'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

[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.