sholio | Oh, why not?

Entry tags:

tv:highlander

Oh, why not?

Further thoughts on the next two HL eps. As you can see, willpower has completely gone out the window at this point.

5x09 - Messenger

... yeah, that episode was a lot of fun.

"Five thousand years of wisdom? HIM?"

Hee!

I also love that the show writers remembered that Richie didn't know about Methos. Nice bit of continuity there.

I am randomly amused by fake!Methos's very Methosian sweater.

I keep expecting Richie to die in every episode he's in. And then he keeps not dying. Not that I'm complaining about this, mind. It does make the Richie episodes very suspenseful, though ...

5x10 - The Valkyrie

eh, kind of a middle-of-the-road episode, with some fun bits (mostly involving the characters interacting with each other; I particularly liked the three-way conversation in the bar) and some interesting moral dilemmas. Not a bad episode, but it felt like it retread ground that a number of other episodes already have.

Poor Duncan. His life is hard.

And now some general thoughts on Methos:

I think Methos is developing into a character that is, for me, a lot like ... say, Jayne on Firefly or Gene on Life on Mars (ETA: Or Tesla on Sanctuary, come to think of it) -- characters who I really enjoy as characters, find very entertaining, but don't particularly like as people. I'm increasingly seeing why people kept hinting that Methos in the earlier episodes was pretty much faking the nice-guy persona that I liked at the time. I think they're right -- it's a persona that he puts on when he wants to get something out of someone, or maybe just when he doesn't feel like dealing with the friction that results when he lets his cynical side out to play.

On the other hand, the fun thing about such characters is that you really never know what they're going to do, because they don't really follow the same constraints other people do, up to and including betraying or killing other people, or whatnot. But they don't kill indiscriminately or anything -- they're just loose cannons. It's a toss-up whether they'll, say, do the "moral" thing (for their own reasons) or say "screw it". And that makes them interesting.

I honestly have no idea at this point how much Methos feels or doesn't feel. I suspect I'll know more after we get some Methos backstory, but right now he reads to me as someone who's just been around and done it all to the point where he's become about as jaded and cynical as it is possible to be. It's interesting how different my read on the character was last season than it is this season, because I'm more and more getting the impression that he's been through so much of the kind of thing that Duncan's been going through in the last few seasons (friends lost, lovers lost, betrayals, attempts to change things for the better that only make things worse) that he's gotten to the point where he's essentially going through the motions. He basically stays out of the way, lets life go on around him, and views people with a kind of detached amusement but no particular interest in their fates, good or bad. Initially, I'd seen him as kind of ... world-weary, tired, but still engaged, still capable of loving. This season so far, he reads to me as more of a sociopath -- not evil, I mean, but charming and utterly lacking in empathy; emotionally divorced from the world.

What I haven't really been able to figure out is whether Methos talks a better game than he plays -- that is, he actually cares more and takes more interest in the world than he lets on. I'm generally fairly reluctant to do that with a character ("But deep down he's a big softie! Really!") because it feels like such a fangirly thing to do, especially in the absence of, well, evidence. But it's hard for me to reconcile last season's Methos with this season's Methos without believing that's at least a little bit true, because when it really comes down to the wire, Methos does seem to do the more heroic/moral/self-sacrificing thing most of the time. If all I'd seen of him was this last couple of eps, I'd totally think that there was nothing underneath -- that he's got a lot of layers, but it's sociopath all the way down. But he was definitely in love with Alexa and seemed to genuinely, selflessly care about her. (If there was ever an episode that made me fall for Methos, "Timeless" was that episode.) And he seems to care about Duncan at least a little bit (although I do get the impression, more so now than ever, that his interest in Duncan is not so much interest in Duncan as a person than Duncan as a gamepiece -- Duncan as a means to an end in the Game). So ... I don't know.

I'm a lot less engaged in the Methos/Duncan friendship this season. Their banter is still fun, but I'm worried about the effect on Duncan of spending too much time around Methos. I like Duncan a lot, and his moral center is one of the things I love most about him; I don't like the idea of what he might become under the influence of Methos's bitter cynicism and all-around (apparent) amorality.

ETA: Er, obviously, no hints about future developments, please? I know it's going to be nearly impossible to talk about it without hinting at it, but at the rate I'm going, I should get the rest of the season out of the way very quickly. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Valkyrie was the episode I thought of when you asked about Duncan killing female immortals a few posts ago. But then I remembered you hadn't seen it yet. ;)

Methos - you know...I have thoughts (and also should be in bed right now so am not really coherent). But I do fear saying anything at this point because my opinions can't be divorced from the fact that I've seen the whole series....so....*shrugs*. :) But I didn't just ignore your thoughts on all of that, is what I'm trying to say. :)

Hee, no, I understand; this is the sort of thing where it's going to be virtually impossible for anyone to talk to me about this without spoiling me for future developments, and I know that. :D It's interesting, though, how differently (and much less sympathetically) he reads to me now than he did a season ago. But, yeah, no hints please!

Oh, I hadn't thought about her being a woman -- that's really interesting! I guess that it was a bit of a special case, though, because lives were at stake; he had to kill her to save people.

I don't think Duncan is entirely ruled by chivalry, anyway ... just that he has to overcome a lot of social conditioning in order to kill or harm a woman.

Hmm! I don't see Methos as a sociopath myself, but at the same time there's an element of him that does read that way - as the oldest Immortal, as the man who's been around longer than anyone, there is a part of him that can slip into the "I'm the only one who matters/only one who's real" mindset. A sociopath is incapable of understanding or empathizing with other human beings; Methos isn't *incapable*, but over time he's mostly stopped doing it - in part, as a psychological self-defense mechanism, because empathy hurts too much to bear after you've lost the thousandth friend or lover; in part, too, because the longer he lives, the farther removed his experience of life becomes from anyone else's. He's not really human anymore, exactly...

But he still can care - he still can fall in love, as with Alexa. I don't think his interest in Duncan is solely because of the Game (or else he wouldn't have gotten involved in the "Till Death" craziness just because Duncan asked!) and I don't believe his amiable old guy thing is just an act, so much as one facet of a personality that's had millennia to develop. It's not all there is to him; but that doesn't make it a lie or a sham, either.

That being said, I do think he was written differently in s5, though I didn't realize the contras was so stark? But I like the difference myself, for the complexity it brings his char - I think that's one reason I do love Methos so; I find him a fairly believable take on a human who's lived for that long!

A sociopath is incapable of understanding or empathizing with other human beings; Methos isn't *incapable*, but over time he's mostly stopped doing it - in part, as a psychological self-defense mechanism, because empathy hurts too much to bear after you've lost the thousandth friend or lover; in part, too, because the longer he lives, the farther removed his experience of life becomes from anyone else's. He's not really human anymore, exactly...

Yeah, I think that's pretty accurate to how he reads to me this season -- but it doesn't quite fit with his willingness to jump into the thing with Alexa last season. It's hard to reconcile the two. I do think that, this season in particular, he reads very believably as someone who is as old as he is -- the psychology of it, the way that it would affect a person and basically wear off their edges until there wasn't a whole lot left except for an amiable mask that occasionally slips to show flashes of bone-deep cynicism. I can see season three Methos and season five Methos as facets of the same whole -- just different masks. But season four just doesn't quite go with the rest of it, because season four Methos was a guy who was still willing to fall in love at first sight or travel around the world to help a friend, and I really don't get that from him now. He used to seem a lot more open and less jaded, and while I can put season three Methos into context with either version of him (to fit him with season four, his season three mellowness was more genuine; to fit him with season five, it was mostly calculated) but trying to make them all go together is where it breaks down. I just can't see the Methos of the last couple of eps slashing open his hand to try to get through to Christine, or risking death to bring Duncan back from the dark side.

On the other hand, this is where I fall back on wondering how much of Methos's bitterness and lack of concern is, not entirely, but at least partly Methos trying to convince himself, and perhaps others, that he is that person: the uncaring one, who wanders through the world but isn't touched by it. It leaves me wondering if season three/four Methos is closer to who he is, and the cynicism and bitterness is armor to keep people at bay.

Methos isn't *incapable*, but over time he's mostly stopped doing it

It's the "mostly" that I choose to focus on -- because civilizations rise and fall, and he cannot possibly feel attachment to every mortal or immortal that passes by, but he is obviously capable of forming attachments.

On the other hand, this is where I fall back on wondering how much of Methos's bitterness and lack of concern is, not entirely, but at least partly Methos trying to convince himself, and perhaps others, that he is that person: the uncaring one, who wanders through the world but isn't touched by it. It leaves me wondering if season three/four Methos is closer to who he is, and the cynicism and bitterness is armor to keep people at bay.

I do tend to read him like this myself...though I am a fangirl, so...!

I see s5 Methos as being impacted by the events of s4 - Alexa's death shook him, and then the trouble with the Watchers (which I can't clearly remember how those eps worked out; did he stay on as Adam Pierson or did he quit...? I do remember the "I'm 5,000 years old and I don't know who I am anymore" line) convinced him to go back to a more detached approach. When Duncan meets him in s3, he's friendly but rather removed, but his interest in Duncan pulls him back into interacting with people, and he enjoys it for a while. Until it starts to hurt and he withdraws into his cynicism of s5 - as you say, protective armor.

...Though some of this at least I rather feel is fannish speculation and the writers weren't necessarily thinking so deeply; more like they were thinking, "I wanna write a darker Methos this season!" and just went for it ^^;

"I'm 5,000 years old and I don't know who I am anymore" line

Yes, and I think it makes perfect sense that he'd pull back a bit after that. He got in deep into a tangle of conflicting loyalties, and it blew up in his face.

Though some of this at least I rather feel is fannish speculation and the writers weren't necessarily thinking so deeply; more like they were thinking, "I wanna write a darker Methos this season!" and just went for it ^^;

*laughs* Yeah, I'm kinda getting that impression as well! I mean, your speculation makes sense, and it's entirely possible to fit that view of the character to the canon evidence -- but I'm not convinced it's actually what the writers intended. ^^;; So far, this show has generally tended to be stronger and more consistent with characterization than a lot of show are (... SGA comes to mind here), so I think I was a little thrown by what I'm pretty sure is a certain amount of inconsistency in the way he's written this season vs. past seasons. I do know that I definitely find him darker and a lot less likable/trustworthy this season.

I think he quit the Watchers, but I'm not entirely sure. Given how they seemed fine with letting Joe rejoin after his brief quitting period at the beginning of the season, they'd probably let him rejoin at the drop of a hat (heck, they're probably so massively understaffed at this point that they'd take just about anybody!).

I know you said you didn't particularly care about the background stuff, but this reads to this particular discussion. You don't have to guess what the writers were thinking. The writers were very active with the dvd interviews. David was very intuned with Methos' character as was Peter. Now, Peter didn't know about the episode itself until the week before and one of the people working on the show asked him if he had seen the next script.

However, they knew a guy who lived 5000 years couldn't be Adam Pierson or even the Methos we had seen thus far. They knew that guy had to have more in his background. And Peter said he knew that as well, which is why he played Methos the way he did because who you were, what you experienced, shaped who you are and your relationships, world view and reactions.

You talked about being shy and not wanting to jump right into a fandom. Think about Methos, who had been lying low in the Watchers for 10 years, staying out of the game for 200 years. He took a chance by meeting Duncan. So he took it slowly. And he only let Duncan see the guy he was now and waited to see how things would go. He certainly wasn't going to risk letting this powerful immortal get to know the real him yet.

In many aspects, Alexa only knew Adam Pierson, but that didn't mean Methos didn't love her. For whatever reason, something in her sparked feelings of love and he wanted to protect her and make things better for her. Just because she didn't get to know about his past or even that he was immortal didn't mean his feelings or the side of her he let her see wasn't just as real.

I think one of the things about Methos that bothers him the most is that he does care. What can be seen as being cynical and uncaring is fallacy. That's what Methos wants to feel. And he works very hard trying to make people believe it. However, the truth is he cares far too much, knowing that if he loses Joe or Duncan it will hurt. I think he's scared to show how vulnerable he is to those feelings and tries so hard to convince himself that it doesn't matter, that he doesn't care and it won't hurt.

Yet, he keeps coming back and he keeps putting himself out there. If Duncan were just part of the game and he was manipulating him like a chess piece, he wouldn't have risked his own life the way he did in Deliverance. Dark Duncan knew who he was afterall. And he killed Sean, who was a valued friend. Methos didn't know that Duncan wouldn't take advantage and grab a 5000 year old quickening.

And he could have manipulated things from afar with far less risk to himself from both a physical and emotional standpoint.

They show the outtakes of the Jimmy scene in the dvd extras and Methos is standing there with tears rolling down his face after that scene. They edited it where you only see him get in his truck and put his head down on the stearing wheel, but he was crying.

But it's human nature to try and protect ourselves when we've experienced pain before. And who has had the opportunity to experience more than the oldest Immortal? How many women try to lock down their feelings after being hurt in a relationship? How many times do we try to convince ourselves and others that we will never let ourselves feel that much for someone again and we're fine with that decision? How many times do we act cynical to protect ourselves and spend more time trying to convince ourselves than anyone else? How many times do we come this close , but hold back and don't open ourselves up completely because the wound is still raw when we strip away the bandage?

Methos has so many layers, but they're intertwined, not linear. With him it isn't "is he this or that?" but, he's all these things and a hundred things more we haven't even seen yet.

The best thing about Methos for me is that...he can contain multitudes.

For example, take his offering his head to Duncan in the first episode. Initially it reads as a world-weary last ditch attempt, but then in the Messenger he says to Richie "Or maybe he knew you wouldn't take it" and looks over at Duncan. So does that mean that Methos knew Duncan would never kill a man not defending himself -- as is evidenced from his previous cronicles, which Methos obviously knows cover to cover. Or are his motives more genuine?

That's what I love about Methos -- you don't know. You can interpret his character in a million different ways, with the situation, the people around him making all the difference to the interpretation.

Personally? I wouldn't call him a loose cannon at all. I have been completely sold on the 'just a guy' theory. That's what Methos is usually trying to tell people, and he doesn't seem to mind one bit that he is not the 5000-year-old man of wisdom..he's just a guy. A guy who can love...and hate, kill, and fight for something...or do nothing. He's not perfect but he's not demonic. He's just who he is, trying to survive, sometimes engaging with the world as he does with Alexa and with Duncan, sometimes using people as chess pieces. As he says at some point "That's ok, sometimes I don't really like me."

I'll never believe that as many times as he's put his own survival on the line for Duncan that there was no genuine feelings there. It's just a stretch to me. Similarly I don't entirely buy the Adam Pierson persona, since the more cynical side of Methos we see later seems more inline with how a 5000 year old man might feel.

That's what I love about his character.

I definitely agree about the "just a guy" thing -- actually, that's one of the things I find most appealing about Methos, that he didn't survive all these years because he's "special" in some definite way: he's not the best fighter out there, or some kind of supergenius. He's just a guy who's survived all these years through a combination of luck and cleverness and, probably, a finely honed ability to walk away from a situation that doesn't benefit him. (Heroes don't tend to get old.) And, as he seems to be fond of reminding people, age hasn't conferred any kind of special wisdom or benefits; it's just made him old and cynical. Actually, some of Methos's tendency to scoff when people ask him for advice or help might be due to a deeply ingrained annoyance at encountering so many people over the years who seem to think that his age makes him special somehow. Despite his outward youth, he makes a very convincing crotchety old guy!

Having said that, I do think that some of Methos's less explicable behavior in earlier episodes (like flying halfway around the world to help Duncan, who at that point he barely knows) makes a lot more sense if it's viewed as a practical rather than an emotional thing -- he's taken a proprietary interest in protecting and helping Duncan because he thinks that Duncan can ultimately prevail in The Game without becoming a monster in the process. There is friendship there also -- they seem to have liked each other from the first -- but I think a lot of Methos's actions where Duncan is concerned make a great deal more sense to me if it's part of a long game of his own that he's playing. Duncan probably knows this; Methos all but came right out and said it in a couple of eps, after all. And I don't think he'd be bothered if he knew.

The best thing about Methos for me is that...he can contain multitudes.

Absolutely agreed. I mean - five thousand years. He must have done just about everything it's possible to do, been everything it's possible to be. And what it makes him is not someone with extra-special wisdom, but someone who's simply human, no more, no less.

A guy who can love...and hate, kill, and fight for something...or do nothing.

Yes! And I love that so much about him.

I re-watched "The Messenger" and "The Valkyrie" the other night, just to see how the S5 Methos eps held up, and I gotta admit my opinion of these two eps are the opposite of yours. For me, "The Messenger" is decent but a little long on the flashbacks. Actually, I find the flashbacks so uncomfortable that I always skip over them and focus on the present-day scenes. With "The Valkyrie", though, Ingrid's backstory and her friendship with Duncan keep the flashbacks sharp and believable. You can really see how she's changed, the road to hell paved with good intentions. And the Interpol agent was fantastic--he had memorable lines and real pathos. Maybe the ep does retread previous eps--I can't really tell, since this is the one I keep coming back to again and again. For me, the moral dilemma discussions between Duncan, Methos, and Joe, and especially the tag scene between Duncan and Methos, crystalise something about their different personalities. Not to say that Methos necessarily believes Hitler didn't matter (though maybe he really does) or that Joe doesn't have a real opinion on the subject (he's a historian, he must have had similar discussions) or that Duncan didn't know from the beginning what he might be forced to do. That scene in Joe's bar illuminated these men's characters: Methos, recently having given up his Watcher status because of cataclysmic events beyond his control, is happy to be a bystander to history; Joe, torn between an oath non-interference and his friendships with these guys, is reluctant to get in the middle, but when pressed reminds them that what matters is that she's Mac's friend, that emotional connection; and Duncan, lover of justice and believer in doing, of fighting to protect, looks at history in terms of people and recognises that we all have agency, choices, the will to act and do either good or evil.

The tag scene resonates in part because Duncan is such an efficient killer. Once he decides to fight someone, they're as good as dead. This isn't self-defence. It's not even as simple as ending the immediate danger--he could have just cut off Ingrid's arm, or stabbed her through the chest to make her drop the detonator. Instead, he stopped her permanently. He does it all the time, deciding who lives and who dies, who is innocent and who is guilty. And one day someone's going to look at Duncan, at all the people he's killed, and judge him unworthy. I think that's his fear.

And now I can FINALLY use this icon. (You've seen it before, but I stopped using it once you started the Methos eps.) It's a Mark Twain quote, not Churchill like I thought. I really think it epitomises Duncan's character.

The tag scene resonates in part because Duncan is such an efficient killer. Once he decides to fight someone, they're as good as dead. This isn't self-defence. It's not even as simple as ending the immediate danger--he could have just cut off Ingrid's arm, or stabbed her through the chest to make her drop the detonator. Instead, he stopped her permanently. He does it all the time, deciding who lives and who dies, who is innocent and who is guilty. And one day someone's going to look at Duncan, at all the people he's killed, and judge him unworthy. I think that's his fear.

*nods* I think that's a good analysis. The tag scene hurt, but in part because I don't think Methos was necessarily wrong, even though he was also filtering it through his own lens. Actually, what it reminded me of most of all ... have you ever read Robert B. Parker's Virgil Cole books? They're Westerns, written with a modern crime-novel flair, and they raise a lot of really interesting philosophical issues about killing and the morality surrounding it ... The main character is a gunslinger who is really really good at killing people -- it's his one big skill -- and he carefully does it according to the letter of the law because that's the only way he knows who's okay to kill and who's not. That scene really made me think of Virgil and some of the debates about moral authority in the books.

And yeah, in general, I really liked the scenes with the characters interacting, putting their own viewpoints out there and bouncing them off each other. One thing I really love about this show in general is that it usually does a good job of presenting sticky moral dilemmas and then giving a fairly balanced view of both sides. I might like that ep better on rewatch than I did the first time around.

and he carefully does it according to the letter of the law because that's the only way he knows who's okay to kill and who's not.

I've never read those books, sorry! But this is a really interesting point, especially in the light of shows like HL, SPN, and BtVS, in which our heroes must fly under the radar, versus cop shows where FBI agents or police are sanctioned by society, the gov't, etc, and given moral authority to kill in self-defence. "Killing another human being is morally reprehensible." "Killing another human being is not morally reprehensible... if the gov't says it's okay, if the church says it's okay, it's war, it's capital punishment, it's to save someone else's life, to save your own life, etc." And yet at the end of the day there's one less person on planet Earth, living and breathing.

Heh, sorry about that. I've been watching a lot of Criminal Minds, in which even the death of a multiple-murderer is a failure, even the death of a serial rapist diminishes us all.

I love these episodes so much - it's a shame you didn't enjoy them as much. :(

I'm a bit sad that you're taking such a dim view of Methos's character, and I'm really not sure where you're getting "sociopath" from. Is Amanda a sociopath in your eyes? We've discussed this before, and I really don't think their outlooks are all that different. They're both capable of being callous and caring - sometimes even both at the same time. *g*

Methos does talk a good game - but look more closely. In The Messenger, he's all, I don't care, let's do nothing. But if he really didn't care, why does he turn around and talk Duncan into rushing to Richie's aid with that charming little Inquisition anecdote? Duncan might have gone anyway, eventually, but it was Methos who poked him into action. Friendship over abstract principles - that's the side he falls on eventually, the side he encourages Duncan to take here. (Also something we've discussed before.) Methos might prefer not to care (it hurts! or will hurt, eventually) - but he can't quite bring himself not to. You need no fannish blinkers to see that, just look closely at canon itself. With Methos, it's always in what he does, not in what he says.

Methos in season 3 and Methos in season 4 and Methos in season 5 - it's all Methos, and all real. The dork who fell in love with Alexa every bit as the old cynic. ("Civilisations rise and fall", remember? That was there in season 3 already.) It's true, you can never be entirely sure with Methos, but I completely believe that was being genuine all this time. (All right, except perhaps when he offered Duncan his head. *g*) And I really don't think his interest in Duncan is because of anything so abstract as the Game - that might have been how it started, but it's become personal for him. It's like he himself said early on - he'd been out of it for too long; he didn't have the passion any more. Duncan, and getting involved in Duncan's not exactly uneventful life, brought that out in him again. And he likes the very parts of Duncan that sometimes frustrate him, when taken too far (in his opinion) - just as the same is true vice versa. They're good for each other that way.

He's just a guy, neither a hero nor a villain, not overflowing with fuzzy feelings but not detached or uncaring either.

With Methos, it's always in what he does, not in what he says.

This!

There's so much more to what he says than even the sounds coming out of his mouth -- the body language is one of the many things to draw on when trying to understand his characterization. You don't need fanish googles to see him react to things. But aside from all that, it's actions that really speak louder than words with him.

I think you're right, he likes and is frustrated by the part of Duncan that still cares, even after 400 years because he sees it in himself.

I'm a little bit shocked by the 'not really human' description I saw above. One of the most amazing (and awesome) things about Methos is his humanity!

I think you're right, he likes and is frustrated by the part of Duncan that still cares, even after 400 years because he sees it in himself.

That wasn't quite what I meant, although that is true too. What I meant is that I think Methos in equal parts admires and is frustrated by Mac's code of honour, his belief in something even after everything he's been through. And the other way round, I think Duncan admires Methos's ability to manipulate and twist himself and his friends out of every situation (whether they want to or not) just as much as it irritates him.

I'm a little bit shocked by the 'not really human' description I saw above. One of the most amazing (and awesome) things about Methos is his humanity!

I'm so completely with you. In fact, I said something similar somewhere above in the comments. *g*

*nod nod*

I'm a little bit shocked by the 'not really human' description I saw above.

Speaking for

xparrot here, so, you know, grain of salt and all of that, but I think what she meant -- and this fits with how I'm seeing the character these days, as well -- is that he's been around so much, seen so many things, done so many things, that he can't really relate to people easily anymore, or them to him. I think Duncan is already starting to have this problem: people like Richie and Tessa and even to a lesser extent Joe can't really get him, or understand where he's coming from on a lot of things. Methos has that problem times eleventybillion. Imagine, in the real world, an 60-year-old having a talk with a 15-year-old -- the kid's problems matter a lot to the kid, but the adult already knows that the vitally important concerns of a kid (getting heartbroken for the first time; having a fight with their parents) won't matter at all to them when they're older.

I think Methos has gotten to the point where not just the lives and loves of ordinary people, but entire countries, entire wars, are that way to him. The 60-year-old has trouble getting emotionally involved in a 15-year-old's teen crush because they've loved and lost a dozen times over. With Methos, it's not just that, but also, "Oh, another petty dictator, another million people dead, been there, seen it". Which isn't meant to be a putdown of the character; it's just an inevitable consequence of having lived that long, and having cared too many times along the way. But it's got to make it remarkably difficult for him to care that much about the problems of ordinary people, even younger Immortals, when he's been around that particular block so many times himself.

Hmm, I see how you feel but I don't see it that way. YMMV...especially, given I've rewatched all of his episodes many many times to arrive at my conclusions.

(Further, I don't think any person regardless of their age is able to deal with "millions dead" because after a certain number of people we just lose the ability to appreciate the magnitude of the disaster. The deaths that touch us most is not of the unnamed thousands, but of one particular individual with some connection to us, some way we relate. And I think the remarkable thing about Methos is that he's not at all different from an average guy in that respect.)

I also don't see Duncan as being unable to relate to Joe, or Richie. I see him as, if anything, feeling their problems too deeply because he's been there and tried that and he still remembers how much it hurts, and often tries valliantly to save them from his own experiences. Equally I don't see Joe as not being able to relate to Duncan, because he's experienced love, war, pain, death and he knows how it feels. Richie, to a certain extent, is still a very young man, he's growing into his adulthood and on his account I agree with you.

I do think it's interesting how my view of Methos has switched around from the beginning to now. And it's not that I don't like him -- I mean, I love Tesla (the Sanctuary one, obviously, not the real one *g*), whose motivations generally run the gamut from petty selfishness to well-intentioned but vile plans for genocide. It's just that I used to see him as a much less dark, much more likable person than I do now. I'm certainly not going to argue that he feels nothing, because clearly he does, sometimes, in some ways. But I think that he's a whole lot less emotionally involved than he may appear -- that he's good at putting across the impression of someone who cares, when he wants to, but it's an act as often as not.

I dragged my feet for a long time on recognizing this because I didn't want to think of him that way. Kind of like ... oh, on SGA I guess, I spent a couple of seasons steadfastly trying to believe that Ronon and Rodney actually are friends on some level, and care about each other deep down. It wasn't until season five, when canon finally made it obvious enough to penetrate my denial (they don't like each other and probably never will), that I was able to feel like I had a handle on the characters and make sense of their behavior. I feel that way about Methos now; I spent a lot of time trying to convince myself that the aspects of Methos that I liked in the first couple of seasons were genuine, but I don't actually think so ... mostly. I do think there are people he cares about and things he cares about, but for the most part, I'm pretty sure that he's acting out a part. I think he put on one persona to win Alexa because it was what he thought she'd go for, and he puts on another when he's around Duncan. I think part of the shift in the way he relates to Duncan over the last couple of years -- the sharper edge to him now -- is due to becoming more comfortable around Duncan: the bitter cynic of season five is a lot less false than the laid-back "Adam" persona that was mostly what he showed Duncan in season three.

(Or, like I was talking about with

xparrot above, the writers are just writing him differently now for arcane reasons of their own and nothing to do with any sort of emotional meta-arc. Which makes about as much sense. *g*)

Anyway ... I'm pretty sure I spent a lot of time in the last couple of seasons viewing Methos through rose-colored glasses, and the glasses have come off. It was you, after all, who pointed out that Amanda was more accurate than Duncan about what Methos was willing to do to save Alexa, right? And while I still think, like I said then, that they were both projecting, I now think you were right and I was wrong. Another thing you pointed out awhile back that I didn't want to hear at the time was about Methos in "Methos" -- that he'd chosen that role to play based on what he wanted to get out of Duncan. And I think that's pretty accurate: he had a goal he wanted to achieve (facilitating Duncan killing Kalas) so he played the role(s) necessary to get that result.

He wouldn't be so good at code-switching the way he does if he was completely lying, of course. I think there's a certain amount of "reality" to all his masks, but it's still calculated based on what he wants to get out of a particular person or that situation -- or himself, for that matter; I think there's a certain amount of "live the mask, believe the mask, become the mask" going on.

This is all probably influenced by the books I'm currently reading -- Thomas Perry's Jane Whitefield suspense novels, where the characters very deliberately do that sort of thing; it's turning out that those books are marvelously useful for helping me get a handle on Methos, because the main character in those books is a specialist in helping people disappear, and part of what she teaches them is how to put on a persona and then live it. And I think that's exactly what Methos does: make the persona, live the persona, become the persona. He's been Adam for ten years and I think Adam is more than surface deep, through sheer habit if nothing else, but I think whatever and whoever he was before he was Adam was probably different, just like he's a bit different now that he's not being Adam anymore.

Another thing I said when we were talking about the ep Methos was that just because he's manipulating the situation doesn't mean he isn't also genuine about a lot of things. Methos is fabulous at playing a role, no doubt about that. But I think you're wrong about him merely pretending to care. Where exactly do you think he was pretending?

(And I disagree about Rodney and Ronon too, btw. IMO they care about each other, they're just not good at relating to each other.)

But I think you're wrong about him merely pretending to care. Where exactly do you think he was pretending?

Well, maybe it's not quite right to call it outright pretending so much as ... playing a role? I think the role and reality blur and shift, and even he's not entirely sure where the line is. (Most people play a social role to some extent, after all; Methos has just had 5000 years to get a whole better at it.) "Timeless", for example -- it's not that he wasn't interested in Alexa, that he didn't care about her; I think that's fairly obvious. But I'm pretty sure now that he was absolutely playing a part to draw her in. Alexa was the kind of woman who'd go for a guy who's goofy and funny and down-to-earth, so that's who he became. If she'd been the kind of woman who was interested in a guy who's charming and suave and a little bit dangerous, then that's who he would have been. His intentions weren't bad; it wasn't like he was trying to manipulate her to hurt her or anything. But he was being the person that would most appeal to her, in order to attract and keep her.

I don't think it's actual faking so much as just being aware that he can get what he wants out of the relationship by being what the person he's with wants him to be. He's not beyond all desire for human company, after all. He obviously enjoys the company of the handful of people he hangs around with in canon, or he wouldn't do it. And he does care for them, but (and admittedly here I could be wrong) I do get the impression that, say, Joe or Duncan are a lot more attached to him than he is to them. Particularly in Joe's case, I'm pretty sure, but in Duncan's as well. This isn't to say that the others are paragons of virtue themselves -- including Duncan, or maybe even Duncan especially; I think one of Duncan's biggest strengths is also his biggest failing: the way he sees the world in moral black and white. He isn't always very tolerant (hahaha, wow, that's an understatement) when his friends don't meet those standards.

(I've seen the mid-season two-parter now (need to post about it!) and as well as doing a lot to cement the impressions of Methos that I'd already gotten this season, it also made an excellent case that Duncan is more than capable of being a gigantic asshole under the right circumstances. *g*)

But ... Methos ... I don't think he has a whole lot of empathy, no. I don't think he has a lot of awareness of other people beyond the way that they benefit him. Not none by any means, but -- I don't really see him as a person who is compassionate, kind, or particularly nice. He's done bad things and he's not out for forgiveness or redemption (which is actually one thing I like about him). He's willing to say or do whatever it takes to get people to do what he wants, including friends.

On the other hand, he doesn't manipulate people casually or without cause. He can be very loyal, even when it doesn't benefit him. I'm still on the fence as to just how much he does care about the people he cares about, but there's no doubt that there is affection and caring and perhaps even love. He is capable of doing heroic things. Mostly I think he wants to be left alone, not get involved in things, have a few casual friendships, and just live his life. But when it comes right down to it and he doesn't have any choice, he can be brave and he can be selfless.

Ah, okay. I thought you did mean something along the lines of faking his feelings for Alexa or similar, and yeah, I really don't think there's any doubt he loved her very much.

I mostly agree with what you say about playing roles.

One thing I'm still disagreeing with, though: there are three, maybe four people where I have no doubt at all that he truly cares for them a lot. Alexa, Duncan and Joe - and possibly Amanda. I think the mutual fascination society that Duncan and Methos have going is about equally intense from both sides, and completely unexpected and unplanned. I seriously doubt Methos ever intended to get drawn into Duncan's life the way he did. (But then, Methos-the-manipulator is far from perfect; remember "I wasn't thinking, I was improvising"? *g* Or his desperate plan to talk the Watchers out of executing Joe?)

I think one of Duncan's biggest strengths is also his biggest failing: the way he sees the world in moral black and white. He isn't always very tolerant (hahaha, wow, that's an understatement) when his friends don't meet those standards.

Oh yes, that's definitely true! It's why Duncan and Methos are good for each other - they can temper each other's extremes.

(I'll comment about That Two-Parter in the other post.)

But ... Methos ... I don't think he has a whole lot of empathy, no.

I think he wants to have less empathy than he actually does, though. And he likes to pretend he doesn't have any at all, but ... *g*

Mostly I think he wants to be left alone, not get involved in things, have a few casual friendships, and just live his life. But when it comes right down to it and he doesn't have any choice, he can be brave and he can be selfless.

Yes, I think that's spot on. :)

Yeah, I waffle on Methos a lot, I really do. I truly don't know how I feel about him. To be honest, I think the fandom's overwhelming affection for him makes me automatically suspicious and distrustful of any warm fuzzy feelings that he may generate in me (the Spike effect *g*); however, I do notice that the more I ponder Horseman/Revelations and everything that happened in those episodes, my feelings have swung a little more towards the positive end of things again.

... er, and I really hope I'm not harshing on your squee-buzz? I'm really not meaning to. ^^

One thing I find rather entertaining about Methos is that, while I do think he's very manipulative, he's sort of ... clumsy at it? The degree of clumsiness varies from episode to episode (probably varies by who's writing it), but I often get the feeling that he's trying to be more manipulative than he is, and just ... not doing a very good job, either because he runs up against his own limitations or because he waffles until the last minute and then has to come up with a plan on the fly (which I totally got the impression was what happened with Joe and the Watchers -- he didn't intend to do anything, then started improvising at the last minute *g*).

he didn't intend to do anything, then started improvising at the last minute *g*

I think that's actually it in a lot of cases - he wants to just stay out of things and be left alone, but then he lets himself get dragged into things anyway and has to start improvising to get himself and everyone else out again.

Heh, yeah, I think you describe it pretty well. :D And I think that touches, again, on one of my favorite things about Methos: that he's not particularly special or gifted in any major way -- not a supergenius, not the world's best fighter, not really the world's best anything. He's certainly smart and mentally flexible and all of those things, obviously, but he doesn't really excel at manipulating situations any more than he does at fighting -- as with his fights, he tends to pull through by the skin of his teeth, often due to some combination of luck and last-minute effort.

A lot of really good thoughts here, particularly about his adapting to the circumstances. After all, isn't adaptability absolutely vital to survival? If he couldn't adapt to the situation almost instinctively giving people what they want to get what he wants, he might not have survived this long.

And he does care for them, but (and admittedly here I could be wrong) I do get the impression that, say, Joe or Duncan are a lot more attached to him than he is to them.

I wonder do you still feel this way having watched the Revelations?

had answered a comment above and just got to your comment here. Amazing that we said it a bit differently, but I believe we said the same thing. We see the *same* Methos.

I know this comment is going to get lost down there somewhere since I'm coming into this late after it was un-flocked. But this is in response to

trobadora's response here.

*high-five*

I'm tracking this post and just read your comment above - yes, oh yes, so very much yes. :D

Okay, so much fun reading the comments.

I'm going to say something here and I hope you don't take it the wrong way because it's not meant to be a criticism. But I can't help but notice that you keep trying the compare the episodes and characters (esp. Methos) to SGA or other characters both on tv or in novels. I'm not saying don't do that. But I am saying I encourage you to try and not do that.

This show is so unique. Methos is not like any other character anywhere. He has lived 5000 years, many of those years fighting for his life in order to stay alive. We also know many of those years were brutal even though he was the butcher and rapist. But that was only 1000 years out of a 5000 year existence. Do we really think the other 4000 years were all sitting around the campfire taking it easy and going through 68 wives?

We don't have any concept of how many times he was the victim of brutality or cruelty. Methos was not a new immortal during the Bronze age.

However, that said, the point I'm trying so clumsily to make is that there is no other character like him anywhere. You can't use a different character's responses and motives as a compass to guage where Methos is coming from. It's not fair and it won't be accurate.

As for the original Methos episode, it seems now you've (if I'm reading right. If not please correct me and accept my sincere apology in advance) condensed it down to the fact that everything Methos said and did was a manipulation to get Duncan to act a certain way or do certain things.

In that scene, Methos could have easily run off and gotten the exact same result from Duncan. Kalas had already set up Anne, killed Fitz and screwed with his life. Because of Kalas Duncan was dead in Seacouver. He would have gone after Kalas with or without meeting Adam Pierson.

As I explained in a comment above, Adam is who Methos had been for 10 years. It only makes sense that's who Duncan would meet for the first time until Methos had time to feel him out and become closer to the man. By then he knew Duncan much better and he was afraid to tell him more about his past as he didn't know how Duncan would react. Or, more importantly, he did know as he told Duncan in Rev.

But he slowly started coming out of his shell and allowed Duncan to see some of his true personality and bits of who he really was. But it was gradual and timid - just like we are in real life too. A person doesn't go into a new job, a new friendship, or even a new romantic relationship with all our personality traits, flaws and secrets showing right away. That's something we expose slowly as we come to know and trust the other people involved. That's not manipulation, that's human nature.

Heh ... look. I get that Methos is a character you really adore and feel protective about. I have characters I'm that way about, too! Sometimes they're the most popular characters in their fandom; sometimes most of the fandom hates them. Sometimes most of my flist loves them; sometimes my flist thinks I'm crazypants for loving them (but I love them anyway).

Methos is a nifty and interesting character who is very capably portrayed by Peter Wingfield. I find him really interesting (and, er, quite sexy) and I like watching him. Whether I'll be fannish about him or not when I finish watching the series is something I'm still not sure about; as different facets of his character have been revealed, I've had my ups and downs as far as how I feel about him. None of that means that I have any trouble with anyone on my flist loving him!

But he is not the most unique character in the history of published fiction, all right? He's not the only character in sci-fi and fantasy who is 5000 (or 10,000, or 20,000) years old. He's not the only character to explore themes of reinventing onesself, redemption and so forth. He's not the only character to kill a bunch of people and get better later. He's not the only character to have a manipulative side and a more vulnerable side, or a fighter side and a scholar side. He's not even the only character to do all of that in the same character -- Marc Remillard, say, from Julian Mays' Galactic Milieu books, or the dragon in Barbara Hambly's Dragonshadow books...

Highlander is a really fun, unexpectedly versatile show that is shaping up to be one of my favorite shows of all time. But it's not the first time that any of its concepts and tropes and characters have been explored in fiction. Of course they're going to be compared to other iterations of those tropes and characters.

Telling me that Methos is the greatest thing since sliced bread is just gonna trigger my contrary impulse to go, "Well, he's not all that." Which is one of the reasons why I went under flock, actually, because that's exactly what was happening! Few things do more to damage my opinion of a character (or a show, or a story, or a book) then having a bunch of people pounce on me and tell me exactly how I ought to feel and think about them, or try to make me feel like I'm wrong for believing the way I do.

I'm not going to love Methos because my whole flist loves Methos. I'm going to love him -- if I end up loving him -- because he wins me on his merits, as a character. The fact that he's so popular in fandom is actually a strike against him for me, unfortunately. (See above re: contrary. *g*) Right now I'm still working out how I feel about him. I'm perfectly fine with debating the different points of the character as revealed in canon; I find that sort of thing really interesting! I like having bits and pieces pointed out to me that I didn't notice the first time around. After reading your other comment -- at least once I figured out what "the Jimmy scene" was referring to, because I had no idea ("Who's Jimmy?" she wonders) -- I went and watched the outtakes on the DVD (I haz DVDs!) and that was really fun: seeing the actors' different takes on the scene, which brought little bits to my attention that I hadn't noticed before. That's fun!

But I'm not wrong for not liking Methos, okay? If I end up not liking him, that is. I'm certainly not going to be argued out of seeing flaws in the character, because, dude, Methos has flaws. He's manipulative and cynical and bitter; he can be cold, rude and downright nasty. I'm still on the fence as to whether he's a good person (leaning tentatively towards "yes" after the Horseman episodes, which I loved) ... but I really don't think he's a particularly nice person. (Which isn't necessarily a fatal flaw, by any means! But he's not sunshine, puppies and kittens, either.)

I'm still working out how I feel about the character, still happily analyzing his behavior and so forth. Debating his characterization is fun and interesting! But if you want to encourage me to hate Methos, trying to make me believe that he's the GREATEST CHARACTER EVAR OMG is pretty much the quickest way to do that.

Okay, wow. You so totally did misunderstand. I apologized in advance, so let me also apologize in retrospect. But I did save my comments (not because they were great, but because LJ has been acting wonky and I would have to rewrite them) so I did a quick reread.

No where did I say he was great or good or the best ever. Or that you should feel any way about him. You can hate him or love him or feel meh about him if you want and it wouldn't bother me one way or the other.

None of the characters in any show or book is all that. One of the best things I love about the show is that none of the characters are. You would have valid points to love or hate or be pissed off or sympathetic toward any of them at any one time in any episode based on your perspective and your own past history, experiences, etc. And every opinion and thought would be valid to your point of view.

No, he's not the only one who did A, B or C. And the concept isn't unique in a world where every idea in print, film or digital hasn't been written, acted and rehashed multiple times.

Do as you will. Sorry I pissed you off so badly with my thoughts which you obviously do not feel deserve the same thoughtful respect as I've given yours.

I love HL. Not in love with it. It's just one small aspect of my life that gives me joy in that I can interact with others and it's - yay - a good time and I can forget not so pleasant things about the normal stressors of life.

I as thrilled to see a new fan and thrilled to see the new enthusiasm you had for the show. It's so hard to enter a new fandom sometimes especially one that is over it's heyday. So I was so glad to say welcome and here we are and you're not alone in your squee.

But you have effectively now thrown a cold bucket of ice water over my head, ruined my day and put a black spot on my love of a fandom that has been warm, welcoming, heartwarming in rough times and there for me always.

No fear. I will not be back to your journal whether you flock or not.

I'm sorry to have upset you. I'm truly not at all angry at you, and I didn't intend my response to read as an angry one -- I certainly wasn't angry when I was writing it, and I am very sorry if I chose my words badly and presented it that way!

You're still more than welcome to talk about HL in my journal anytime, if you want to.

For whatever it's worth, again, I'm very sorry to have upset and hurt you, and made your fandom experience unhappy. I certainly didn't mean to.

No worries. Personally, I like the fact that you still like Duncan. It's the fandom's (in general terms) propensity to cast him in a mean, judgmental role that irks me to no end. Yes, he wants to do the right thing, but sometimes he just doesn't . And sometimes he has to deal with the consequences of that.

But I totally understand his hurt and anger over Methos' past. He trusted this man. And Methos didn't put enough trust and honesty into his relationship with Duncan (no matter how you define that relationship) to tell him the truth. Duncan had to hear it from Cassandra and then Methos still lied to him initially.

To me, Duncan is the one I identify and connect to the most in the series. I like Amanda, but cannot connect to her attitudes at times. Methos is so unfathomable at times, that I cannot get into his head.

It's the Spike effect! Not that I can blame fandom entirely for the fact that I kinda hate Spike now, but wow, the Spike apologists did NOT do him any favours.

Didn't apologize for Methos' actions there. I said it wasn't accurate to guage his actions and thoughts on a different character and a different fandom or concepts because they weren't the same, had not lived through the same experiences and wouldn't have the same reactions.

If you've read any of my comments on MEthos, you will see that I have never made an excuse, or apology for any of his actions. He's a complicated man (character) who is sometimes evil, cynical, hard to discipher, not necessarily someone I would want to know in real life and a million other things. He's also pretty amazing at times with his ability to put himself out there, to still love and risk himself for someone he cares about.

The fact that we don't know which is the *real* Methos is one of the interesting things about the character.

My friends who were Spike fans didn't excuse or apologise for his actions either, but their enthusiasm for the character often came across as proselytizing. I mean, I love Methos. He's one of my favourite characters ever, not just in HL. But he does tend to bring out the hardcore fannishness in people, which can be off-putting to those who have different opinions or are simply indifferent to him.

First, if LJ being as wonky for everyone else that it is for me today?

I started watching Buffy long after the series was off the air and never got into the fandom although I love the show and bought all 7 seasons.

I love the character Spike. Not that I love him as a person (a character person I mean), but just that I like what he brings to the show. I like the person he became and I found him amusing as hell.

That said, I also like the fact that he was out front about how evil he used to be and did not apologize for it (although he did go rather nuts and showed remorse when he first got his soul back). But it wasn't the gut-wrenching brooding and chest beating that Angel did. I mean, if you're going to be an evil SOB, at least be man enough to say "hell yes. I did it and I did it because I loved it."

Now, does that mean I would ever want to meet that Spike in real life? Or that I blame Buffy for wanting to dust his butt on almost every occassion? Of course not to either. He was an asshole who deserved to get dusted.

And, yes, I think in some ways you could (or I did) just compare Spike to Methos where there is really no comparison at all because Spike is nothing like Methos.

However, the fandom did cheer Methos on when he finally pushed Mac against his jeep and told him "oh yes." It was him. He did it and he liked it. Not because they think it was cool that he did it. He was an evil, horrible person. THey were cheering (or at least I was) the fact that he was finally being honest about who he was and his motives even if it was about this one point in time. I mean, it was about damn time he started admitting to his past and who he was. He might not have needed it, but the fans did.

As for the entire situation with Cassandra, I have mixed feelings. Not about what Methos did to her. That was pretty cut and dry horrendous and inexcusable.

But we had already met the character earlier and there was a lot of anomosity about the character from her letting Duncan see her nude and kissing him when he was a boy. People already didn't like her and I felt it would be better if they had either used someone he really knew well and liked or a entirely new character.

But they didn't so we had who we had. From one perspective you could say Methos was being nice and trying to be kind when he was talking to Cassandra at the submarine base. But from her perspective I could see her thinking he was just being an obnoxious, self-serving a-hole.

I'm glad Duncan did care and asked her to let him live. He was a recurring character who was important to the show. And I liked the person he had become although I hated the person he had been.

Yet, I would have cheered if Cassandra had put down the axe, picked up a different heavy object and beat the snot clean out of him. He had it coming.

Now, lets see if LJ lets this post.

Not that I don't appreciate the support (and love your icon!) but it's really not necessarily. I happen to be unusually prone to the Spike effect, though ...

Oops, sorry. I already commented again! Um, feel free to delete it if you want!

Glad you like the icon! It got me a lot of flack when I first created it...

Why? It's a great icon. I also like the fact that Joss let his characters have flaws and screw up on occasion. They weren't perfect either and they didn't always make the right choices. That was great.

I have a lot of Spike fans on my flist, and one particular Spike fan who over-identified with him. (She has since defriended me.) Let's just say that pointing out the facts of his history, in a way that made it NOT about Spike himself, but instead focused on Nikki and her pain and her heroism, was apparently an "attack" on Spike.

But I'm glad you like the icon! I'm pretty proud of it, unsophisticated .gif that it is. *g*

We didn't see that much of Nikki, but what we did see was amazing. Also, not perfect. Buffy had to deal with the fact that as a Slayer she would always be apart from those she loved. She couldn't always share with her lovers, not even Riley who knew what she did and tried to help. And, always, her slayer duties took precident over everything else. Nikki was the same way. She had to be. And her son had to deal with the fact that both his mother and then Buffy was going to always put him second in their lives. It was a hard pill to swallow.

But it wasn't their fault. It was who they were - who they had to be.

Spike, at that time, was an unfeeling killer who revelled in the kill. The fact that she was a Slayer just made it that much sweeter. Just as he told Buffy. I believed him when he said that. You could tell how much he enjoyed it when he said it. He was a horrible creature. Not even a person then.

However, one of the things that I thought redeemed the character was that he *wanted* to be a different person. He wanted Buffy to see him as a man instead of a creature. And he knew it was him that needed to change. He also knew that no good deeds could ever redeem his past deeds. That made him interesting and compelling to watch.

And now you've seen the total of the 2 BTVS icons I have.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Oh, why not?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject