"Penpals" - Wesley's first command a success or a failure?

[marsh8472]

Wesley was given command of a team in charge of figuring out what was causing geological instability of planets in the Selcundi Drema sector. They were able to figure it out and then reversed the effects on Drema Four. The problem is they prevented the Dreman civilization from going extinct by saving that planet. Should Wesley have refused to follow the order to save the planet? Or even mutinied against Picard in an attempt to prevent a violation of the prime directive?


TOS "The Omega Glory"

Captain's log, supplemental. The Enterprise has left the Exeter and moved into close planet orbit. Although it appears the infection may strand us here the rest of our lives, I face an even more difficult problem. A growing belief that Captain Tracey has been interfering with the evolution of life on this planet. It seems impossible. A star captain's most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive.
...
SPOCK: Regulations are quite harsh, but they're also quite clear, Captain. If you do not act, you will be considered equally guilty.
...
KIRK: Captain Ronald Tracey, as per Starfleet Command, regulation seven, paragraph four
TRACEY: I must now consider myself under arrest, unless in the presence of the most senior fellow officers presently available, I give satisfactory answer to those charges which you now bring. Et cetera, et cetera. Those were the first words duty required you to say to me, and you said them.

Another way to look at it is: Did Wesley make the same mistake as Riker did in his youth?

TNG "The Pegasus"

RIKER: I was seven months out of the Academy, my head still ringing with words like duty and honour. When they turned on him, I thought they were a bunch of self-serving, disloyal officers, so I grabbed a phaser and defended my captain. Two or three others joined us, but it was clear by then that the mutineers had most of the crew behind them. We felt a need to get off the ship. There was a running firefight all the way to the escape pod. About five minutes after we left the ship there was an explosion.
...
RIKER: It means that I can't put this off any longer. Right up until this moment I had the luxury of time, but now I've got to make a choice. And, Admiral, I'm afraid my choice is this. I can't let you start these experiments again. It was wrong twelve years ago, and it is wrong today.
...
PRESSMAN: Now that doesn't sound like the same man who grabbed a phaser and defended his captain twelve years ago.
RIKER: I've had twelve years to think about it, and if I had it to do over again I would have grabbed the phaser and pointed it at you instead of them.
PRESSMAN: So on reflection you'd rather be a traitor than a hero.
RIKER: I wasn't a hero and neither were you. What you did was wrong and I was wrong to support you, but I was just too young and too stupid to realise it. You were the captain. I was the ensign. I was just following orders.
PRESSMAN: And if you hadn't you'd be dead right now along with all the rest of them. Dead because you listened to a bunch of mutinous cowards who were too blinded by fear to see what I was trying to do.
RIKER: They were brave enough to risk their lives to stop you from violating a treaty the Federation signed in good faith.

 

[BigDaveX]

I wouldn't call it a complete success, as Wesley clearly had trouble commanding the respect from his subordinates, and had it not been for Riker's pep-talk, Wesley would never have even ordered the scan that allowed them to save the day in the first place. But I'd say he did well enough given the circumstances.

As for saving the planet from destruction, well, they had the means to do so and a direct plea for help from one of the natives, so I'd consider that reason enough to side-step the Prime Directive. It wasn't like, for instance, "Homeward," where they had no means of stopping the biosphere's destruction, and the only alternative on the table was Nikolai Rozhenko's half-baked plan.

 

[Herbert]

If you subscribe to the idea that the prime directive was violated in this episode, then Data (and by extension Picard) deserves the blame, not Wes. Why should Wes, above all others, face the consequences? Makes zero sense. You can make a solid case for Data and Picard but Wes? No

I believe the prime directive was violated in this episode but a central theme to Star Trek is that compassion and "humanity" is often a justifiable reason for violating the PD. It's shown time and time again and no one ever faces any disciplinary measures as a result.

 

[Farscape One]

It is quite possible Wesley didn't know they were a pre-warp civilization. I don't think he should any blame for following those orders.

In regards to Riker's pep talk... this is Wesley's first time in charge, so there are bound to be growing pains. No one knows at that age how to lead right off the bat and command that level of respect with no prior experience. I think his questioning himself and asking Riker for advice was not only perfectly valid and reasonable, but it shows good character, since he was not arrogant enough to think he had the answer and not listen to those with much more experience. It showed some humility in his character, and I thought it turned out to be a good Wesley episode.

(Actually, I thought season 2 was quite good when it came to Wesley's character. I think his best episodes were found here.)

 

[Qonundrum]

I wouldn't call it a complete success, as Wesley clearly had trouble commanding the respect from his subordinates, and had it not been for Riker's pep-talk, Wesley would never have even ordered the scan that allowed them to save the day in the first place. But I'd say he did well enough given the circumstances.

True, but from the perspective of being a show for older kids and trying to relate to them, the episode works brilliantly in adumbrating the learning of leadership skills. It's oversimplified but arguably effective. Not everyone has those skills innately, and not everyone can develop them to a sufficient level. But it does show, rather than tell, why Wes stays around. Telling is telling but showing makes the telling even more telling...

That and Riker was accorded the duty of "daddy figure" so it was about time season 2 addressed what "The Child" tried to put in as if it were already swept under the carpet.

It's one of my favorite stories by Hannah (Louise Shearer).

I had more of a gripe with the "sentimental but episode-ruining" bit of Data leaving the musical shell with Sarjenka at the end. 4th wall breaking for our empathy or not and part of me really wants to like the scene (Data surely didn't leave it in a conscious attempt to undo what Dr Pulaski, Captain Picard, etc, were all talking about), it poses logistical problems within the confines of the Trek universe. It's the one thing that grates since the point was Sarjenka's knowledge could be detrimental and that the shell might somehow revive the memories since Dr Pulaski indicated she wasn't sure if the process would work. If nothing else, a magical new toy arrived magically out of nowhere, thank "The Picard" for that too. Hope that Dr Pulaski's memory erasing procedure worked...

That and horsing around on the holodeck, riding around in circles in holodeck whose size could only fit maybe 36 horses so there's little room to artificially roam in as such, all while trying to show the same big field where they shot Donovan fleeing Visitors by horseback in "V" also makes one wonder but that's actually a minor thing. It's genuinely nice to get to see the Holodeck used in an intended manner (not Riker and his personal janitor afterward), and one of Picard's hobbies that don't involve fedoras, slinky women in 1940s attire, and popguns being shown.

The show still gets it right where it's needed most: The deliberation of the Prime Directive and making up for the schlock in "Justice" (nitpicks aside there's much to really get to think about), and Wesley's subplot into being expanded into more than a 2D cutout.

As for saving the planet from destruction, well, they had the means to do so and a direct plea for help from one of the natives, so I'd consider that reason enough to side-step the Prime Directive. It wasn't like, for instance, "Homeward," where they had no means of stopping the biosphere's destruction, and the only alternative on the table was Nikolai Rozhenko's half-baked plan.

^^this

Pity they didn't discuss the speed of sound and other issues, though I just fanon it as "they had subspace communications to chat planetwide without any delays, even if they hadn't figured out space travel yet." Not all worlds evolve and develop identically. And Trek is best when it consciously overlooks some scientific reality* in favor of philosophy, optimism, and the human condition, and especially if it's done right -- "Pen Pals" does it all rather well - for me, anyway. YMMV.

* for which, I've got to face it, is done quite often no matter how many NASA people they bring in, even in "Deja Q" and they did try and get a lot right back in the day regardless

 

[marsh8472]

In Star Trek Into Darkness. Kirk was demoted for doing the same thing that Picard did.

If you subscribe to the idea that the prime directive was violated in this episode, then Data (and by extension Picard) deserves the blame, not Wes. Why should Wes, above all others, face the consequences? Makes zero sense. You can make a solid case for Data and Picard but Wes? No

I believe the prime directive was violated in this episode but a central theme to Star Trek is that compassion and "humanity" is often a justifiable reason for violating the PD. It's shown time and time again and no one ever faces any disciplinary measures as a result.

Yeah if all of your superiors are in on it, you'd think the subordinates are next up and responsible to protest. Like in Voyager episode "Flashback" here:

TUVOK: Captain, am I correct in assuming that you have decided to embark on a rescue mission?
SULU: That's right. Do you have a problem with that, Ensign?
TUVOK: I do. It is a direct violation of our orders from Starfleet Command, and it could precipitate an armed conflict between the Klingon Empire and the Federation.
SULU: Objection noted. Resume your station.
TUVOK: Sir, as a Starfleet officer, it is my duty to formally protest.
RAND: Tuvok!
SULU: A pretty bold statement for an Ensign with only two months space duty under his belt.
TUVOK: I am aware of my limited experience, but I am also very much aware of Starfleet regulations and my obligation to carry them out.
RAND: That's enough. Ensign, you're relieved. I'm sorry about this, Captain. I assure you it will not happen again.
SULU: Ensign, you're absolutely right. But you're also absolutely wrong. You'll find that more happens on the bridge of a starship than just carrying out orders and observing regulations. There is a sense of loyalty to the men and women you serve with. A sense of family. Those two men on trial, I served with them for a long time. I owe them my life a dozen times over, and right now they're in trouble, and I'm going to help them. Let the regulations be damned.
TUVOK: Sir, that is a most illogical line of reasoning.
SULU: You better believe it. Helm, engage.

In "Dear Doctor", Phlox was ready to withhold his treatment to save a species from extinction

PHLOX: If the Menk are to flourish, they need an opportunity to survive on their own.
ARCHER: Well, what are you suggesting? We choose one species over the other?
PHLOX: All I'm saying is that we let nature make the choice.
ARCHER: The hell with nature. You're a doctor. You have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering.
PHLOX: I'm also a scientist, and I'm obligated to consider the larger issues. Thirty five thousand years ago, your species co-existed with other humanoids. Isn't that correct?
ARCHER: Go ahead.
PHLOX: What if an alien race had interfered and given the Neanderthals an evolutionary advantage? Fortunately for you, they didn't.
ARCHER: I appreciate your perspective on all of this, but we're talking about something that might happen. Might happen thousands of years from now. They've asked for our help. I am not prepared to walk away based on a theory.
PHLOX: Evolution is more than a theory. It is a fundamental scientific principle. Forgive me for saying so, but I believe your compassion for these people is affecting your judgment.
ARCHER: My compassion guides my judgment.
PHLOX: Captain.
ARCHER: Can you find a cure? Doctor?
PHLOX: I already have.

 

[BigDaveX]

In Star Trek Into Darkness. Kirk was demoted for doing the same thing that Picard did

Different circumstances. Picard was a seasoned and respected captain, whereas Kirk was shoved into the captain's chair straight out of the academy, likely as a publicity stunt of some kind. There's also the fact that Kirk tried to cover the incident up by submitting a false report, whereas Picard fully documented his violations of the Prime Directive, as per "The Drumhead" (not to mention the possibility that Admiral Marcus may have had some sinister motives for removing Kirk, since he was the one who made the call).

Yeah if all of your superiors are in on it, you'd think the subordinates are next up and responsible to protest.

Maybe, but it's hard to think about how you'd protest that an entire civilization should be allowed to die out just because the Starfleet rulebook says so without sounding like a colossal douchebag.

In "Dear Doctor", Phlox was ready to withhold his treatment to save a species from extinction

Firstly, the Prime Directive didn't exist until around 50 years after the events after that episode; that was just Phlox applying his personal beliefs to the situation, and Archer happening to agree with him, so it really doesn't really prove anything one way or the other when it comes to the Prime Directive.

Secondly, "Dear Doctor" really isn't the episode you want to be pointing to in this kind of debate.

 

[marsh8472]

Different circumstances. Picard was a seasoned and respected captain, whereas Kirk was shoved into the captain's chair straight out of the academy, likely as a publicity stunt of some kind. There's also the fact that Kirk tried to cover the incident up by submitting a false report, whereas Picard fully documented his violations of the Prime Directive, as per "The Drumhead" (not to mention the possibility that Admiral Marcus may have had some sinister motives for removing Kirk, since he was the one who made the call).

The people involved are different but saving a species from a planetary disaster is a violation of the prime directive. You'd think Picard wouldn't have done the same thing as what inexperienced Kirk did there, but he did.

PICARD: How about a war? If generations of conflict is killing millions, do we interfere? Ah, well, now we're all a little less secure in our moral certitude. And what if it's not just killings. If an oppressive government is enslaving millions? You see, the Prime Directive has many different functions, not the least of which is to protect us. To prevent us from allowing our emotions to overwhelm our judgement.

Maybe, but it's hard to think about how you'd protest that an entire civilization should be allowed to die out just because the Starfleet rulebook says so without sounding like a colossal douchebag.

sure but success isn't measured by how much of a non-douchebag you are right

Firstly, the Prime Directive didn't exist until around 50 years after the events after that episode; that was just Phlox applying his personal beliefs to the situation, and Archer happening to agree with him, so it really doesn't really prove anything one way or the other when it comes to the Prime Directive.

Secondly, "Dear Doctor" really isn't the episode you want to be pointing to in this kind of debate.

The spirit of the prime directive was there though, Archer mentions the need for the directive at the end of the episode because of what happened. Picard mentions this example here:

DATA: But Commander, the Dremans are not a subject for philosophical debate. They are a people.
PICARD: So we make an exception in the deaths of millions.
PULASKI: Yes.
PICARD: And is it the same situation if it's an epidemic, and not a geological calamity?
PULASKI: Absolutely.
PICARD: How about a war? If generations of conflict is killing millions, do we interfere?

Then Archer ended up agreeing with Phlox and not providing the cure.

The issue at hand is that this was supposed to be Wesley learning a taste of command. He learned about how to order a few people around, but that's about it. He wasn't involved in the group discussion they had to violate the prime directive. He just went along with violating it.

 

[BigDaveX]

The people involved are different but saving a species from a planetary disaster is a violation of the prime directive. You'd think Picard wouldn't have done the same thing as what inexperienced Kirk did there, but he did.

Actually, he didn't. Picard had a lengthy discussion with his senior staff about the situation, initially decided to let the planet be destroyed, but then changed his mind after hearing a direct plea for help from Sarjenka. It's harder to say what happened in STID because we open with their rescue attempt already in progress, but judging by the context of the sequence it seems like Kirk decided to rescue the planet in order to play the hero, rather than doing it because his help was specifically requested.

Plus, Kirk put the life of one of his officers in direct danger and then submitted a falsified report, which are things that Picard didn't do.

sure but success isn't measured by how much of a non-douchebag you are right

Depends how you define "success." If we're talking about career prospects for a junior officer, then I really don't think advocating genocide is the way to go about it, unless you think a Section 31 recruiter might be listening in.

The spirit of the prime directive was there though, Archer mentions the need for the directive at the end of the episode because of what happened. Picard mentions this example here:

Well, if we're talking quotes from other episodes, what about this discussion from Time and Again:

JANEWAY: Don't even think about it, Tom. The Prime Directive is clear. We cannot allow our presence to alter this planet's natural course of events.
PARIS: Even if the natural course of events is annihilation?
[...]
JANEWAY: You have no idea what the consequences might be once you involve yourself.
PARIS: The consequences would have to be better than mass destruction!

The issue at hand is that this was supposed to be Wesley learning a taste of command. He learned about how to order a few people around, but that's about it. He wasn't involved in the group discussion they had to violate the prime directive. He just went along with violating it.

As mentioned up-thread, Wesley needed a pep-talk from Riker just to get one of his subordinates to follow a simple order. Bearing that in mind, do you really think that Wesley would openly defy Picard's orders in order to ensure that an entire civilization got wiped out? Not to mention that Wesley had already told Picard what was causing the planets to blow themselves up by this point, so even if Wesley had objected, it would have achieved nothing; Picard would have just given the job to La Forge, who had wanted to save them from the start.

 

[marsh8472]

Actually, he didn't. Picard had a lengthy discussion with his senior staff about the situation, initially decided to let the planet be destroyed, but then changed his mind after hearing a direct plea for help from Sarjenka. It's harder to say what happened in STID because we open with their rescue attempt already in progress, but judging by the context of the sequence it seems like Kirk decided to rescue the planet in order to play the hero, rather than doing it because his help was specifically requested.

Plus, Kirk put the life of one of his officers in direct danger and then submitted a falsified report, which are things that Picard didn't do.

When I say they did the same thing. I mean Picard saved a planet from a geological disaster just like Kirk did. It is a violation of the prime directive. There's no disputing that part as far as I can see.

Depends how you define "success." If we're talking about career prospects for a junior officer, then I really don't think advocating genocide is the way to go about it, unless you think a Section 31 recruiter might be listening in.

I'd say in this context success means the most correct action to take as a Starfleet officer and uphold the oath that they take. If he were being graded by Starfleet.

How Picard describes violating it:

TNG "A Matter of Time"

PICARD: Of course, you know of the Prime Directive, which tells us that we have no right to interfere with the natural evolution of alien worlds. Now I have sworn to uphold it, but nevertheless I have disregarded that directive on more than one occasion because I thought it was the right thing to do.

JANEWAY: Don't even think about it, Tom. The Prime Directive is clear. We cannot allow our presence to alter this planet's natural course of events.
PARIS: Even if the natural course of events is annihilation?
[...]
JANEWAY: You have no idea what the consequences might be once you involve yourself.
PARIS: The consequences would have to be better than mass destruction!

That's Paris talking though. Academy dropout, member of the Maquis. It's a good example of how to not succeed in star fleet though if that's what you were intending with that example.

This fits the situation pretty nicely I'd say:

From episode "Prime Factors"

JANEWAY: It's the first time we've been on the other side of the fence.
PARIS: What fence?
JANEWAY: The one that's made of binding principles. We have our own set of rules, which includes the Prime Directive. How many times have we been in the position of refusing to interfere when some kind of disaster threatened an alien culture. It's all very well to say we do it on the basis of an enlightened principle, but how does that feel to the aliens? I'm sure many of them think the Prime Directive is a lousy idea.
PARIS: Even we think so sometimes.
CHAKOTAY: I know of many times when Starfleet personnel have decided on strong ethical grounds to ignore it.
KIM: Still, there's a reason why it's Starfleet's General order number one. On the whole, it does a lot more good than harm.

In TNG "Journey's End" Wesley refused to follow orders at the end because he was acting with his conscience and resigned from starfleet. Maybe the fault was his education like what he got in "Pen Pals".

As mentioned up-thread, Wesley needed a pep-talk from Riker just to get one of his subordinates to follow a simple order. Bearing that in mind, do you really think that Wesley would openly defy Picard's orders in order to ensure that an entire civilization got wiped out? Not to mention that Wesley had already told Picard what was causing the planets to blow themselves up by this point, so even if Wesley had objected, it would have achieved nothing; Picard would have just given the job to La Forge, who had wanted to save them from the start.

I don't think he would but I wonder if it would have been looked at more favorably by Starfleet had he done that rather than doing nothing and just going along with it. Wesley could have even tried to blow up the enterprise to stop Picard. I doubt Starfleet would have pressed charges against him for trying to uphold the prime directive.

Picard and Pressman had a conversation like this in TNG "The Pegasus". It probably depends on which side you agree with:

PICARD: As a matter of fact, I never met Will until he reported on board at Farpoint Station.
PRESSMAN: You chose your first officer without ever meeting him?
PICARD: I was looking through the records of about fifty candidates and Will's was much like all the others, filled with lots of dry statistics and glowing letters of recommendation that tell you nothing. I was about to put it aside and look at another file and then something caught my eye. There was an incident on Altair Three when Will was First Officer of the Hood. He refused to let Captain DeSoto beam down during a crisis. He disobeyed a direct order and he risked a general court martial because he thought he was right. When I read that, I knew that I had found my Number One.
PRESSMAN: You wanted someone with a history of disobedience?
PICARD: I wanted someone who would stand up to me. Someone who was more concerned with the safety of the ship and accomplishing the mission than with how something looked on his record. To me, that's one of the marks of a good officer.
PRESSMAN: Frankly, I've always felt it was more important for an officer to trust his captain's judgment. In a crisis, there's no time for explanations. Orders have to be obeyed without question or lives may be lost.
PICARD: I am aware of that, Admiral.

 

[Herbert]

@marsh8472, you're trying to apply the same standard and use examples across TV shows spanning decades, and a rebooted/reimagined franchise. Additionally, all of these series and movies were written and produced by scores of people who had very different ideas and motivations behind what they were trying to do. Attempting to tie this all together using examples from the entirety of 50+ years of Star Trek when there was no plan to keep everything consistent and expecting everything to make sense is madness, utter madness.

 

[Sakonna]

Not to long ago I listened to an interview with Wil Wheaton (maybe it was an extra on the Mission Log podcast? a pod I mostly hate, aside from their occasional good interview), and he was talking about how at some point he stumbled upon "Pen Pals" in reruns. He had zero recollection of the episode or Wesley's story in it, but watching it he had a Wesley-is-awesome epiphany in which he rediscovered his love of the character.

I probably haven't seen "Pen Pals" in 20 years. Guess it's due for a revisit...

 

[Mojochi]

I think Wes did fine running his first team. I think that Davies is a major douche. Who tells their team leader, to let them know if they're having trouble so they can take over? Douche move, putz.

 

[Tenacity]

A star captain's most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive.

Good God but that's stupid.

If you subscribe to the idea that the prime directive was violated in this episode, then Data (and by extension Picard) deserves the blame, not Wes.

Shit rolls down hill.

 

[Herbert]

Shit rolls down hill.

Actually, it just tends to sit there, steaming.

 

[at Quark's]

The question is though what it is exactly that the prime directives forbids. As it is stated in TOS:

"No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space or the fact that there are other worlds or civilizations."

I can distill two elements from that: disclosure and 'interference with social development'. I don't read that for example (not referencing Pen Pals here, just a hypothetical example) saving a pre-warp planet from a global naturally occuring disaster that no one on the surface could survive, in which the locals never got a clue aliens were involved, would be a violoation of the prime directive. Unless of course you'd interpret allowing continued existence as 'interference with social development'.

Of course it could always be that this is a very incomplete summarization of the prime directive, and/or that it was altered between Kirk's time and Picard's.

 

[Tenacity]

"No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space or the fact that there are other worlds or civilizations."

In the same episode, Spock asks Kirk if the prime directive is in full effect. Suggesting that there are times and situations where it isn't, and that it's up to the senior officer whether or not it is

Perhaps there are degrees between full effect and nothing at all, shades of prime directive grey.

in which the locals never got a clue aliens were involved

If a species were facing complete destruction (as opposed to "just" a region), would certain knowledge that salvation came from aliens be a criteria for cancellation of said salvation?

Or would there be a policy built into the prime directive that it's better some of the planet's cultures (all would be unlikely) are wreaked, but they're alive, than meh just let them die?

Even if the knowledge did horrible things to some of the indigenous cultures, they would have eventual hundreds of millenniums to recover.

 

[at Quark's]

Or would there be a policy built into the prime directive that it's better some of the planet's cultures (all would unlikely) are wreaked, but they're alive, than meh just let them die?

Doesn't seem that way. In the beginning of Homeward, Picard makes it very clear that the Prime Directive implies that he cannot save (some of) them , even though he had the power to do so (as Nikolai proves when he forces Picard's hand). Weird thing though is that at the end of the episode, we have this snippet:

CRUSHER: Are you saying you're sorry we saved the Boraalans?
PICARD: No, of course not. Our plan for them worked out well. But I wish that Vorin could have bridged the gap between our two cultures. I would have liked the chance to have known him better.

Almost sounds like Picard very much wanted to save those few Boraalans he could , but simply wasn't allowed to, and was happy when someone else broke the Prime Directive for him.

 

[Tenacity]

Rozhenko took the responsibility out of Picard's hands, sometimes that can be a comfortable sensation.

One of my favorite scenes in all of TNG comes from Penpals, in a discussion in Picard's quarters the senior officers are talking about the prime directive, it's revealed that none of them agree with each other on what it means. They're across the board, from Worf's absolute no interpretation, through to Pulaski's essential dismissal of the concept.

From that scene, I believe Riker would have rescued as many people from Boraal as he had the capacity. Pulaski definitely would have, regardless of any subsequent penalties she would have had to of experienced.

Worf would have permitted everyone on the planet to suffocate.

 

[Herbert]

And then there is the exchange between the ferengi, Riker, and the Portal in The Last Outpost where Riker admits that the Federation has allowed civilizations to fail in the past.
The Prime Directive, and its interpretations, throughout all the series is quite interesting and quite frequently a slippery slope