Talk:Shanti Suresh

Shanti's Powers

The show has been vague about Shanti - was she an evolved human or not? Chandra keeps referring to her as "special", and then used her as a catalyst for his research. I say she's evolved - or am I speculating? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)

• In 6MA, he said she had a fatal genetic defect, and that most evolutionary leaps manifest themselves as flaws (I'm paraphrasing; I don't remember the exact line). It doesn't rule out that she was evolved (and within one sense of the phrase "evolved human", she definitely was ... unfortunately, her power was to die young), but I think it makes it less likely.--Hardvice (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2006 (EST)
  • You're right - I'm projecting an "evolved human" status on her if she were still alive -- it'd be like calling Claire evolved a year ago. Just too premature ... It's just that I just saw her in the "Humans" category, and it struck me funny. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Regarding just what her powers were, we have very little to go on. It must have been something that Chandra would have originally presumed to be a defect, later realized was something more, and then it has to have placed her in some level of suffering. Also the end result of her ability must have been either horrific or otherwise poignant, as to have been such a catapult for Chandra's studies. If what Mohinder recites in the prologues and epilogues of the episodes happens to be passages from Chandra's work, we must presume Chandra had an unique vantage point, through his lost daughter, from which to view this phenomenon. We are led to believe it was her ability which led to her suffering and her death, but we can't assume that she actually is dead, or that she's alive. We can only presume that Chandra believed her to be dead. However, if for example, her power were to separate her molecules until she dissipated like a cloud, she may have over time seemed unable to retain her original shape and faded away, but her consciousness may still exist somewhere. -- ZachsMind 15:42, 14 February 2007 (EST)

First appearance

Characters that don't actually appear should not be listed under "debut". A picture is neither an appearance nor a debut. Shanti has only been mentioned, even though there's a picture of her. The same goes for Takezo Kensai who is oft-mentioned, and was shown in more than one picture, but never "appeared". These characters should also not be listed in the list of character appearances by episode. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

• Despite Takezo Kensai being one of the main characters for the story arc of Heroes? Rybo5000
  • He wasn't a main character one and a half year ago. Look at the date from Ryan's comment.--Referos 13:37, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Mohinder seeing Shanti

Did Mohinder say that Shanti died before he was born? Or did he say that he never met his sister? If she died when he was two, it would make perfect sense that he would say he never met her--I don't remember too much from when I was two years old. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

• I just looked this one up to be sure, because there's a (rather odd) theory about Mohinder having been born twice (literally, not spiritually). In 7MtM, his mother says "Her name was Shanti. And sh--she was five years old when she died, two years after you were born." In THP, Mohinder tells Molly "This is the first time I've ever seen her. She died before I was born." and later "Unfortunately, I was born a little too late to help my sister." No easy way to reconcile it all, really. It's possible that he was born too late to help his sister under Mama Suresh's timeline (because her disease was too far progressed or something), but then there's Mohinder's flat-out statement that she died before he was born. It's curious. My best guess would be that when Shanti's story was introduced, they hadn't yet planned on reviving the disease for Molly (and making Mohinder's antibodies the deus ex machina cure for it), and that they simply chose to retcon the birth order to make that story work. Definitely a question for Joe and Aron.--Hardvice (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Right, and I'm hoping there will be a BTE on Monday. I'll shoot an email over now, but I think more than one wouldn't hurt... :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Shanti ≠ evolved human

I know there's going to be some people who are not happy about this, but Shanti is not an evolved human, despite Mohinder saying she had remarkable abilities. She has not manifested any of these abilities, and I wouldn't trust Mohinder's word, since he really never knew his sister. What he knows of her, he learned from his mother and from some dreams. I'm open to a discussion about the issue (and I'll try to bring it up with Mark tonight), but I would advise being prudent, especially considering that Season Two promises to bring to light more information about Shanti. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

• Leave it for now. Season Two will confirm details. --DocM 18:16, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
  • A better approach, would be to add her to the list of 'Suspected Evolved Humans' at the bottom of the EH page. That should be the best fit until we get more substantial info on what her powers were. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 09/11/2007 18:40 (EST)
    • Oh, I actually thought she was already there. :) I'll add her now. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
• Since the issue of the journal folks was brought up, I agree they should probably not be listed as evolved humans. Their powers were no more certain than Shanti's. Chandra was very careful to note that they only had potential powers, not manifested powers. I'm all in favor of un-EH-ing them. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
  • IAWTC. I suppose if we really needed to distinguish them, we could have a category for suspected evolved humans, but that's a bit of a slippery slope. Shanti, the journal folks, and Maya would be fairly safe inclusions, but in no time Angela, Kaito, and everyone else with a connection to evolved humans would end up in there as well. Besides, evolved humans are still humans--it's just a subset--so labeling someone who might have powers as "human" isn't incorrect at all. We have to remember that we're not making a true-or-false pronouncement on whether or not a character has powers, we're merely separating those humans who have displayed a power from those who haven't.--Hardvice (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Commenting on the "suspected evolved humans" category, I think Hardvice has a good point so we shouldn't use that. It's just going to lead to speculation. (Admin 15:13, 20 September 2007 (EDT))
      • Completely agree--whose criteria would we use? Technically, when Mr. Bennet asked Mohinder, "Are you on the list?", one could make an argument that Mr. Bennet suspected Mohinder as an evolved human. It's just very dangerous territory, and that's what theories are for....Good point, Hardvice, about the evolved humans being a subset. I'll go ahead and change the journal jokers now--it's been bugging me for awhile. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Okay, here's the best explanation of it I can offer. We can't classify people as "those with powers" and "those without powers" because we don't know absolutely who does and does not have powers. Instead, we classify between "those who have displayed a power" and "those who have not displayed a power". That classification looks like this:
    
    This classification is necessarily going to allow for "false negatives" -- those characters who have a power but haven't displayed one yet. If we add such characters, the classification looks like this:
    
    Now a character like Shanti might be in the blue area or she might be in the yellow area--we just can't say with any certainty where she belongs. But we can say that she does not belong in the green area, because she has never displayed a power, and that's the criteria we use for inclusion in that class. Ditto the journal peeps, Angela, Kaito, Maya, and everybody else. Simply put, making the distinction "those who have displayed a power" and "those who have not displayed a power" means we can't ever classify anyone incorrectly since we never say affirmatively that someone doesn't have a power.--Hardvice (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Well said, well displayed. And the teacher side of me just giggled with joy. By the way, I want to be the little yellow blob on the left, just outside both circles. That's where I think I fit in. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
      • Yeah, that was originally just sloppy visual aid making, but I decided I liked the implication that it's not quite as cut-and-dried as it seems. It could represent, I dunno, unborn fetuses, or pod people, or others whose personhood is debated by those of differing opinions--like Manchester United fans.--Hardvice (talk)15:45, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Shanti in Portals

• While we're on the subject of Shanti, is there a reason she's not included in the character portals, or is this merely an oversight?--Hardvice (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Actually, I was just about to take care of that. I was also going to move Sanjog out of the recurring and into minor. There was somebody else to add to minor, but I couldn't remember who. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
    • I remember now--I was going to write an article for the Women's Correctional Facility guard played by Steve Schriver. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't believe it was really an oversight. When she was introduced, we were a bit more conservative with characters we included in the portal, and I don't think we really included any unseens at the time. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Mr. Petrelli, Mr. Linderman, and Mr. Bennet's boss were all in there, though.--Hardvice (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
      • Hmm, dunno. I don't see any reason why Shanti shouldn't be there. She gets my vote. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Date of Death

On her page, Shanti is shown with her date of death being 1974, yet Victoria Pratt discovered the virus in her blood on Valentine's Day, 1977. Perhaps the blood sample was preserved for three years after her death and found its way to the Company? Or maybe this is just an oversight on the part of the writers.. Anticrash 16:32, 2 December 2007 (EST)

• Shanti's story seems as confused as Claire's age. Not only did they harvest a virus from her three years after she died, but she died both before Mohinder was born and when he was two.--Hardvice (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2007 (EST)
• In this case, we may be jumping the gun on her date of death, though. The exact quote from The Hard Part is, in reference to the virus, "there's been one other case: an Indian girl, 1974." That means she got sick in 1974; it doesn't necessarily mean she died in 1974 (although the Haitian and Molly both seem to have gotten sick very rapidly, the virus seems pretty mutable). Since we don't have a confirmed age for Mohinder, or a confirmed birth order, it's possible she was still alive in 1977 after all.--Hardvice (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2007 (EST)
  • That makes sense to me. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Known ability: None

I have been noticing on a few Heroes pages that there is a small blurb underneath the characters photo that says "Known ability: None" when it has not been established that the character has a power or not. Another example of this is Charles Deveaux. I also don't know exactly where to post this, but this seems like a decent place to start.

By saying "Known ability: None" it is heavily implied that the character is KNOWN to have no abilities at all.

However, on the other hand, "Known ability: Unknown" might imply that the character has an ability but it is not known.

I think there needs to be a medium for when there is slight evidence, insinuation or debate if a character is not completely known to be human or evolved.

I don't know if any of the following suggestions would solve the issue, but I think the issue is worth debating. Known ability: 'unascertained', 'not specified', or 'not enough information currently available' --Halfxwitted 22:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

• If a character is confirmed to be an evolved human (like Paula Gramble, who is on Chandra's list of evolved humans) then the infobox gets entered as Known ability: Unknown, but the text on the page reads "Known ability: None"--that's because they have no known ability...yet the character is placed in Category:Evolved Humans. On the other hand, there are people who are implied to be evolved humans, but their status has never been confirmed. Shanti falls under this category, as does Kaito Nakamura, Charles Deveaux, and Arthur Petrelli. We avoid speculation on the wiki, so we still say that they have no known powers...and since they're not confirmed to be evolved humans, they are placed in Category:Humans. We don't want to imply anything about a character's status with one or two words. We let their history speak for itself. For instance, Linderman told Nathan that Arthur is a man of "great power"--that can mean a lot of things. We leave it as it is and let people draw their own conclusions rather than implying anything in the infobox. If there is "slight evidence", and it's not really evidence at all, we let the "slight evidence" speak for itself. But there are only two designations for a known ability: either "none" or the name of the ability. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

• "We avoid speculation on the wiki, so we still say that they have no known powers...and since they're not confirmed to be evolved humans, they are placed in Category:Humans. We don't want to imply anything about a character's status with one or two words.". I understand what you are saying but, at the same time, the wording of "none" is speculation and implying something. By saying that a Known Power is none, there is a sense that the show, or the writers, or whomever, has definitively stated or made it apparent that their powers are none. The wording implies that the character is completely human with no speculation that they MAY have powers. I think in order to avoid confusion, it should maybe be avoided altogether or come up with some type of word that leaves it open that while it is heavily implied that they are human/evolved, there isn't enough evidence to say otherwise. --Halfxwitted 01:01, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
  • If they have no known ability, saying "Known ability: none" doesn't speculate or insinuate anything. We use that same wording for any character that doesn't have a revealed power, whether it's Kaito Nakamura, Sandra Bennet, or Dr. Witherson. We don't want to leave anything open if there is no opening there. If they don't have a power that we know of, we don't want to assume that they do. Saying they have no known power works for you and me, works for Ando and Lyle, works for Charles Deveaux and Shanti, works for Adam Soo Hoo and Carlos Mendez. They're human until proven evolved human. Check out the discussion above. We're not making a true-or-false pronouncement on whether or not a character has powers, we're merely separating those humans who have displayed a power from those who haven't. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)