RIP Harlan Ellison (1934-2018)

[Kirk Prime]

At one moment Spock informs Kirk that "There's no mistake, Captain" after tracing a complicated and unlikely chain of events over a period of years connecting Keeler's foundation of a domestic peace movement (there was one in this country during the late 30s, you know that?) and the German development of the atomic bomb, all on the apparent basis of newspaper clippings and newsreels sorted through on his jerryrigged tricorder...

...and just two scenes later, Spock tells Kirk that "We're not that sure of our facts. Who's to say when the exact time will come? " with regard to the manner and time of Keeler's death, despite having read her obituary, describing the time and manner of her death, as part of his research.

In fairness, Spock only saw that newspaper for like 3 seconds before his equipment conked out. I agree there are some issues there. Or maybe Spock was just gently reminding Kirk that Edith had to die.

Of course, even their presence in that time has SOME effect on the timeline. Consider the death of "Rodent", or even the possibility that the absence of the stolen clothes or the radio tubes Spock bought (therefore denying their purchase by the person who bought them the "first" time) may have a profound effect on the progress of the war. Luckily it didn't.

This is very true. They got lucky. Or you could argue that their presence in 1930, post McCoy, was a predestination paradox. They had to be there to ensure the timeline. So the death of that homeless guy didn't change history--it WAS history because Kirk and Spock were always there, to make sure that truck did its job.

Basically, in the original timeline, Kirk and Spock WERE there, and had McCoy not saved Edith, Kirk and Spock wouldn't have gone back, and history would have taken an even different turn.

 

[RJDiogenes]

It was the hardest thing he had to do, but it was the only choice. It doesn't take a hero to do the right thing--it takes a human. And yes, the point of the story is that Kirk would do the right thing no matter how much it hurt him. Selflessness is not heroism--not always. You find a wallet in the street full of money. You return it. You're not a hero. But you did the right thing.

It's all about context. Returning the wallet is the right thing, but returning the wallet when it's full of the money you need for your mother's life-saving operation is heroic. Kirk could have saved Keeler and lived out his life with her-- the consequences of his actions were far in the future and likely would not have affected him at all.

This wasn't a story about heroism. McCoy, someone under Kirk's command, caused the end of the world. It was an accident, but it happened. Kirk fixed the problem. It was his duty, and his only choice.

It was his duty, but not his only choice. Plenty of people choose to do the wrong or selfish thing. Plenty of people choose to ignore their duty when it's convenient for them. This story defined Kirk as a hero because he chose to do the right thing in the face of both the ultimate temptation and the ultimate consequence.

 

[Kirk Prime]

It's all about context. Returning the wallet is the right thing, but returning the wallet when it's full of the money you need for your mother's life-saving operation is heroic. Kirk could have saved Keeler and lived out his life with her-- the consequences of his actions were far in the future and likely would not have affected him at all.

The consequences were not that far in the future. The year was 1930. The beginning of WWII was only 9 years away. If there was one thing we learned, it was that there are people who would affect the world in such ways, that altering their destiny would alter the world. Edith unfortunately, was one of these people.

Had Edith lived and WWII on the US side was delayed, and the Nazis got nukes, odds are, Kirk and Edith don't live out their lives. They end up dealing with radioactive fall out of a nuked NYC.

Regarding the wallet example, of course the idea that someone would have enough cash to pay for an operation is kind of silly, but of course that's not your point. In Kirk's case, we aren't talking a life here and there. We are talking letting the Nazis take over the world.

Think about the evils they did in such a short time. They didn't just killed six million Jews, which they did. They caused the deaths of somewhere between 55 and 80 million people. Now imagine if the war continued. How many more? How many people would have had to die in the United States to make FDR or Truman actually surrender?

What would have been the consequences to the world had that happened?

To allow that to happen when you can knowingly stop it is as inhuman as it gets.

I didn't say it was easy. But Captain Kirk, who represented the best of humanity, HAD to make this choice. Ellison had a great story, but it would have been very much out of character for Kirk to ignore the consequences.

Other people maybe, but not James T. Kirk.

This was a Kobayshi Maru that Kirk couldn't cheat. It was a true no win scenario, and Kirk made the only choice possible.

It was his duty, but not his only choice. Plenty of people choose to do the wrong or selfish thing. Plenty of people choose to ignore their duty when it's convenient for them. This story defined Kirk as a hero because he chose to do the right thing in the face of both the ultimate temptation and the ultimate consequence.

Kirk is the epitome of humanity at its finest--something Star Trek sought to show its audience. Someone who represents the best of our species only had one choice.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Kirk is the epitome of humanity at its finest--something Star Trek sought to show its audience. Someone who represents the best of our species only had one choice.

Yes, Kirk is the epitome of humanity and the purpose of this story was to demonstrate that. But the reason that he is the epitome of humanity is that he did have a choice and he made the right one, and at great personal cost.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Yes, Kirk is the epitome of humanity and the purpose of this story was to demonstrate that. But the reason that he is the epitome of humanity is that he did have a choice and he made the right one, and at great personal cost.

Exactly. Had he made the choice that Ellison wanted, he would hardly be representing humanity at its finest. He would be humanity at its worst -- someone willing to let the world be essentially destroyed, willing to wipe out millions of lives for his own selfish pursuits. That's not James T. Kirk. So GR was right to change that ending.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ I definitely agree with that.

 

[Noname Given]

It's all put-up bullshit designed to make the audience accept the "inevitabilty" of a preposterous turn of events.

The Roddenberry version can't even keep its manipulative logic straight from scene to scene.

At one moment Spock informs Kirk that "There's no mistake, Captain" after tracing a complicated and unlikely chain of events over a period of years connecting Keeler's foundation of a domestic peace movement (there was one in this country during the late 30s, you know that?) and the German development of the atomic bomb, all on the apparent basis of newspaper clippings and newsreels sorted through on his jerryrigged tricorder...

...and just two scenes later, Spock tells Kirk that "We're not that sure of our facts. Who's to say when the exact time will come? " with regard to the manner and time of Keeler's death, despite having read her obituary, describing the time and manner of her death, as part of his research.

If you want to be brutally honest:
If the whole 'history of what Edith Keeler will do' is a part of Ellison's original script, IT'S BAD WRITING/READING OF HISTORY on his part because unless he's say that Edith Keeler's discussions with FDR kept him (and the U.S.) from declaring/entering WWII the day of the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor; sorry, no, I don't think so.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

The Japanese attacked the sleeping giant because they feared it would wake up. Remove that fear and they probably would not attack. Edith's influence might ease the fear.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

What you're arguing here is that humans would not do the right thing. I don't believe that to be true. If there is one thing Star Trek was about, it was about humanity at its finest. While yes, there is a balance between the selfish nature and the common good, in the case of Edith Keeler, there was no choice. She had to die.

Solid observation.

Knowing which side of that argument is right is something a human would have to decide, and as the representation of humanity at its finest, Kirk's judgement would always be perfect. Not that perfection is human, but when it counts, Kirk ALWAYS did the right thing.

...making him the best character in Star Trek franchise history. He had to lead with a blend of his deep, often troubled soul and his mind, even when decisions were against his personal interests--something so many ST characters lacked, as they leaned toward rigid thinking in terms of command, or in other types, were idealized to the point of seeming stagnant and finger-waving (Picard).

In the case of Edith Keeler though, Kirk's personal desires could not measure to the millions of men, women, and children that would die or cease to exist because of his selfishness. Kirk would have had to be a monster to let that happen. It would be borderline insanity, and while love can make you do things you weren't capable of before, it would be as inhuman as possible for Kirk to make the wrong decision.

... and as a result, Kirk would lose his purpose as the heroic lead of a weekly TV series who succeeds, even at great personal cost. any other choice for the character (e.g. Ellison's) shines a light on incredibly out of touch, if not too focused on painting unnecessary negatives someone was despite the established character traits and purpose of the series lead, which were challenged, but never going to some out-of-nowhere extreme..

I'll give a perfect comparison--Janeway. In Endgame, this woman made the most selfish decision possible, altering a timeline because she didn't like things. Millions of lives altered and changed because of her selfishness. Janeway IS the biggest villain in Star Trek history, and the writers didn't even understand that.

Biggest villain, or just a poor character.

Yes, but none of these humans were Captain Kirk, who represents humanity at its best. The idea of condemning so many millions to die would make Kirk more of a monster than the Nazis themselves. It was a bad call on Ellison's part, and GR rightfully changed that. That would have been very out of character for Kirk.

...and Roddenberry had a boatload of flaws as a creator and person, but his decision here undoubtedly helped turn that episode into an instant classic. Ellison did not--apparently--have any sense of what he was dealing with in the format of characters and situations on Star Trek, considering what he was attempting.

Yes--no doubt. The idea that Edith had to die to save the universe was tremendous writing. The moral dilemma Kirk had to face was worthy of all the praise and discussion. The issue was that Ellison wanted Kirk to make the wrong decision, which would have been very contrary to the character. To make the RIGHT decision in light of all he felt took a level of strength that was worthy of Kirk.

True.

It would introduce time travel for selfish purposes and another moral dilemma. If Kirk can go back and grab Edith, why can't every death be prevented with time travel? Every red shirt that died under Kirk's command could be prevented with time travel.

If the Edith experience taught the Federation one thing--time travel is too dangerous and changing history has unintended consequences.

Its also part of an immature form of writing that has entered the discipline over the past couple of decades where time travel is the answer to everything, consequences be damned. One of its most up-front examples being the "what the Hell?" attitude toward altering time for personal gain in the all-over-the-place Back to the Future movies, where key events are just changed (Doc's original death, changing George McFly into a guy who grew a pair overnight, etc.) or attempts are made to alter said events (Marty's letter, etc.), right up to the ridiculous film Project Almanac. No set rule has to be followed in time travel fiction, but its better examples (on film) usually had someone painfully aware of their responsibility to / involvement in the fabric of time to the point where that was not only part of the crisis they faced, but shaped their character, or highlighted something about it at the critical point(s).

 

[Jan]

If you weren't able to attend the celebration of Harlan Ellison at SDCC last week, I audio recorded it and you can listen here. It's obviously from amplified voices in a large room but I think most of it is understandable.
https://soundcloud.com/janmschroeder

 

[Mr. Adventure]

"Let me help. A hundred years or so from now, I believe, a famous novelist will write a classic using that theme. He'll recommend those three words even over I love you."

I've pondered on this more and more as they years go on...

 

[Mudd]

He would be humanity at its worst.

Wrong again. He'd be humanity as, you know, human.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Kirk giving in to try and save Edith would have been heartrending far above what was done. He would have been selfish and grand with all those fine sentiments Trek now drowns in forgotten- at the time unknown- in the simple touch that exists between one human and another. Humans are fallible, and magnificent, and petty, and they survive to hope something can be better in spite of all that says in all rationality we won't. That was Harlan's legacy in his writing.

 

[Mudd]

Whedon as producer would have let him save her.

And then while Kirk and Spock were arguing, a bus would have hit her.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Humanity at its finest would not have a hero choose to condemn the lives of billions for selfishness. That's not human. That's a monster. Kirk would have been Hitler's accomplice. He would have brought down the United States, the Federation, and every ounce of good, while causing suffering to the entire world. Gas chambers, nuclear war. For all we know, the Germans winning WWII would have ended the human race.

This is a no brainer. You don't even have to be the finest example of a human to do what Kirk did.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Wow, that needs some high fiber cereal to insure optimum colon cleansing.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Or you could argue that their presence in 1930, post McCoy, was a predestination paradox. They had to be there to ensure the timeline. So the death of that homeless guy didn't change history--it WAS history because Kirk and Spock were always there, to make sure that truck did its job.

That's always been my take on the situation. (Same goes for ST:FC.)

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I saw Mr. Ellison at science-fiction convention in San Francisco sometime back in the '80s. I was in my early teens and when his appearance was over I was left feeling that he was kind of a jerk. Over the years he only seemed to be newsworthy when he was feuding with someone or otherwise behaving badly. I would note that seeing him at the convention did cause me to buy one of his books (Approaching Oblivion - don't know if that was a good or bad choice as it was the only book of his the store in San Jose had at the time). I thought it was okay. Somewhat dark (something I was unaccustomed to at that age). As time went on my impression of him grew more sour until, finally, I rated him an "A-hole." I never knew HIM though, just his persona. He was a tremendous talent to be sure, and talent of his caliber will always be missed. It will be interesting to see what kind of legacy develops.

 

[Mudd]

Well, no one reads old sf books any more. Except Heinlein and Tolkein, gods help us.

Ellison certainly didn't suffer fools, though he himself could occasionally pass.

 

[Kirk Prime]

That's always been my take on the situation. (Same goes for ST:FC.)

The simple test is what happens when you return to your century? If nothing changes, you were part of the original timeline. If something is different, you messed it up.

Abrams has a different view of time travel, but it goes against everything every Star Trek before Abrams established. So it's hard to really accept Abrams' views in the Star Trek world.