'The Modern Prometheus'

[ithildin]

Welcome to the sixteenth installment of Methos Episode Discussion. You can find the last one, for Forgive Us Our Trespasses here. All prior episode discussion links can be found over on the sidebar.

The Modern Prometheus, Air Date: May 1997

Lord Byron, the brilliant Romantic poet, is alive and well and living the decadent life of a rock star. He lives life way over the edge and has taken some promising young musicians over the edge with him. When following in Byron's footsteps tragically ends the life of Dawson's protege, MacLeod is faced with a decision -- is the beauty and genius that is Byron worth the cost? ~ recap and quotes via tv.com

Quotes below the curtain





Duncan: Duncan: Cut the crap - Mike is dead because of him.
Methos: No, Mike is dead because of Mike.
Duncan: The kid idolized him. Maybe he didn't pull the trigger but he sure as hell put the gun in his hand. "To live like me you have to be like me." Come on, Methos, Mike couldn't do that, he wasn't Immortal.
Methos: And that is not Byron's fault
________________________

Byron: My task is done. My song has ceased. My theme has died into an echo...it is fit.
________________________

Byron: Would you rather have a tombstone that says "he lived for centuries', or one that says 'for centuries, he was alive"?
Methos: You're not listening to me - I don't want a tombstone.
________________________






Next up will be Indiscretions aka The Methos & Joe Show 'Archangel'.

Comments

[kethali.livejournal.com]

Yes, but therein lies the rub with the whole business of passing judgment. Sure, Byron had a part in Mike's demise. Yes, he was an arrogant, self-centered—and self-loathing—bastard. The question is, though, whether he really deserved to die for it. According to Duncan, he did. I say that's rather harsh, not to mention arrogant in its own right. It's one thing to take action when someone perpetuates violence, it's quite another to deem a man worthy of execution just because you can't abide his attitude and the way it influences the weak-minded.

[carenejeans.livejournal.com]

But Byron *does* "perpetuate violence." He doesn't just have an "attitude." We see him, even before Mike comes into the picture, cajoling and goading a man to *jump to his death*. Now whether or not that guy is an idiot to get himself drunk/drugged enough to think this is a good idea is beside the point. Byron led that man to his death. On purpose. With malice aforethought. Because he wanted to -- what? Enjoy the rush?

Yes, I think he does deserve to die. The implication is that Mike is not Byron's first victim. Probably not his second (or even tenth or twentieth?).

And besides that, I do think he's got a bad suicidal jones, and is just waiting for someone like Duncan to come along and give it to him.

[eveningblue.livejournal.com]

I agree completely. He is *luring* these people to their deaths, using his rock star charisma and power. He's not going to stop till he's dead. He gets a thrill from it, and is pushing the bounds of addiction with it. Just as he is addicted to laudanum and then cocaine, he is addicted to this kind of thrill killing.

And I agree that he's suicidal. Methos gives him the chance to run away, and he refuses. He *wants* to die. The comparison to Gregor is apt. He is tired of being alive.

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

My other question is - if Byron deserves death for his actions, didn't MacLeod himself deserve death for his actions during the dark quickening? He killed an unarmed immortal, directly. Or how about Warren Cochrane, who killed his student over politics? In both of those cases, the immortal was a direct threat to mortals and other immortals, but those who could have, chose not to judge them worthy of death. Methos chose to try and help Duncan. Duncan made a similar choice about Cochrane, but with the added subtext that Cochrane had to live with his actions.

So what's the difference?

[lastrega.livejournal.com]

So what's the difference?

The difference is that Byron is using his Immortality to hurt mortals. He's pretending to them that they're on a level playing field and then letting them wear the consequences of their mistakes while he walks away unscathed. He's cruel and remorseless and treats mortal lives as if they're disposable.

Warren killed an Immortal. DQ!Duncan killed an Immortal (and yeah, he beat up a couple of mortals but they didn't die and they were fair-ish fights). They may well have been a threat to mortals, but neither of them killed any of them.

Brian Cullen on the other hand...he's a whole other discussion.

[ithildyn.livejournal.com]

And Duncan under the influence of the DQ (I always think of Dairy Queen soft serve cones when I type that) (and DQ Duncan eating the cone, and it just gets odd after that) was not himself. I think Sean Burns would have been the last person to hold Duncan repsonsible, if that makes sense. And Duncan certianly derived no pleasure from what happened once he was himself again. Just the opposite.

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

are mortal lives worth more than immortal? This is something that has always confused me a bit about Duncan.

[lastrega.livejournal.com]

I don't think he sees a difference in worth, only a difference who can protect them. He leaves mortal on mortal violence to the hands of the police whenever he can, but who is going to intervene when an Immortal using their physical advantages to hurt mortals? There isn't anyone but other Immortals. Mortal law isn't going to be effective, and could actually expose Immortality to the world. Immortals need to be a self-policing society in order to survive and Duncan strongly believes in not standing by while people are injured.

This 'none of my business' idea is a very modern way of looking at life and society and not something Duncan believes in, I think.

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

hmm. Good point, but I'm not sure it's a matter of "none of my business" but of questioning whether one man can or should make that kind of judgement, especially one leading to death.

[lastrega.livejournal.com]

Seriously, what's the alternative? Given that Immortals have no laws and no society and a desperate need to hide their existence, how else do they protect themselves by eliminating the mad, bad and dangerous to know?

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

this is where I want to talk about the pitfalls of vigilantism and the difference between defense and judgement... but sadly don't have time this morning. Maybe later.

[lastrega.livejournal.com]

Took the words right out of my mouth (or off my keyboard anyway).

Byron wants to die. His life had become an unbearable burden to him and he was obsessed with death. He lured others to their deaths as a part of that obsession. And he didn't back off when he was warned that Duncan would kill him. Why? Because he had finally found someone who could end it for him.

His pride won't let him lay down and die without a fight, but he sure wasn't looking to duck it either.

[unovis-lj.livejournal.com]

But it's not an execution; it's Duncan putting his sword where his conscience is. It *is* a fight, not Duncan sneaking up on him in an alley with a gun. It is the way Immortals play the game.

Byron pushed first, to Duncan's way of seeing things. Duncan warned him, Methos warned him... back off, or face me in a fight.

[kethali.livejournal.com]

Ok, maybe I am not expressing myself well enough. I am not questioning Duncan's methods once his decision is made; I am questioning those decisions.

If you are going to appoint yourself judge/jury/executioner, at the very least you had better be consistent about it. Up until Byron, the only times Duncan takes up a fight with a previously unknown Immortal (who isn't challenging him) is when said Immortal is directly--physically--causing violence. Which Byron is decidedly NOT doing. He hadn't laid a finger on Mike, or anyone else for that matter.

I was thinking about Gregor myself because the situation is similar to Byron's, I agree. Well, say that kid on a bike whom Gregor egged on to take a jump over water were to drown... Would Duncan have taken Gregor's head then, instead of administering the Immortal version of a shrink session? Would he, really?

Now think back to another drug addict, Brian Cullen, who had slammed into a bus full of kids, for God's sake, and who was certainly no less dangerous to mortals than Byron, for very much the same reasons. And yet Duncan had done his best to avoid killing Brian until the man actually came after him.

So what is the difference between Gregor and Byron, Brian and Byron? Why, Gregor and Brian are someone Duncan cares about—or at least used to respect—whereas Byron is a stranger to whom he takes an instant dislike. Well-deserved dislike but one which doesn't constitute good enough grounds for condemnation.

There is no argument that it's normal and understandable to try and cut some slack to those you care about but that only augments my point—that Duncan is hardly impartial when passing judgment, and in Byron's case he is doing it based on his aversion rather than reason.

Which, once again, makes the character more compelling to me than he would be were his behavioral patterns always flawless.

[ithildyn.livejournal.com]

I'd forgotten all about Brian Cullen and I just saw that episode recently.

I honestly don't know. Brian is his friend, and Duncan is human. Duncan has been through a lot in the interevening years. I don't have a good answer. [shrug]

[lastrega.livejournal.com]

If you are going to appoint yourself judge/jury/executioner, at the very least you had better be consistent about it.

But Duncan is consistent about it. He divides people into two carefully segregated columns, Immortals who hurt Immortals, and Immortals who hurt mortals deliberately and by using their Immortality as a weapon to do so. Immortals who hurt Immortals he sees as part of the game, by and large and if they're playing by the rules, he doesn't interfere.

Immortals who use their Immortality as a weapon to hurt mortals go against everything Duncan was taught, both in his mortal and Immortal development. He believes the strong should protect the weak and the powerful should not victimise the powerless. Who is stronger and more powerful than an Immortal?

Intent matters to Duncan, I think, despite his claims to the contrary. And as I said, I believe he is consistent, but it's human consistency, tempered with his knowledge of intent and background. It's far from flawless, but it's a long way from random impulse too.

[kethali.livejournal.com]

Intent matters to Duncan, I think, despite his claims to the contrary. And as I said, I believe he is consistent, but it's human consistency, tempered with his knowledge of intent and background. It's far from flawless, but it's a long way from random impulse too.

I never meant to imply that Duncan acted on random impulse--he's much too controlled for that and it would be grossly out of character. So ok, let's say he deals out judgment with flawed consistency and leave it at that. I'll buy it. But the other part of the argument that irks me is that people keep repeating 'Byron wanted to die', as if it justifies anyone else's choices. Duncan’s choices.

Byron wanted to die, no doubt about it. What does it have to do with Duncan's decision, though? He's no Immortal Kevorkian, after all, and it wasn't exactly compassion for the damned guiding his sword arm when he took Byron's head.

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

true. I'm not arguing that Duncan was dishonorable. Just that I agree that in this case (unlike in the case of the Horsemen) his need to judge others *was* a factor, that his honor led him to this judgement.

I'm not sure what's wrong with saying that Duncan was being judgemental here. Judgement and justice, the difference between the two, is an ongoing theme in the show. I'm not saying Duncan is a bad person for following his conscience. Just that sometimes his conscience leads him to make such life or death judgements.

Byron was a dangerous jerk. But I disagree with carene that he killed those men. Those men killed themselves. Ever hear that saying "Would you jump off a bridge if so-and-so told you to?" In this case it's more literal than most. Succumbing to peer-pressure doesn't mean you give up responsibility for your actions.

Byron did want to die. He was a destructive person who attracted other rash, self-destructive people. But did Duncan need to appoint himself judge and jury and executioner? I do think it was an execution, or suicide-by-immortal, or both. Duncan had to know very well that he'd beat Byron.

But Methos made a choice too. He could have chosen to stand up to Duncan, even to challenge him to protect his student. He could have done more than he did to try to reach Byron. But he saw that Byron didn't care about his own life. And he knew nothing he said to either Byron or Duncan would change their minds. So he backed off.

And Byron's choice was the saddest. He chose to die. He could have heeded his teacher's warning. But he didn't want to live. And he didn't believe there was any hope for him.

[macgeorge1.livejournal.com]

I disagree with you about who was responsible for the deaths. Byron was a man hundreds of years old who knew his power, who was aware of his charisma, and who used it deliberately, knowingly and with malice aforethought. He clearly *wanted* those mortals to die, to share vicariously their last moments, and he did everything but stick the needle in their arm, or push them off the roof. And he enjoyed it. And he planned on doing it again. He had no remorse, no sense of loss of life. He cared nothing for anyone but himself and he had to be stopped. He *wanted* to be stopped.

Your argument that it is the fault of all those mortals he manipulated to their deaths is one made by every drug dealer whose 'client' dies of an overdose.

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with the parallels of your latter point. But does that drug dealer deserve death?? That's the question. I don't believe s/he does. To take that arguement further, you would have to hold gun sellers responsible for suicides and murders using their products. Because handguns are made for one thing.

Yes, Byron encouraged gullible mortals to do things they couldn't survive. He should have known better. But I don't believe that's the same as murder. I think that's where we're going to disagree.

It's my feeling, that if you excuse the mortals of their personal responsibility in this case, you could argue that Byron should be excused of his behaviour because he was clearly mentally ill, depressed at the very least.

It's not an easy issue. And I hope I don't come off as making excuses for Byron's behaviour. I just see this as very different from Ingrid, for example, who was an immediate threat to mortals who were unaware of the danger. Mike and the other mortal fella were in situations where the danger was obvious, and they chose to be there.

One of the other interesting points the show continually makes is that extended age does not automatically bring with it increased wisdom or maturity. Duncan, Rebecca, Darius, and Sean seemed to be very much the exceptions in the immortal world.

[macgeorge1.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with the parallels of your latter point. But does that drug dealer deserve death?? That's the question. I don't believe s/he does. To take that arguement further, you would have to hold gun sellers responsible for suicides and murders using their products. Because handguns are made for one thing.

Okay, what if that drug dealer operated outside the normal rules of law? What if there was no real way 'mortal' rules or norms or laws could stop him, so he was free to continue his path of inevitable destruction forever? What if the *only* rule of law that impacted his behavior was the one unique to your kind, and that rule was "There Can Be Only One?"

And the handguns analogy is specious, I'm afraid. To be comparable, a seller of a handgun would have to coerce someone into buying the gun, then further coerce the buyer to use it to kill someone, or to commit suicide. That's what Byron did, over and over and over again - coerce others to self-destruct using instruments or means which Byron supplied, rather gleefully, I might add.

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

Okay, what if that drug dealer operated outside the normal rules of law? What if there was no real way 'mortal' rules or norms or laws could stop him, so he was free to continue his path of inevitable destruction forever? What if the *only* rule of law that impacted his behavior was the one unique to your kind, and that rule was "There Can Be Only One?"

Yes. This is where we get to vigilante justice. Which is what this act could be called. And I use the term without judgement as to whether vigilante justice is a positive or negative act. And with vigilante justice, when one person acts to curb the actions of another, there will inevitably be disagreement as to whether justice was served, whether the punishment fit the crime.

I agree that Byron acted wrongly. I disagree that his actions required a sentance of death.

[macgeorge1.livejournal.com]

I agree that Byron acted wrongly. I disagree that his actions required a sentance of death.

Then what would *you* do, if you knew there was no other way to stop him? (Well, I suppose you could bury him alive, but that would be both cruel to Byron and ultimately leave open the possibility of escape. Mortal justice wouldn't do it, either. Having him committed would also be both cruel and dangerous and only a temporary solution.) Would you look the other way, thereby giving de facto sanction to his actions because it wasn't up to you to get involved?

That's the ultimate difference between Duncan and Methos. Duncan valued all life, and when he felt there were no other choices with regard to Immortals who regularly and unrepentantly risked mortal life, he felt an obligation to act because he was the only one who *could* stop Byron's destructive spree.

Methos chose to *not* act, implying sanctioning Byron's continuing his serial destruction of mortal lives, since after all, they weren't lives *he* cared about, so it was okay.

[kethali.livejournal.com]

Oh, and on a side note, I love the Brian icon. Courage was one of the best non-Methos episodes, I think, clever and emotionally charged to just the right degree.

[ithildyn.livejournal.com]

As I said farther up the thread, while I do think Mike was stupid, Duncan challanged Byron to a fair fight within the rules, so I don't really have a beef with him on that particular point.