'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 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.