Why I like 'Heroes' better than 'Lost'

The cast of  NBC's "Heroes" and (right) the castaways of "Lost" on ABC.

Notice, I didn't say why "Heroes" is better than "Lost." Because one of the things I so love about life is its diversity and complexity. Long-time xarkers are familiar with my near-religious feelings about pattern recognition. Uncovering the nuances and subtleties of what makes me me and you not me is  utterly fascinating.

For that, art appreciation is  marvelously rich vein, glittering with possibilities. Why do you like (or dislike) a painting or a song or a book or a TV show? How much of it is a particular piece's exploration of universal themes and how much of it is shades of you, your one-of-a-kind experience of life through a genetically unique construct? Why do somethings move you and others leave you cold? Why is there quorum-sensing  in what may be the purest realm of self-differentiation? The examination of these things is just delicious.

So, while there are objective standards by which to judge artistic endeavors, I'm much more interested in the subjective. I like figuring out why I feel the way I do and then taking that to a larger circle. So, here's my explanation of why I have enjoyed "Heroes" more than "Lost."

Warning: Some spoilers

I am a sporadic TV viewer. My life schedule  has seldom allowed for regular viewing and, for that reason, I am not a huge fan of serialized shows that aren't wrapped up nicely in one evening.  Cliff-hangers are annoying to me. I learned to practically speed read so I could finish a novel in a day or two. Perhaps that evidences a need for  instant gratification, but I think it's mostly a desire to get the meaning of something and start trying to integrate it.  So, I never watched either show on regular TV. We rented the DVDs over the course of a few weeks, "Heroes" just recently, obviously, and "Lost" some time ago. (It's such a great way to watch, honestly. No commercials, your own schedule, pausability, rewind. Cool.)

One reason I like "Heroes" has nothing to do with art: Only Daughter was really into it and it was a show we could watch together. Other family members wandered in, some stayed for the dramatic season conclusion. We watched over a couple of weekends and it was very nice, both the togetherness and the ability to discuss it later.  "Lost" didn't quite fit that pre-teen/teen market.

I do think that "Lost" aims a little higher than "Heroes" in its themes and complexity.  I was a huge fan of "Lost" after the first season. It is so different from anything else I have seen on TV (granted, that's not much) and it is sophisticated in its explorations of character.

"Heroes" has a least one episode that I think descends to made-for-TV standards : The storyline turns were too predictable and a "soap opera-ish." But writing a TV series is a marathon and anyone can falter. We kept watching and were rewarded with a couple of shows near the season's end that I think are brilliant.

Both shows keep you guessing about what's going on. But "Heroes" remembers something "Lost" forgets: The pleasure of a puzzle is solving it. At least for me. If I start to feel like I'm being jerked around, I'm done. "Heroes" answers questions and wraps up story threads as the season progresses. "Lost" just gets more and more complex.  As Churchill once said about Russia: "It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

Now, don't misunderstand.  I love to be challenged. I value art that makes me think, that I can chew on for awhile. But I don't like to feel played. After a while I started to feel that the writers were just f'n with me, as though they didn't know what was going to happen either and were winging it.

Two events in Season 2 particular stand out as the moments I began to fade. One made me flinch, the other just pissed me off.

Warning: Spoiler alert!

When they blew up the hatch in the season ender and the show concludes with Charlie strumming his guitar on the beach, I just couldn't suspend my disbelief. Maybe because I'm a mom or too pragmatic about being stranded on a tropical island. But a bunch of morons are going to BLOW UP a place where there is electricity and running water and an f'n WASHING MACHINE and everyone is OK with that?!! No way. It just really struck a false note with me. I'd have kicked their partially blown up asses and made them wash my underwear.

I went from annoyance to real unhappiness when Libby was killed. The romance between her and Hurley was a storyline I really liked because of its exploration of what people find attractive in each other, of self-image and learning to trust. I thought the death of Ana Lucia was bold and unexpected, but the Libby thing disappointed me.  It felt arbitrary. Then for Michael to just disappear from the story ... It was thoroughly unsatisfying. Yeah, I know life is like that, but I don't find injustice  entertaining in either venue.

The whole triangle with Jack, Kate and Sawyer or whatever his name is, started to work my nerves. Yes, it's completely realistic to have emotional drama caused by people's inability to communicate. Eliminating that is why I went to therapy. I understand it, I just don't want to watch it week after week.

In the end, I stopped identifying with the stories.  They stopped being people and started being characters.  Behavior began to deviate from there-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I to just f'd up.   Who is the moral compass here? There isn't even really a good anti-hero for my taste. The bottom line for me -- and it took me a few days to figure this out -- is that there is no joy in this story. Every event that promises redemption and resolution becomes something else.

"Heroes"  isn't quite so lofty.  It presents itself from the beginning as a graphic novel  and I don't think it strays far from what it promises.  It is far more derivative that "Lost," which I think is a brilliantly original concept.  "Heroes" themes are less artfully revealed and, as I've said, it sometimes gets a little too conventional. I'm thinking in particular of the Ando-stripper infatuation episode. Yet Hiro has such marvelously childlike joy at life that it moves me. 

It unfolds with a nod and a wink. I've been invited in to this world and, in exchange for a little suspension of disbelief and ignoring occasional discrepancies, I am entertained and given something to think about. And the scenery ain't bad....

"Lost" might white chocolate Godiva and "Heroes" a Lindt truffle,  but I don't really like white chocolate, so the bump in quality isn't worth it.  So, go ahead, sloopster. You can have that piece ...

Comments

[Amy Jane (Untangling Tales)]

Good analysis. I especially liked your last analogy with the chocolate, but your bits about lack of redemption, things reasonably wrapping up and avoiding things that send one to therapy-- all good.

Thanks for sharing :o)

My favorite shows for DVD include Monk and the first season of House M.D. For me it seems to be all about the wrap-up.

Never really got in to Lost (maybe) for that reason.

(Found you through techno-whatsit)
Cheers!

[jmsloop]

At the beginning of every new season of television, I try to pick the shows which will be cultural touchstones and watch them. Hopefully, I'll enjoy the shows a great deal. At the very least, I can be involved in the conversations that surround the shows (often, these conversations are the real fun). Sadly, almost every season, I make the wrong choices. I chose neither Lost nor Heroes when they first aried.

I had great hope for "Heroes" for a number of reasons. First, outside of some meandering in Seasons two and three of LOST, I love the show, and the fan base of the two shoes overlaps a great deal. Secondly, the buzz on "Heroes" was strong and interesting--people didn't just tell me they liked it; they talked about it in complex ways. Third, I like graphic novels and graphic novel adaptations.

It took Bonnie and I a long time but we finally finished watching the first season of "Heroes" on DVD (and the premiere episode of Season Two). Before I go into my response, I should begin by saying that I actually don't think LOST and HEROES are of similar enough genres as to warrant comparison. I understand why people do it: large, mysterious ensemble casts, weird powers, time flashes, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. As Janet notes, HEROES is a graphic novel on TV; LOST is more of an epid mystery with small bits of science fiction and Stephen King thrown in. In short, the shows only warrant comparison in my mind because the fan bases seem to demand it.

OK, my response: well, Bonnie and I were pretty bored with HEROES. The only reason Bonnie finished watching the episode is because I insisted on it. The only reason I insisted on it was because I paid $40.00 to buy the damned thing.

Here's the thing: what I admore about Janet's post is that, ultimately, I like LOST and dislike HEROES for the same reasons that she likes HEROES and dislikes LOST. (caveat: I do feel like the writers know where the story is going). I like the fact that LOST's three seasons feel like three entirely different shows. I like its complexity. I like the fact that it unfolds in ways that surprise me. I like the fact that it's gusty enough to kill off not one but two of my favorite characters on television. Wow, no show has ever treated me so brutally. HEROES, on the other hand, tells a nice story but doesn't surprise me (and it annoys the hell out of me when a new episode begins with 20 seconds from the previous episode).

At any rate, Janet, I have no argument with you. You've nicely identified the shows features and allowed for different valuations of those features. Nifty post.

[Janet]

Uhm, like, several "Lost" episodes began with "Previously on Lost ..." and I think it's good. On both shows the little into is often not linear,sometimes it even picks up scenes from more than one show. I imagine it's irritating if you are watching them in a row, but if it's a whole week later, it's a nice reminder. A lot of info gets stored in my brain in 7 days.

Some of it is even valuable.