered vintage. Then I realize they were born after 9/11, have no god damn idea what a swirly is, and have had been able to google answers to things their entire lives. They don't know what it was like to have to watch TV at a certain time each day to see the show you wanted to watch, or have to ask your one cool friend to burn you a CD, or not know what the word gay actually meant because everyone used it as a substitute for dumb on the playground.
Now, multiply that concept by thousands of years and you get the gap between Nolan and Debbie. By all of earth's standards, he's a terrible human being, but again, he's not a human. Humans treat life on our planet with extreme callousness and disregard for its autonomy, for better or worse. Is it so farfetched to accept that aliens of vastly greater intellect, power, longevity, and social cohesion would treat us the way we treat chimps? We lock them up in zoos, use them for experiments, and shoot them when they're a nuisance. Chimps use tools, have social cohesion, can learn rudimentary language, and clearly possess intellect. And we treat them worse than the average dog, who at least gets to be part of the family.
Am I advocating for Nolan's actions? Nope. Do I think it's worth discussing that, within the story, there's quite a bit of wiggle room when it comes to alien ethics? Yep.
Just some tangential thoughts, not trying to throw shade on the essay.
I finished invincible not just the show but the comic book series and made sure I didn't leave any spoilers or anything like that, more so focussing on the first season.
Now when it comes to Nolan I really wanted to channel how Debbie was feeling, how Mark was feeling at the time
I wasn't trying to really dive into Nolans perspective because I want to save that for another article
More so in about the end of season 1 and when he's on thraxxa
Now if we take a look at the bigger picture Nolan is for a fact an alien, and had a completely different culture rules etc…
If you ever read the comics whenever he says
“On Viltrum” normally a very shitty action follows.
And also man thank you so much for such a detailed response I super appreciate it!!!!
I'm right with you on the Mark/Debbie angle. When I heard the 'she's a pet' line, I shuddered. That's hella good writing, and it conveys the otherworldly nature of Nolan's psychology better than anything else he did. Season 1 was about as solid as it gets for western stories (at least from my perspective). There were a few things here and there that I didn't like, such as the ep where they go to college and basically everything about Amber, but the worldbuilding, characterization, and every subplot had me hooked. Season 2 was a letdown for me, but that's mainly because of how high my expectations had been set from season 1.
When I rewatched the First season, my favorite part was just the conversation between Nolan and Cecil. The amount of undertones and coded language really resonated with me.
Both of them are playing this mental chess game to see which one is going to level the conversation with more intel than before. Also you should check out the comics, such a dope series
I really like this one quote
“Through no fault of our own, sometimes truly heinous things happen to good people.”
Because, why, do bad people get good things and good people get bad things?
Thank you so much, I thought it would resonate with people really well because we all know someone who’s done absolutely nothing but be positive, receive a terrible set of circumstances