'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

[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.

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

I think this is coming down to interpretation and personal philosophy...

It wasn't my interpretation of the episode that Byron had premeditated, murderous intent. He seems much too impulsive for that. We disagree there...

And I disagree that the difference between Duncan and Methos is that one values all life and one does not. I think the difference is one feels compelled to act, right or wrong, and one does not.

To me it's a very different issue. A hard-core pacifist (not that I'm calling Methos a pacifist, but just using it as an example) will not kill, even in self-defense or defense of someone he loves. Does that mean the pacifist does not value life as much as someone prepared to defend others with deadly force?

I don't think not acting is always the same as giving de facto sanction to another's actions.

argh, the cat crawled on my lap. Will have to tackle this later. I'm having a hard time getting out what I mean...

[macgeorge1.livejournal.com]

Yup. We obviously disagree about Byron. From my viewpoint, he had repeated his behavior too many times for it to be sua sponte. He was a serial killer who led mortals to their death on a regular basis - certainly that seemed to be the intent of the way the story was told.

As for Methos, I believe he cares about those lives that are personally important to him. From the viewpoing of his longevity, the rest are just passing through. As he told Duncan in The Valkyrie, the tide of history will out, and there is little any individual can to do change it, so why try?

Byron was someone he cared about, and the mortal deaths he was responsible for were not important enough to make any real attempt to stop him, so Methos was prepared to let him continue his actions, regardless of who else died.

And Methos is sure as hell no pacifist (not that I really thought you were trying to say he was). We know he can be an utterly ruthless killer when it suits his purposes.

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

I didn't really want to get into comparing Duncan and Methos and their moral stands, because that's not where I was coming from with my arguement about the judgement of Byron. But since we're on the topic... I could see that they might differ in how they look at immortals and mortals. Duncan looks at immortals as having more power than mortals and therefore sinning (for lack of a better word) when they abuse that power. I would hazard a guess that Methos, so much older than most immortals, might not see very much difference between most immortals and mortals. He might see them as closer to equals in the grand scheme, and therefore may not priviledge one over the other. Therefore if they are adults, mortal or immortal, they are responsible for their own actions.

Yes, Methos was prepared to allow Byron to continue. Because I would guess he disagreed that Byron was committing any crime more than being a manipulative dick, or is responsible for more than a heavy case of pressure on his "victims". The men who died had choices.

No matter what ugly pressure Byron put on them, they chose how they would respond. ANd I think that's where we'll continue to disagree as well!

I'm not saying Duncan is has bad intentions, or is even wrong in his impulse to act against what he sees as injustice. Just that in this instance I don't think it's as clear-cut as in others, whether his opponent's "crimes" deserved the "sentance."

I need to do more thinking. Like I said, having a hard time articulating what I mean.

[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.