Some Lives Apparently Have Less Value Than Others

Scotophor

Project QL Intern
Aug 5, 2014
44
0
0
La Puente, CA U.S.A.
I was just reading the topic Sam the Killer and considered posting this there since it's closely related, but decided that it might be considered thread hijacking so I made this topic insted.

It seems that "God, or Fate, or Time or Whatever" (GFTW) considers some people's lives to be less valuable than others. There are several instances in the show when Sam leaps in where an apparently innocent person has died recently, or dies during the episode. I find this concept troubling in the context of the show ("putting right what once went wrong") and I believe it might have been better if the creators had found ways to work around such issues.

I'll cite two examples to start off and maybe other Leapers can add more. In "Play it Again, Seymour", detective Nick Allen's partner Phil Grimsley is dead on Sam's arrival, and Sam/Nick is found beside the body holding a gun, to become suspect #1 (though he is exonerated fairly quickly). Sam then has to solve the mystery of Phil's murder, to prevent himself/Nick from becoming the next victim. Why didn't Sam arrive earlier, to prevent BOTH killings, rather than just Nick's?

In "Blind Faith", Sam leaps into sightless pianist Andrew Ross. Later in the episode, Andrew's unnamed French-accented neighbor is strangled by a serial killer in Central Park. For the episode's climax, Sam/Andrew prevents the killer from murdering Andrew's girlfriend Michelle and captures him for the police. Why should Sam allow one death but prevent another? For that matter, why doesn't Sam leap in much earlier and save some or all of the killer's prior victims?
 
Last edited:
I was just reading the topic Sam the Killer and considered posting this there since it's closely related, but decided that it might be considered thread hijacking so I made this topic insted.

It seems that "God, or Fate, or Time or Whatever" (GFTW) considers some people's lives to be more valuable than others. There are several instances in the show when Sam leaps in where an apparently innocent person has died recently, or dies during the episode. I find this concept troubling in the context of the show ("putting right what once went wrong") and I believe it might have been better if the creators had found ways to work around such issues.

I'll cite two examples to start off and maybe readers can add more. In "Play it Again, Seymour", detective Nick Allen's partner Phil Grimsley is dead on Sam's arrival, and Sam/Nick is found beside the body holding a gun, to become suspect #1 (though he is exonerated fairly quickly). Sam then has to solve the mystery of Phil's murder, to prevent himself/Nick from becoming the next victim. Why didn't Sam arrive earlier, to prevent BOTH killings, rather than just Nick's?

In "Blind Faith", Sam leaps into sightless pianist Andrew Ross. Later in the episode, Andrew's unnamed French-accented neighbor is strangled by a serial killer in Central Park. For the episode's climax, Sam/Andrew prevents the killer from strangling Andrew's girlfriend Michelle and captures him for the police. Why should Sam allow one death but prevent another? For that matter, why doesn't Sam leap in much earlier and save some or all of the killer's prior victims?

There was often collateral damage with Sam's leaps, some more serious than others. An obvious one was Maggie Dawson dying instead of Tom Beckett (although Sam did also save Colonel Grimwald, who died in the original history -- so Maggie died but two people's lives were saved in exchange, Tom and Colonel Grimwald).

Where we really see some lives being worth more than others is when marriages are changed, and this is where it gets ugly if you look too closely. For example, at the end of The Leap Home Part 1 Al jokes around (gleefully I should add) that Lisa doesn't marry No-Nose. So the kids they originally had have now been wiped out of existence, and maybe that's a good thing -- maybe those children grew up to be serial killers. Lisa married someone else in the changed history and maybe they had nicer kids, who did something useful with their lives. But it does beg the question -- why do these kids deserve to be born more than the other kids?

Same thing with Al and Beth. I love that Al has his happiness in the end and that Sam did that last selfless act for him, but what about any kids Beth and Dirk may have had?
 
Those are interesting points, but I don't consider "non-existence" due to changed relationships to be the same as outright preventable deaths. Also, Maggie Dawson was a very gung-ho journalist and knew the risk she was taking, so it could be argued that she died willingly to get the Pulitzer-winning photo.
 
Scotophor, I actually discussed the issues you brought up in your original post at length in my segment for "Blind Faith" on the Quantum Leap Podcast. You can listen here :)
 
Those are interesting points, but I don't consider "non-existence" due to changed relationships to be the same as outright preventable deaths.

It's still placing more value on certain lives over others, just lives coming into being. Why does one person deserve existence over another? And what gives Sam, Ziggy and Al the right to make that decision?

Also, Maggie Dawson was a very gung-ho journalist and knew the risk she was taking, so it could be argued that she died willingly to get the Pulitzer-winning photo.

Tom Beckett wanted to be in the military and also knew the risk he was taking. Same with Colonel Grimwald. It could also be argued that they both died willingly for their country in the original history. Again, Sam's changing history was still placing some lives as more important over others. That doesn't change just because Maggie was willing to die for her Pulitzer too.
 
Tom Beckett wanted to be in the military and also knew the risk he was taking. Same with Colonel Grimwald. It could also be argued that they both died willingly for their country in the original history. Again, Sam's changing history was still placing some lives as more important over others. That doesn't change just because Maggie was willing to die for her Pulitzer too.
I suppose it could be argued that by letting one willing person sacrifice herself while Sam saves two, GFTW still comes out ahead. But IMO you're right, too - it still seems to violate or at least trivialize the spirit of "putting right what once went wrong".


Here's another one: in "Leap of Faith", Sam arrives as a priest named Father Francis "Frank" Pistano after young Italian-American punk Tony Pronti has murdered two people, and soon officiates at the funeral of the second victim (an altar boy apparently killed for having been a witness to the first murder). Al and Sam believe he's there to prevent Tony from murdering Father "Mac" McRoberts, who falsely claimed to also be a witness to the first murder, in order to encourage the only actual witness to testify. Later, after Sam survives Tony's attempt to kill him/Father Frank by mistake, an unexpected plot reversal has Sam preventing Father Mac from murdering Tony!

So apparently Pronti's two earlier victims weren't worth saving...
 
Last edited:
I suppose it could be argued that by letting one willing person sacrifice herself while Sam saves two, GFTW still comes out ahead. But IMO you're right, too - it still seems to violate or at least trivialize the spirit of "putting right what once went wrong".


Here's another one: in "Leap of Faith", Sam arrives as a priest named Father Francis "Frank" Pistano after young Italian-American punk Tony Pronti has murdered two people, and soon officiates at the funeral of the second victim (an altar boy apparently killed for having been a witness to the first murder). Al and Sam believe he's there to prevent Tony from murdering Father "Mac" McRoberts, who falsely claimed to also be a witness to the first murder, in order to encourage the only actual witness to testify. Later, after Sam survives Tony's attempt to kill him/Father Frank by mistake, an unexpected plot reversal has Sam preventing Father Mac from murdering Tony!

So apparently Pronti's two earlier victims weren't worth saving...

The idea is that killers kill, if the first two victims had been spared, then who's to stop Tony from later killing many, many more people? The first two people had to die so that he could be stopped...
 
Another example, this time a reverse two-for-one: in "Piano Man", Sam leaps into lounge lizard Joey DeNardo a.k.a. Chuck Danner, who's hiding out from the Mafia after witnessing a murder. In the original history, a hit man who found Joey/Chuck killed him with a car bomb. Sam changes history by lending Joey's car to the apparently innocent bartender and his girlfriend Janelle, who both die in the explosion.