Do You Like Byron?

Yes and a bit Ironic Londo did things far more reprehensible then Bryon for what he thought were the right reasons Yet we still see him as lovable, Jovial drunken, sympathetic tragic comic figure that he really was. One could argue that Byron was himself a very tragic figure who does warrant some sympathy as well. If we can forgive Londo for his failings then why not Bryon as well.

Cell said:

He didn't have good reason though, those telepaths were used in a war, the same as mundanes were used in that war. If anything the ISA treated them just as equally as they did mundanes, which is supposedly what Byron wants.

Click to expand...

You lost me on this comment. Could you explain it to me, please? I'm afraid I've forgotten enough of the series that I really don't get what you are saying.

The telepaths were hardly volunteers. Weren't those mundanes fighting in the war military? And they did what they did voluntarily?

Garovorkin said:

Yes and a bit Ironic Londo did things far more reprehensible then Bryon for what he thought were the right reasons Yet we still see him as lovable, Jovial drunken, sympathetic tragic comic figure that he really was. One could argue that Byron was himself a very tragic figure who does warrant some sympathy as well. If we can forgive Londo for his failings then why not Bryon as well.

Click to expand...

This goes back into how the characters were written. I believe Londo is the perfect example of how to write a sympathetic and tragic character while Byron is the example of how not to do it. Londo doesn't want to be who he is at any point in his life, and for that you feel sympathy for him, he is an endearing character. Byron on the other hand is written as pretentious, stuck-up, in love with himself, and completely oblivious to the consequences he will face and how his actions are affecting those around him. Londo knows of the consequences and he knows how he is affecting those around him, but he goes ahead with his plans because he thinks they are the only way for things to be done. He does all this while coming across as a good guy stuck in a bad situation, one that he brought on himself and he knows this, but a bad situation nonetheless.

hypatia said:

You lost me on this comment. Could you explain it to me, please? I'm afraid I've forgotten enough of the series that I really don't get what you are saying.

The telepaths were hardly volunteers. Weren't those mundanes fighting in the war military? And they did what they did voluntarily?

Click to expand...

I don't view what was done to the telepaths in that situation any differently than I do Sheridan sending out a White Star to die where only its Captain knows they are on a suicide mission. It's highly unethical in both situations, but both result in the deaths of unwitting individuals serving a greater cause. There were more instances like this where whether they were soldiers or not mundanes were sacrificed without expressing their actual interest in being sacrificed.

Now, this all may go back to the point that I don't view those teeps as being salvageable by that point. Bester said it best when he called them weapons, because that is all that they are. As we see when they are awake, and as Anna has shown, most of what made them who they are is gone and they are now completely different from what they once were. They are to me, nothing but weapons by the time Sheridan and company get a hold of them.

Remember what he said to Jkar on Centuri Prime before he got the keeper placed on him. "I had none of the power and all of choices now I have all of the Power and none of the choices." He knew deep down what he was doing was wrong , how could he not have an inkling of that. 10,000 narns that were killed in the first shadow actions. Londo lamenteded about that for all 5 miniutes then joked why don't you eliminate the Narn Homeworld also he seem concerned about not being found out in all this, avoiding responsibility for his actions He asked Mordent for assurances that no one would find out. When he asked for the shadows help how could he delude himself into thinking that there would be no blood shed. he made bad choices knowing that there would be consequences, but that did not stop him from continuing his downward slide. Is he sympathtic? Yes But so isn't Byron. None of them saints all of them can be redeemed.

Yeah, that's exactly what I just said, except for in a more jumbled fashion. Londo knew what he was doing was wrong, but he still did it because he thought it was the right thing. However what makes Londo a sympathetic character is the knowledge that there is good within him, that he feels repentant for his actions, and that as bad as his actions may have been you feel for him because of the consequences you know he will face for his actions. I don't feel that way about Byron at all, I actually feel Byron is the exact opposite, and like I said I believe it is because of how shoddily he is written.

Well Im sorry Cell just don't agree on this point, I see something different, I do see your argument I am not trying to be difficult here.

Londo is a very well written character.He made terribble mistakes and he paid for them.This makes him more sympathetic to us because everyone has made big mistakes in their lives and regreted them later.It's so typically human.

Well, it is interesting to me always how different people view the same exact characters/situations quite differently. Reading other peoples' perspectives gives me a wider appreciation for a subject, that's for certain.

Now, back to the teep versus military ship going on suicide mission: I still see one huge difference: those who join the military do so (theoretically) accepting that they might have to sacrifice themselves for their people. All of them know (theoretically) that being assigned a suicide mission is quite possible, though hopefully to be used only in a desperate last-resort situation. The teeps involved never signed such an agreement.

And do we know the crew did not know, but only the captain, that they were on a suicide mission? I don't recall that information being stated. I would actually assume the captain would inform the crew. As far as the teeps being hopelessly lost to their real lives, let's not be hasty here: only ONE doctor had a very limited time and resources to dedicate to reviving them. Franklin may be good, but he's not as good as a whole team and set of resources that either Earth or the ISA could provide (once the ISA became an institution of real power).

hypatia said:

Now, back to the teep versus military ship going on suicide mission: I still see one huge difference: those who join the military do so (theoretically) accepting that they might have to sacrifice themselves for their people. All of them know (theoretically) that being assigned a suicide mission is quite possible, though hopefully to be used only in a desperate last-resort situation. The teeps involved never signed such an agreement.

And do we know the crew did not know, but only the captain, that they were on a suicide mission? I don't recall that information being stated. I would actually assume the captain would inform the crew.

Click to expand...

I think there is a very big difference between serving your nation willingly and being sacrificed for your nation. I don't believe that the Captain told his crew what they were doing, simply because military protocol, and smarts, would dictate that he not do as such. That being the case i think it puts their deaths in a different category from the usual military deaths. They died not knowing that they were going to do, and they died in a non-willing fashion, a bit of subterfuge if you will. That to me makes the situations completely different.

hypatia said:

As far as the teeps being hopelessly lost to their real lives, let's not be hasty here: only ONE doctor had a very limited time and resources to dedicate to reviving them. Franklin may be good, but he's not as good as a whole team and set of resources that either Earth or the ISA could provide (once the ISA became an institution of real power).

Click to expand...

I don't think any doctor could have helped them, because with the way they were worked on by the Shadows servants and the correlation to Anna, and those like here, I think the teeps were gone. I don't think any non-Shadow doctor would crack what was done to them any time in the foreseeable future. I also believe that if we follow the logical steps the doctors would have prematurely eroded their personalities to make sure their interactions with their new vessels would be smooth. What was present in the B5 medlab was a shell of the person that was there before, someone that I don't think was salvageable for maybe thousands of years, if even then, and if they were salvaged I don't believe their original personalities would be intact.

What really matters here is what JMS, the author, thought.

hypatia said:

What really matters here is what JMS, the author, thought.

Click to expand...

On this we will disagree, a lot. I believe in the idea of interpretive art, and as such once the author puts his final product out I don't think it matters at all what he has to say on a subject, but rather solely how the viewers decide to interpret his work.

Just out of curiosity here: then if JMS writes a story in the future which revives the comatose telepaths, would you tell him he's wrong?

Maybe we need to ask which one is more annoying-the character of Byron or the performance of Robin Atkin Downes.I think that he did a good job playing Moran in "In The Beginning" but he was simply not the right guy for the role of Byron.If Byron was played by another actor things would probably look much different.

The casting of the actors is one of the most important job for the writers and producers of a TV show.Last night I watched the auditions of Mathew Fox and George Garcia for "Lost".They were both reading Sawyer's lines and it was obvious that they are not appropriate for this role.It's simply hard to imagine them as a guy like Sawyer.

Comparisons of Bester to Byron don't work in a moral context. It is generally not considered within the realm of proper ethics to place the oppressor and the oppressed on the same moral plane. That is akin to blaming the victim for the crime.

Byron did not "blame" the ISA for the actions of the Vorlons. He correctly observed that they benefited from it and rightly felt they were owed something. He also concluded, again quite reasonably, that the only solution for the mundane/telepath conflict was segregation. The reason telepaths in B5 are interesting is because the standard elements of prejudice do not apply, yet the some of the same language can be used.

In the U.S., racism partly defines the social dynamic of our people. But the tragedy of racism is that there is no inherent natural difference between people of different races, making prejudice a travesty. But with telepaths, there is such a difference. Unlike racial segregations, non-telepaths not wanting telepaths actually makes sense. It's not necessarily an act of paranoia or hatred, but a matter of self-defense.

A planet of telepaths would therefore be the ONLY equitable solution, as long as that planet welcomes non-human telepaths.

I would also point out that pure pacifism without some kind of cult of personality is virtually impossible. MLK and Ghandi, the two most famous such practitioners, have become worshipped idols, and were so during their lives.

Byron gets shit from the fan base for the same reason Lochley does- they come in at the last season, out of nowhere, at the close of all of the major conflicts of the series. It's like Twin Peaks after they closed the case of Laura Palmer's murder- you think, who are these people and why should I give a damn? In both cases, the story was messed up by factors outside the creators' control. In the case of Twin Peaks, it ruined the show. For B5, it ruined half a season.

In another thread I pretty much lambasted TV as a creative medium and got slammed for it, but this is exactly the kind of crap that makes TV so putrid, generally. Sure, all popular media is subject to this kind of thing, but the nature of the business of TV makes it that much more vulnerable to this kind of crap.

hypatia said:

Just out of curiosity here: then if JMS writes a story in the future which revives the comatose telepaths, would you tell him he's wrong?

Click to expand...

Nope, because he would have gone and told the story within the universe. I view in-universe actions very differently than I do out of universe interviews or quotes.

O.K. I think I get where you are coming from now. "In Universe" stuff you see as being more thought-through and thorough then? Or am I still not getting it?

hypatia said:

O.K. I think I get where you are coming from now. "In Universe" stuff you see as being more thought-through and thorough then? Or am I still not getting it?

Click to expand...

It's not really that it is though through, but rather it is that art is interpretive. An artist pours his vision into his work and presents it for the masses to see. After he/she has presented their work to the masses it is now out of their hands, and how the people interpret it is what matters. I have a major problem with artists saying after the fact that, "You should have viewed a seen this way or that" because if you wanted it viewed that way then you should have made sure it was presented that way in the first place. If the artist comes along later and publishes more work in the same universe that fleshes out an earlier idea then that is fine, but I am not a fan of the interviews after the fact where they try to say what everything meant and how you as the viewer should actually interpret what you saw. I refer to this as the George Lucas special as he has made it a profession to give interview after interview trying to explain his movies.

Just so we are clear though, I don't have a problem with the creator offering insight. My problem lies with the fans that take this insight and treat it as gospel and use these out of universe quotes and interviews to try and slag off interpretations as not being valid because of said quotes and interviews. That is not how the interpretive art process works. If someone wants to use a creators word after the fact to help supplement their interpretation then that is cool, but creators intention should never replace viewer interpretation.

You know, I never thought about it that way.

I won't say I agree or disagree with you, Cell. But you have given me something to think about.

Thanks. That is an interesting perspective, and one I believe has never been mentioned here (at this board) before.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on this, Cell, but at the same time I've seen all sorts of curious interpretations of things that are pretty obvious, and it just defies logic.

Me, I go by this general guideline- if it's a question of narrative, then yeah, I'll go by what the creator says. If JMS said "Eath Alliance law is blah blah blah" whatever, then I'll take it. But things like artistic or moral message, that's my own. If JMS said "Franklin was right" and I disagree, than there it is. The way I see it, one if a "fact" inside the fictional world, and one is an "opinion."

Cell said:

I don't think any doctor could have helped them, because with the way they were worked on by the Shadows servants and the correlation to Anna, and those like here, I think the teeps were gone. I don't think any non-Shadow doctor would crack what was done to them any time in the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, IMO, they made it so obvious in the show how they could be helped, I was very surprised we never saw them do it. Franklin couldn't remove the implants, because they were alive, and were actively working against him. Lyta had the power to freeze the implants. She could have kept them frozen, while Franklin removed them. True, the teepsicles probably wouldn't be their normal selves again, but they would be free of the implants. On the other hand, some seemed almost normal at times, so they might have fared better than Anna, since they had never merged with a ship, as Anna had. I'm sure this technique would work to remove a Keeper, since in that case, the individuals keep their normal thoughts and personality.