What's in a Name? Dagger of the Mind & Mirror, Mirror
- Thread starter Captain Tracy
- Start date
My theory of Dr. Adams is that he was perfectly content to be dictator on Tantalus. Small pond, but he was the absolute boss and would obviously have sexual access to the inmates he controlled. Not a bad little fiefdom.
When Kirk came along and was clearly on track to ruin everything (and if not Kirk, then the Enterprise officers coming after him), Adams did what cornered narcissists do: he sought revenge on his way out. "If you are taking everything from me, I am going to take everything from you." He tortured Kirk knowing perfectly well it was a dead end for him. He just had to punish the guy who wrecked his little paradise.
When Kirk came along and was clearly on track to ruin everything (and if not Kirk, then the Enterprise officers coming after him), Adams did what cornered narcissists do: he sought revenge on his way out. "If you are taking everything from me, I am going to take everything from you." He tortured Kirk knowing perfectly well it was a dead end for him. He just had to punish the guy who wrecked his little paradise.
On the contrary - I think it's very highly-regarded around these parts and in general by the series' fans. The Helen Noel character and many other aspects of the episode are almost universally praised, I would say.
As for Adams' motivations, I always found them suspect and not easily explained by whatever mental issues we're supposed to conclude he suffered from. He clearly planned to kill Van Gelder, or hold him indefinitely, and maybe he thought he could get away with it. But attacking a high-ranking member of the Federation's military just doesn't track. He would never be allowed to hold Kirk at the colony, and Kirk's disappearance or death would result in a full-blown investigation that he could never contain.
Perhaps he intended to brainwash Kirk to forget what happened on Tantalus and send him back to the ship?
Perhaps.
Just some of the problems which would complicate that plan might be:
a) If we assume Van Gelder was subject to the most time of anyone to 'being in the chair'; and yet, Van Gelder could not be made to 'forget' and 'not tell';
And,
b) Dr. Adams would have much less time to subject both Captain Kirk and Dr. Helen Noel to 'being in the chair', before suspicions of their extended absence would eventually begin to stir, or, standing and/or incoming orders from Star Fleet would demand Kirk and Noel resurface;
And yet,
Kirk and Noel's conditioning to 'forget' and 'not tell' would be no more guaranteed than Van Gelder's was.
The way I see it, while Adams may enjoy torturing Kirk in the chair, he will have no choice but to eventually kill Kirk and Noel; and then, try to explain their deaths as accidental - as I don't see how he can possibly allow either one to return to the ship and risk possible exposure.
Unfortunately, I am forced to share in your theory; disturbing as it is.
I say: unfortunately, because of the dark and creepy nature of the implications which can reasonably be drawn as to what personal benefit someone with Dr. Adams credentials and peer-recognition could possibly be enjoying by covertly controlling a population of psychotics under his own will; and, in complete isolation and secrecy.
Unlike an episode of CSI: Special Victims Unit of today, Television Broadcast Standards of the mid-60s prime-time would never allow the suggestion, even the intimation of, such a character motivation and situation.
And, perhaps that is exactly why, unlike the case of Dr. Roger Korby, the end-goal of Dr. Adams' character is never clearly stated - nor, implied - anywhere in the story.
If so, this would ironically make Dr. Adams the most criminally and mentally ill person at the asylum.
Or, perhaps that might have been the point Shimon Wincelberg - S. Bar David - was actually telling; but, not allowed to tell - in full.
Perhaps.
Last edited:
Yup. It was already clear that the device didn't work on Van Gelder, so Adams couldn't assume it would work on two Starfleet officers. (Plus, as an interesting corollary, Adams never explicitly asked Kirk for Van Gelder to be returned - another loose end.)
So Adams must have been assuming that he could kill two Starfleet officers, get away with it, AND get Van Gelder back.
I know that S1 episodes had far less of an integrated, sweeping version of Federation and Starfleet than either S2 or S3, but even in the somewhat looser, frontier-like atmosphere of S1, I don't think Adams engineers all that without triggering a full investigation, and one by a force much larger than two, and thus harder for him to neutralize.
The more I think about it, the more I think Adams should have let Van Gelder go if he wanted to keep his whole production going. Kirk wasn't even disposed to investigate until maneuvered into it by McCoy.
Agreed; though Dr. Adams does try some reverse psychology as a ruse to get Van Gelder back - though McCoy immediately sees right through it - when he asks Kirk if the Enterprise will be passing-by a superior facility to that of Dr. Adams on Tantalus V while en-route to their next duty; so that Van Gelder can get "the best possible care." - How fitting that a Shrink should employ reverse-psychology as a tool in their crimes.
Absolutely agreed.
I guess what you point to also serves the old adage that all criminals eventually make a mistake; and often, in underestimating the full capacities of - and impending fall-out brought on by - those they have wronged.
Yes, and I really liked how you describe the "somewhat looser, frontier-like atmosphere of S1" - my personal favorite feel for Star Trek stories.
Agreed.
Perhaps it is Dr. Adam's hubris which directly leads him to this mistake in tactics - which backfires - thanks to Dr. McCoy - and, indirectly triggers the investigation of the activities Adam's was trying to keep covered up.
Right on. I think what the writer was going for here is that Adams had enough sanity and rationality to seem competent and normal on the surface - particularly given his environment - but when unraveled, his long-term plans don't really make much sense. And that's not a failure of writing: it's a failure inherent to Adams.
Thanks! Yeah, that atmosphere - which I would say ends somewhere around "A Taste of Armageddon" - is definitely a huge point in early S1's favor. (As I've said before, "A Taste of Armageddon" is close to when the very long-by-today's-standards S1 starts to morph into S2.) "Conscience of the King" features it very well too. I am not a huge S1 adherent - not early S1 anyway - because Scotty, my favorite character, was not yet a regular and there are too many episodes without him, and because the Enterprise is not fully fleshed out yet, nor are the characters. However, Kirk and Shatner are absolutely outstanding in almost every moment of S1, and there's none of that heh-heh-heh of S2 (which, regardless of that flaw, is my favorite) that TPTB felt they had to incorporate.
Last edited:
Absolutely agreed : "Not a failure of writing.". In fact everything you point-to serves to define and justify the Adam's anti-villain character even further - complete with inherent flaws in morals, ethics, and the long-term logistical planning of crimes. Furthermore, my opinion is that any 'perceived holes' in this story or proper characterization and motivation which exist in the on-screen telling, were purely due to the total story "not meeting Broadcast Standards." - the real villain - and, as you point-out: Not the writer.
I feel like I can do nothing but agree with you. LOL!
S1 is the feel I appreciate the most, with it's Twilight Zone-esque eerie "mystery of the unknown strangeness of it all" atmosphere; and, as you described so perfectly: [sic] "the looser, more frontier feel" - which serve each other in heightening the vast and isolating environment of unknown deep-space for these explorers.
That, with the - as someone else on here phrased so well: "the harder, grittier, Naval feel"; being, something I missed when it was gone.
And yes; a more developed and integrated Scotty - which we eventually, and thankfully, received - would have just made S1 even more enjoyable for me; and that of the whole series, had the atmosphere and qualities of S1 been retained through-out the run of the series.
But, these are just my personal opinions and preferences; and, I've no doubt everyone has their personal favorite feel with which to experience these amazing stories.
Meh, I'll step in as the contrarian for now.
Marianna Hill is gorgeous, but her character is awful. I actually am not a fan as she's easily the most unprofessional female "scientist" to accompany Kirk anywhere Okay, Janet Wallace was pretty drippy but she was at least a civilian. Helen spends most of her time dropping innuendo and flirty comments and has to be prodded into doing her damned job. Bones is even in on it somehow and the playful music before we even know what's going on is a weird choice to hang a commercial break on. She only really makes a positive character impact on me in the climax. That's when I like her. Her character name is just as obvious she is. "Tantalus" and "Lethe" do at least require a modicum of intelligence and literary acumen to connect, but "Helen Noel at the Christmas party" was laughable when I was kid. Had they pronounced it "Nole" or even named her "Helen Leon" that would have been at least a modest effort at misdirection.
James Gregory is too smarmy for me.
However, Morgan Woodward is amazing, Spock's first (yet unnamed) mid-meld is winderful and there's this one unique shot of the Enterprise (lost with TOS-R) as it approaches Tantalus V that looks like an outtake from "Where No Man Has Gone Before." It stands out as being really primitive but back then they used any shot they could get their hands on.
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x09/daggerofthemind087.jpg
The lighting is great and the opening sequence of Van Gelder's rampage is very brutal "early Trek." There are a lot of good things in this episode, but aside from set dressing, Helen is not one of the high points for me. Everyone else's mileage obviously varies.
Would you mind posting a link to that reference or paraphrasing for us the dialog contained in the cut scene?
I have absolutely have no knowledge of the content of the dialog which you are citing; but nonetheless, my first question regarding the cut dialog would be:
"Is this dialog which reveals to the viewer the legitimate motivation of the anti-villain which the writer has imbued into the Adam's character; or, is this dialog which the Adam's character states to serve as a plausible misdirection in order to cover-up his true and hidden motivations from the Kirk character?"
Thanks, in advance for whichever form of specificity you can provide.
Not much I can't completely agree with regarding your opinions in the ...snipped... sections of your post; with exception of the above.
Would you find James Gregory less "smarmy" when viewed in light of the definition of the specific antagonist-type he portrayed, being that of the anti-villain; who by definition: portray themselves as altruistic while secretly motivated by, and working towards a villainous goal. This is not to claim that all altruists and anti-villains must come across as "smarmy"; but, does that light help you view the James Gregory's character portrayal differently?
Do you also feel the same "too smarmy" in the portrayal of the Roger C. Carmel Harry Mudd, and/or, Stanley Adams Cyrano Jones characters?
And, most importantly, this:
Would you feel the casting of the actor, Stanley Adams, in the role of: Dr. Tristan Adams, to be "purposefully and excessively corny"?
Last edited:
Roger C. is always too smarmy, but a least in Mudd's Women he's also vaguely sinister. Stanley Adam s is fine, he's just kind of a buffoon.
My opinion of Helen Noel is very much in the minority. The actress is extremely appealing, but I can't say the same for the character.
My opinion of Helen Noel is very much in the minority. The actress is extremely appealing, but I can't say the same for the character.
Yes, I should have mentioned you guys. Thanks for the reminder. I didn't really find that satisfying either. You just have to figure he wasn't thinking things through down the road.
Keeping in mind that depending on his mental illness he may not be focusing fully ahead, I would imagine that he would attempt to sell his device as being a "miracle cure" for improving mental focus, agility and memory. Basically becoming a salesman that would allow him to take it off of Tantalus to demonstrate the superiority of his invention.
Maybe. We don't know. Since in the Federation rehabilitation is the goal then Adams might have further reach than initially suspected. Again, multiple colonies who need his help. So he branches out, "helps" more people, expands his influence, gains fame and notoriety. Don't mistake "power and control" as merely political ambition. Control over people, any person, can be just as satisfying as political capital.
I can certainly agree with that. Although as unprofessional as she is at times, she does rise to the occasion when she needs to crawl through the ventilation system and find the power supply, and doesn't shy away from killing in the line of duty (none of which was in her job description).
And yes, Roger Carmel did tend to specialize in "smarmy" characters. I'm thinking of his Banacek appearance.
So she crawled through the space chimney like Santa Claus?
The analogy continues...
<Chico Marx>You can't fool me! There ain't no sanity clause!</Chico Marx>So she crawled through the space chimney like Santa Claus?
Perhaps Adams was just a stone cold sociopath.Difficult to say the least, as I believe that any mental health professional of his ‘rank’ would be required to be counselled themselves by a peer.Difficult but not impossible for an individual as brilliant as Adams undoubtedly was.A true sociopath might conceivably seek out a position of power over an already marginalised group coupled with the thrill of ‘hiding his true nature in plain sight.
As to his motivations...well who knows.Perhaps exposure to the unfortunate inmates unhinged him and allowed his darkest desires loose.Maybe there was no grand plan.
As to his motivations...well who knows.Perhaps exposure to the unfortunate inmates unhinged him and allowed his darkest desires loose.Maybe there was no grand plan.
And yet it's a common enough trope to have a page on TVTropes.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PsychoPsychologist
And guess who's the penultimate listing under "Live Action TV"?
