'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]

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.