Spoilers TP: Raise the Dawn by DRGIII Review Thread

[Sci]

Picard brought Troi on diplomatic missions all the time for these purposes all the time. The FBI analogy overstates Troi's invasiveness. Picard is a great people reader, but Troi, empathic abilities aside, is, as you said, a trained people reader, and is theoretically an expert in that field. I'm just surprised that Picard never had such an expert (obviously with a more opaque title) sit in a meeting with the Romulans. I know Hegol Den is not cleared for command decisions, but I believe he would have the training.

I'm not sure what you think they would have caught. "The Romulan commander is tense and is hiding something." Well, duh. They're from mutually suspicious cold war antagonists -- both sides are hiding something.

On a completely unrelated note: who is stationed where on the Enterprise's bridge?

I have:
Big Chair: Picard
Riker's old chair: Worf
Troi's old chair: ???

For the duration of this mission, Spock, as Federation liaison to the I.R.W. Eletrix, was sitting in Troi's old chair.

Ops: Glinn Dygan (loved that!!)
Conn: is it still Faur?
Tactical: Choudhury

Do Elfiki, Hegol or Chen have particular stations on the bridge? And is there an established Engineering station on the E-E's bridge, like there was on the D?

Elfiki sits at a science station on the bridge. Hegol, so far as I can recall, is not a bridge officer. Chen usually mans the conn.

 

[Paper Moon]

Picard brought Troi on diplomatic missions all the time for these purposes all the time. The FBI analogy overstates Troi's invasiveness. Picard is a great people reader, but Troi, empathic abilities aside, is, as you said, a trained people reader, and is theoretically an expert in that field. I'm just surprised that Picard never had such an expert (obviously with a more opaque title) sit in a meeting with the Romulans. I know Hegol Den is not cleared for command decisions, but I believe he would have the training.

I'm not sure what you think they would have caught. "The Romulan commander is tense and is hiding something." Well, duh. They're from mutually suspicious cold war antagonists -- both sides are hiding something.

True, but they might have caught that T'Jul and Tomalak were lying about different things. Though I suppose that wouldn't have ended up changing much... I concede the practicality of the point, but I'm still surprised that Picard didn't try to use all the resources at his disposal.

On a completely unrelated note: who is stationed where on the Enterprise's bridge?

I have:
Big Chair: Picard
Riker's old chair: Worf
Troi's old chair: ???

For the duration of this mission, Spock, as Federation liaison to the I.R.W. Eletrix, was sitting in Troi's old chair.

Do we know who sat in Troi's place before PoN?

Ops: Glinn Dygan (loved that!!)
Conn: is it still Faur?
Tactical: Choudhury

Do Elfiki, Hegol or Chen have particular stations on the bridge? And is there an established Engineering station on the E-E's bridge, like there was on the D?

Elfiki sits at a science station on the bridge. Hegol, so far as I can recall, is not a bridge officer. Chen usually mans the conn.

Where did Chen sit before she manned the conn (ie. in Destiny,ASD and PoD? I'm rereading Greater Than The Sum, and it seems like Christopher implies that she will be sitting in Deanna's seat, fulfilling Troi's bridge officer role as de facto contact specialist.

 

[Christopher]

Ehn... emotionally compromised or not, Spock should have just locked him in the brig. Kirk was unconscious when he was ejected in a dinky pod that flew into a planet's atmosphere and crash landed. Spock must have been spectacularly emotionally compromised to do something so dangerous; it makes a little bit more sense to theorize that Spock is prone to occasional bouts of draconian logic during crises, and that he concluded that Kirk posed an extraordinary risk to the mission. That gives his actions a bit more nuance, and makes it more believable than Spock just going berserk.

I didn't say he went berserk. I said that one can't assume that his judgment as an officer in his late 20s after having seen his homeworld and his mother die in front of him cannot be taken as predictive of his judgment as a far more experienced officer in his early 60s upon being betrayed by his protegee. The situations are so radically dissimilar that it's facile to treat them as analogous. Even aside from all the rest, I'd say that just in general it's a bad idea to assume that someone's behavior in their 20s is a good model for projecting their behavior in their 60s.

I don't think Spock's actions in STVI were out of character. A different aspect of his character than we've seen much before, but he definitely serves the greater good, and definitely places a premium value on loyalty. To Pike ("The Menagerie"), to Kirk. I don't think anyone has ever betrayed Spock as much as Valeris did, and I think that his willingness, however hesitant, to meld with her, may have been tainted by anger from that betrayal.

I guess it depends on whether you perceive forced mental invasion as analogous to rape. A number of Trek novelists over the decades have written tales which asserted that Vulcans and telepaths in general considered it a shocking breach of ethics to force oneself into someone's mind. The TNG episode "Violations" was built around that very premise, that mental invasion equals rape and is a heinous taboo in a telepathic society. I've seen the same idea used in other science fiction beyond ST. And there was a definite sexual subtext to the Spock/Valeris relationship and to that scene in particular -- to the point that I once read a story about some boor in the audience at a showing of the film shouting something like "Yeah, do it to her!" as if cheering on a rape scene.

So if you take it that way, then hell yes, it was out of character. Being angry doesn't justify that, ever.

Also, for what it's worth, I thought Kirk's hatred of Klingons was believable in the film. David came along at a very emotionally tender moment in Kirk's life (mainly due to Spock's death), and I would not be surprised if he was yet more sensitive to David's death because of that. Combine that with a lifetime of adversarial interactions and 8 years of what was obviously festering grief over David, I can understand Kirk's not-so-evolved attitude towards the Klingons.

I think it's entirely out of character, because Kirk is not so stupid as to blame an entire race for the actions of specific individuals within it. He would hate Kruge for ordering David's death, he would hate the specific soldier (was it Torg?) who delivered the killing blow, maybe at most he would hate the Klingon military establishment or government for the policies that caused so much death and suffering. But he would not blame the rank-and-file populace or wish the entire species extinct because of the actions of its military, because he's not a complete and utter moron. We know from many episodes that he sees what a lie that kind of race hatred is, that he always strives for more understanding. This is the man who was furious at Kang's men for the violence inflicted on his crew, yet still was willing to reach out to Mara and try to build a bridge of trust. That's who he is, because he's intelligent and perceptive. He gets angry at the actions of individuals, not at their genes.

Where did Chen sit before she manned the conn (ie. in Destiny,ASD and PoD? I'm rereading Greater Than The Sum, and it seems like Christopher implies that she will be sitting in Deanna's seat, fulfilling Troi's bridge officer role as de facto contact specialist.

That's correct. I intended her to fill the role of Picard's advisor on contact and diplomatic situations, much as Deanna did.

 

[Paper Moon]

Ehn... emotionally compromised or not, Spock should have just locked him in the brig. Kirk was unconscious when he was ejected in a dinky pod that flew into a planet's atmosphere and crash landed. Spock must have been spectacularly emotionally compromised to do something so dangerous; it makes a little bit more sense to theorize that Spock is prone to occasional bouts of draconian logic during crises, and that he concluded that Kirk posed an extraordinary risk to the mission. That gives his actions a bit more nuance, and makes it more believable than Spock just going berserk.

I didn't say he went berserk. I said that one can't assume that his judgment as an officer in his late 20s after having seen his homeworld and his mother die in front of him cannot be taken as predictive of his judgment as a far more experienced officer in his early 60s upon being betrayed by his protegee. The situations are so radically dissimilar that it's facile to treat them as analogous. Even aside from all the rest, I'd say that just in general it's a bad idea to assume that someone's behavior in their 20s is a good model for projecting their behavior in their 60s.

Sorry, I never meant to suggest that you said that he went berserk. I was speaking to the more general point that Spock's actions in that situation were totally ridiculous, and that they are made somewhat more plausible by suggesting that Spock has a particular streak of ruthless logic within him (ie. he had it when he was 20, he had it when he was 60, he'll have it the day he dies).

I don't think Spock's actions in STVI were out of character. A different aspect of his character than we've seen much before, but he definitely serves the greater good, and definitely places a premium value on loyalty. To Pike ("The Menagerie"), to Kirk. I don't think anyone has ever betrayed Spock as much as Valeris did, and I think that his willingness, however hesitant, to meld with her, may have been tainted by anger from that betrayal.

I guess it depends on whether you perceive forced mental invasion as analogous to rape. A number of Trek novelists over the decades have written tales which asserted that Vulcans and telepaths in general considered it a shocking breach of ethics to force oneself into someone's mind. The TNG episode "Violations" was built around that very premise, that mental invasion equals rape and is a heinous taboo in a telepathic society. I've seen the same idea used in other science fiction beyond ST. And there was a definite sexual subtext to the Spock/Valeris relationship and to that scene in particular -- to the point that I once read a story about some boor in the audience at a showing of the film shouting something like "Yeah, do it to her!" as if cheering on a rape scene.

So if you take it that way, then hell yes, it was out of character. Being angry doesn't justify that, ever.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't think it was out of character, but I don't think it was an ethical thing to do, either. Notice that I never said it was justified, merely believable.

Personally, I've never really seen a sexual subtext to Spock/Valeris; a father-daughter dynamic, maybe (more so than Spock/Saavik), but beyond the scene in question, nothing sexual. I am curious: are there particular scenes/lines that you would cite supporting that?

I know I'm verging into sticky territory here, so let me just state the obvious: I do not believe that rape, torture or murder are ever morally justifiable.

Having said that: I think that the moral calculus for what Spock did is complicated by the fact that it was done in order to obtain critical pieces of information regarding an impending attack that, if not stopped, would trigger a war that would kill billions. Rape, as we use the word, can never be used for such ultimately well-intentioned purposes.

For comparison, Garak's killing of Grathon Tolar to keep the secret of the Vreenak Affair from escaping: obviously it was immoral, but is it immoral in the same ways that the murders Joran Dax committed were immoral?

Moral people can do immoral things for moral reasons, and I think that was what Spock was doing. And I find that believable. Not admirable, but believable.

Also, for what it's worth, I thought Kirk's hatred of Klingons was believable in the film. David came along at a very emotionally tender moment in Kirk's life (mainly due to Spock's death), and I would not be surprised if he was yet more sensitive to David's death because of that. Combine that with a lifetime of adversarial interactions and 8 years of what was obviously festering grief over David, I can understand Kirk's not-so-evolved attitude towards the Klingons.

I think it's entirely out of character, because Kirk is not so stupid as to blame an entire race for the actions of specific individuals within it. He would hate Kruge for ordering David's death, he would hate the specific soldier (was it Torg?) who delivered the killing blow, maybe at most he would hate the Klingon military establishment or government for the policies that caused so much death and suffering. But he would not blame the rank-and-file populace or wish the entire species extinct because of the actions of its military, because he's not a complete and utter moron. We know from many episodes that he sees what a lie that kind of race hatred is, that he always strives for more understanding. This is the man who was furious at Kang's men for the violence inflicted on his crew, yet still was willing to reach out to Mara and try to build a bridge of trust. That's who he is, because he's intelligent and perceptive. He gets angry at the actions of individuals, not at their genes.

I believe Dillard touched on this indirectly, but I think Kirk believed that all Klingons were part of that conservative, warmongering military establishment. (The novel establishes that Azetbur and Gorkon were not part of the military caste.) And how many Klingons would Kirk, indeed, any Federate, have met who were not warriors? Again, not saying that it was justified, but people do engage in logical fallacies, particularly when they are clouded by grief, and particularly when they have decades of experience being removed from the objects of their prejudices, with no one-on-one interactions to force them to confront their prejudices (à la Mara).

Where did Chen sit before she manned the conn (ie. in Destiny,ASD and PoD? I'm rereading Greater Than The Sum, and it seems like Christopher implies that she will be sitting in Deanna's seat, fulfilling Troi's bridge officer role as de facto contact specialist.

That's correct. I intended her to fill the role of Picard's advisor on contact and diplomatic situations, much as Deanna did.

Heh, I was afraid you were going to say that. I really like the character of T'Ryssa, but the thought of her sitting at Picard's left hand... hmm, rubs me the wrong way. Slightly.

 

[Christopher]

Personally, I've never really seen a sexual subtext to Spock/Valeris; a father-daughter dynamic, maybe (more so than Spock/Saavik), but beyond the scene in question, nothing sexual. I am curious: are there particular scenes/lines that you would cite supporting that?

It's more a matter of subtext and performance, I think.

Moral people can do immoral things for moral reasons, and I think that was what Spock was doing. And I find that believable. Not admirable, but believable.

To me, the issue is not about whether it was right for Spock to make that choice, because Spock doesn't actually exist and made no choice at all. The issue is whether it was right for the writers and director to choose to portray him getting the information in that way. I think they could've found a less disquieting way to address that plot point. And that's what Dillard tried to do in her adaptation.

I believe Dillard touched on this indirectly, but I think Kirk believed that all Klingons were part of that conservative, warmongering military establishment. (The novel establishes that Azetbur and Gorkon were not part of the military caste.) And how many Klingons would Kirk, indeed, any Federate, have met who were not warriors? Again, not saying that it was justified, but people do engage in logical fallacies, particularly when they are clouded by grief, and particularly when they have decades of experience being removed from the objects of their prejudices, with no one-on-one interactions to force them to confront their prejudices (à la Mara).

But there you are. Kirk has had such one-on-one interactions. Not only was there Mara, but we saw him getting along decently enough with the Klingons at the end of the previous movie.

Besides, he's not "people," he's James T. Kirk, a man of great intelligence, thoughtfulness, and principle. Yes, of course some people do react that way, but I don't find it credible that he would be one of them. It just doesn't track with what we know of him. Hell, Shatner himself felt it was out of character and didn't want to play the scene that way at all. Who would know better than he?

 

[Paper Moon]

Personally, I've never really seen a sexual subtext to Spock/Valeris; a father-daughter dynamic, maybe (more so than Spock/Saavik), but beyond the scene in question, nothing sexual. I am curious: are there particular scenes/lines that you would cite supporting that?

It's more a matter of subtext and performance, I think.

Still, are there particular scenes that you would cite as having such subtexts or performances? The closest thing I can think of is their scene together in Spock's cabin (heh, I guess that setting itself could count), and I just don't see it there.

Moral people can do immoral things for moral reasons, and I think that was what Spock was doing. And I find that believable. Not admirable, but believable.

To me, the issue is not about whether it was right for Spock to make that choice, because Spock doesn't actually exist and made no choice at all. The issue is whether it was right for the writers and director to choose to portray him getting the information in that way. I think they could've found a less disquieting way to address that plot point. And that's what Dillard tried to do in her adaptation.

I see your point; you've moved the goal posts slightly, but I digress. I think the writers made a good thematic point, though: even Spock, one of the architects of this great peace, had to make a sacrifice. In his case, it was a bit of his moral integrity. That scene, as awful and disquieting as it is, is a key dramatic point in the course of the film.

That all said, going back to the original point, I think that Spock's actions clearly affected him (look at his face as he says, "She does not know.") sufficiently enough that he would not ever do such a thing again, even under orders. So he would have never done it to Tomalak. (And anyway, doing so would've been a major diplomatic incident in any case, with Picard so clearly not taking the Romulans at their word.)

I believe Dillard touched on this indirectly, but I think Kirk believed that all Klingons were part of that conservative, warmongering military establishment. (The novel establishes that Azetbur and Gorkon were not part of the military caste.) And how many Klingons would Kirk, indeed, any Federate, have met who were not warriors? Again, not saying that it was justified, but people do engage in logical fallacies, particularly when they are clouded by grief, and particularly when they have decades of experience being removed from the objects of their prejudices, with no one-on-one interactions to force them to confront their prejudices (à la Mara).

But there you are. Kirk has had such one-on-one interactions. Not only was there Mara, but we saw him getting along decently enough with the Klingons at the end of the previous movie.

Besides, he's not "people," he's James T. Kirk, a man of great intelligence, thoughtfulness, and principle. Yes, of course some people do react that way, but I don't find it credible that he would be one of them. It just doesn't track with what we know of him. Hell, Shatner himself felt it was out of character and didn't want to play the scene that way at all. Who would know better than he?

True, but those interactions were about 30 years and 6 years ago, respectively. Plenty of time for them to be eclipsed emotionally.

And I'm not as convinced of Kirk's infallibility as you are. Picard, who is of equal intelligence, thoughtfulness and principle, allowed his feelings to affect his command judgements regarding the Borg on multiple occasions. (As did his feelings about children in Greater Than The Sum.) Why is it so implausible that Kirk makes the same mistake regarding what may be the most traumatic incident of his life?

It surprised me, though, that, while Dillard provided a further explanation for Kirk's hatred, she did not do so for the other crew of the Enterprise; in fact, if anything, she intensified their bigotry (with the exception of Uhura). Chekov was particularly bad, as I recall. I didn't like that at all. Not that they're perfect in the film, but still.

 

[RPJOB]

Spock quite often used a mind meld with an unwilling person. In ST09 He melded with NuKirk without a word of explanation except "it will be easier."

Please, allow me.


- It will be easier.

- Whoa, whoa, what are you doing?

- Our minds, one and together.

In Dagger of the Mind he melds with Van Gelder who is in condition to give permission.

Perhaps the worst offence, outside of TUC, is Requiem for Methuselah. He melds with an unknowing Kirk and erases at least part of his memory. Based on Kirk's reaction to Sybok doing something similar in TFF I wonder how Kirk would react to someone who is supposedly his best friend doing something similar and keeping it a secret.

"I don't want my pain taken away. I need my pain!"

I don;t think that Spock's action with Valaris are really that far out of character for him. Perhaps a little more blunt in execution due to his feelings of betrayal but not that far removed from what he's done in the past.

You can try to explain away his actions in Requiem for Methuselah by saying he was acting to help his griend but in that case why wouldn't he also do it in the case of the deat of his brother or his son? In David's case he wasn't there when it happened but that's the thing about memory, you can erase it at any time down the road and it's the same as if you did it right at the time the event happened. As we saw in TUC, Kirk's pain over David's death lasted a long, long time.

 

[Christopher]

Still, are there particular scenes that you would cite as having such subtexts or performances? The closest thing I can think of is their scene together in Spock's cabin (heh, I guess that setting itself could count), and I just don't see it there.

Don't ask me, I haven't seen the film in years. But some would say that any scene Kim Cattrall plays is going to have sexual subtext.

I see your point; you've moved the goal posts slightly, but I digress.

No, I'm clarifying where my goalposts were set all along, which is different from where yours were. We were talking past each other a bit, so I made it clearer how I'm defining the problem. As a writer, I tend to think about stories more in terms of the creators' decision processes than the characters'. I can't blame characters for what I consider to be the writers' or directors' bad decisions. I blame Nicholas Meyer and the people working with him for choosing to put in that mind-meld scene and play it in that particular way. I think they were making the character of Spock do something that I don't believe Spock would do, just as I think they made Kirk exhibit racism that I (and Shatner) don't believe he would feel, and made Uhura and McCoy far more incompetent when it came to Klingon language and medicine, respectively, than I believe they would be.

I think the writers made a good thematic point, though: even Spock, one of the architects of this great peace, had to make a sacrifice. In his case, it was a bit of his moral integrity. That scene, as awful and disquieting as it is, is a key dramatic point in the course of the film.

And if I thought that was how the scene was actually directed, I'd agree. But it didn't feel like that to me. There was no sense that Spock regretted what he did or that any other character in the scene perceived it as a moral compromise. It can be retconned in that way, as Cast No Shadow did, but Meyer's own choices in directing that scene don't convey the impression that he thought of it in those terms.

That all said, going back to the original point, I think that Spock's actions clearly affected him (look at his face as he says, "She does not know.") sufficiently enough that he would not ever do such a thing again, even under orders.

I grant that that's a valid way of interpreting the scene, but I don't feel it was the original intent. I read his dismay as simply being "Oh no, we still don't know where the peace conference is so we can't stop the bad guys."

Except that immediately afterward they contact Excelsior so Sulu can give them the coordinates, which means they could've done that in the first damn place and the whole invasive mind meld was completely unnecessary! I just now realized that.

But there you are. Kirk has had such one-on-one interactions. Not only was there Mara, but we saw him getting along decently enough with the Klingons at the end of the previous movie.

Besides, he's not "people," he's James T. Kirk, a man of great intelligence, thoughtfulness, and principle. Yes, of course some people do react that way, but I don't find it credible that he would be one of them. It just doesn't track with what we know of him. Hell, Shatner himself felt it was out of character and didn't want to play the scene that way at all. Who would know better than he?

True, but those interactions were about 30 years and 6 years ago, respectively. Plenty of time for them to be eclipsed emotionally.

But David's death was 7 years earlier. So that sounds like a contradictory position to me.

Besides, we haven't seen every event in Kirk's life. If he had those interactions with the Klingons, it's likely he had others. Since we're in the Trek Literature forum, presumably we accept that at least a percentage of the novels and comics "really" happened, and a lot of those have Kirk interacting with Klingons. And the usual way Kirk has been portrayed in fiction is as a tolerant man who opposes the Klingons' military actions but does not feel bigotry or hate toward them, because that's just not the kind of person he is. There have been multiple novels and comics, at least before TUC and sometimes afterward, that have shown him as willing to work with Klingons and strive for peace with them when he had the opportunity.

And I'm not as convinced of Kirk's infallibility as you are.

Oh, Kirk is very fallible. TOS gave us abundant evidence of that. But that's just it. I'm assessing who Kirk is as a character based on all the evidence that TOS gave us. And TUC is a data point that doesn't fit with the rest of the evidence. It's an outlier. It's not consistent with the way James T. Kirk was portrayed in TOS or any of the tie-ins. Yes, Kirk is fallible, but not in that particular way. Kirk can be arrogant, Kirk can be impulsive, Kirk can sometimes let his immediate outrage at an atrocity drive him to overly aggressive responses -- but even despite that, he still has enough innate compassion and enough commitment to peace that, when given an opportunity, he won't hesitate to set his anger aside and look for a better way. "Arena" shows that. "The Devil in the Dark" shows that. "Day of the Dove" shows that. Kirk abhors violence and cruelty, but he doesn't believe the way to respond to them is with more violence and hate. He's a soldier, so he'll use force to defend the innocent if he must, but he believes and understands that the best way to respond to violence and the suffering it causes is to stop the violence, not to contribute to it.

I think people today don't realize just what a huge retcon it was when TUC came along and suddenly painted Kirk as this virulent racist. He'd never, ever been interpreted that way before, not in over a quarter of a century. (Okay, there was his "You Klingon bastard" line in TSFS, but that doesn't prove a pattern.) The movies have a disproportionate influence on people's perception of TOS and Kirk in particular. The simple fact is, TUC changed his character for the convenience of its glasnost allegory. They added this big abiding hatred toward Klingons that had never been part of his character before, so that he'd need to overcome that hatred and thereby have an arc through the story that would symbolize the topical message of letting go of past enmities. And yet everyone since then has forgotten what a massive retcon it was and accepted this single work, this exception to the rule, as the authoritative word on Kirk's feelings toward Klingons. And that's just weird, to embrace the outlier and ignore the otherwise consistent pattern.

Picard, who is of equal intelligence, thoughtfulness and principle, allowed his feelings to affect his command judgements regarding the Borg on multiple occasions. (As did his feelings about children in Greater Than The Sum.) Why is it so implausible that Kirk makes the same mistake regarding what may be the most traumatic incident of his life?

Because it's not the same mistake. It's a specific type of mistake that just doesn't fit the pattern of how James T. Kirk thinks and what kinds of mistakes he's prone to. And the idea that he's been nursing this hatred for seven years doesn't fit either, because Kirk is a relentlessly self-critical individual who's always questioning his motivations and drives. Even if he felt hatred toward the Klingons as a race because of what one of them did to David, he would recognize that for the character flaw that it was and be wary of giving into it.

This is not about hagiography. This is about me, as a professional writer whose job is to understand characters and their motivations, considering everything I know about how a given character behaves and thinks and whether a given action is in character for him or not. That has nothing to do with whether he's flawed or not; flaws are part of what make any character interesting, so as a writer I want them to be fallible and make mistakes. The things I've written about Kirk have tended to focus on his mistakes and poor decisions, because it's his fallibility that makes him interesting. But I only want characters to make mistakes that arise logically from their established character flaws. And my judgment as a lifelong observer of James Tiberius Kirk -- including 17 years of getting to know him before TUC came out -- tells me that TUC had him behave in a way that wasn't consistent with his characterization. It gave him a flaw that isn't the kind of flaw he would have.

It surprised me, though, that, while Dillard provided a further explanation for Kirk's hatred, she did not do so for the other crew of the Enterprise; in fact, if anything, she intensified their bigotry (with the exception of Uhura). Chekov was particularly bad, as I recall. I didn't like that at all. Not that they're perfect in the film, but still.

I don't think that came from her. My understanding is that the original script showed the whole crew reacting with stronger bigotry, but the actors pushed for it to be toned down. Since novelizations are generally not based on the final draft of the script or the final edit of the film, her source material wouldn't have reflected those changes made on the set.

 

[Paper Moon]

I see your point; you've moved the goal posts slightly, but I digress.

No, I'm clarifying where my goalposts were set all along, which is different from where yours were. We were talking past each other a bit, so I made it clearer how I'm defining the problem. As a writer, I tend to think about stories more in terms of the creators' decision processes than the characters'. I can't blame characters for what I consider to be the writers' or directors' bad decisions. I blame Nicholas Meyer and the people working with him for choosing to put in that mind-meld scene and play it in that particular way. I think they were making the character of Spock do something that I don't believe Spock would do, just as I think they made Kirk exhibit racism that I (and Shatner) don't believe he would feel, and made Uhura and McCoy far more incompetent when it came to Klingon language and medicine, respectively, than I believe they would be.

Fair points. (Well, I find McCoy's ignorance of Klingon anatomy more believable than Uhura's ignorance of Klingonese, but those are beside the point.)

And if I thought that was how the scene was actually directed, I'd agree. But it didn't feel like that to me. There was no sense that Spock regretted what he did or that any other character in the scene perceived it as a moral compromise. It can be retconned in that way, as Cast No Shadow did, but Meyer's own choices in directing that scene don't convey the impression that he thought of it in those terms.

…

I grant that that's a valid way of interpreting the scene, but I don't feel it was the original intent. I read his dismay as simply being "Oh no, we still don't know where the peace conference is so we can't stop the bad guys."

I recall significant shots of both Scotty and Uhura, suggesting that they were horrified at this terrible thing that was happening in front of them. Combine that with Spock's own horrified look (which could be both dismay at the potential failure of the mission, and dismay at what he's done), and I think you've got the sense that the characters perceive this as a moral compromise.

But I can see your point. There were probably better, but still equally dramatic, ways to move the story along there.

Except that immediately afterward they contact Excelsior so Sulu can give them the coordinates, which means they could've done that in the first damn place and the whole invasive mind meld was completely unnecessary! I just now realized that.

Except that the meld was done to get the names of the conspirators (which Excelsior would not have had), and it was only once they were in that Kirk decided to go for broke, and try to extract the location of the peace conference.

But David's death was 7 years earlier. So that sounds like a contradictory position to me.

I figured that the death of the son he never knew he had and was clearly looking forward to getting to know was a bigger emotional event than most anything else, affecting his interactions with Klingons both retroactively and going forward. And his grief over David might reasonably have taken time to crystallize.

Besides, we haven't seen every event in Kirk's life. If he had those interactions with the Klingons, it's likely he had others. Since we're in the Trek Literature forum, presumably we accept that at least a percentage of the novels and comics "really" happened, and a lot of those have Kirk interacting with Klingons. And the usual way Kirk has been portrayed in fiction is as a tolerant man who opposes the Klingons' military actions but does not feel bigotry or hate toward them, because that's just not the kind of person he is. There have been multiple novels and comics, at least before TUC and sometimes afterward, that have shown him as willing to work with Klingons and strive for peace with them when he had the opportunity.

Mm, that's a fair point. To be honest, I've never read any of the movie era comics, so I'll have to take your word about that. Thanks for mentioning that comic DVD earlier, by the way. Definitely gonna get that.

Oh, Kirk is very fallible. TOS gave us abundant evidence of that. But that's just it. I'm assessing who Kirk is as a character based on all the evidence that TOS gave us. And TUC is a data point that doesn't fit with the rest of the evidence. …

I think people today don't realize just what a huge retcon it was when TUC came along and suddenly painted Kirk as this virulent racist. He'd never, ever been interpreted that way before, not in over a quarter of a century. (Okay, there was his "You Klingon bastard" line in TSFS, but that doesn't prove a pattern.) The movies have a disproportionate influence on people's perception of TOS and Kirk in particular. The simple fact is, TUC changed his character for the convenience of its glasnost allegory. They added this big abiding hatred toward Klingons that had never been part of his character before, so that he'd need to overcome that hatred and thereby have an arc through the story that would symbolize the topical message of letting go of past enmities. And yet everyone since then has forgotten what a massive retcon it was and accepted this single work, this exception to the rule, as the authoritative word on Kirk's feelings toward Klingons. And that's just weird, to embrace the outlier and ignore the otherwise consistent pattern.

You've convinced me that it was out of character. As to why people embrace the outlier, I would say because it shows Kirk the furthest along in the development of his character. We assume that the latest iteration of the character is the most fully developed. Not necessarily the best policy, but I think it's understandable.

It surprised me, though, that, while Dillard provided a further explanation for Kirk's hatred, she did not do so for the other crew of the Enterprise; in fact, if anything, she intensified their bigotry (with the exception of Uhura). Chekov was particularly bad, as I recall. I didn't like that at all. Not that they're perfect in the film, but still.

I don't think that came from her. My understanding is that the original script showed the whole crew reacting with stronger bigotry, but the actors pushed for it to be toned down. Since novelizations are generally not based on the final draft of the script or the final edit of the film, her source material wouldn't have reflected those changes made on the set.

I agree that it's probably due to her writing from an earlier draft of the script. Other things, including the inclusion of the munitions salesperson, and the exclusion of Colonel West, support that theory. Still, it is surprising that she didn't end up doing the same thing the actors did (tone it down) independently.

 

[JD]

In an earlier post I can't find now someone mentioned Kirk seeming to not have a problem hanging out with them in The Final Frontier, and then hating them with passion in The Undiscovered Country. I think this is the thing that bugged me the most, the sudden change in attitude between the movies. I understand a bit of time passed, but it still seemed like a drastic change. I understand people's feeling can change over time, but if these feelings are supposed to be brought on by David's death, then I would think they would be stronger closer to the event (TFF) than farther away (TUC).

 

[Paper Moon]

In an earlier post I can't find now someone mentioned Kirk seeming to not have a problem hanging out with them in The Final Frontier, and then hating them with passion in The Undiscovered Country. I think this is the thing that bugged me the most, the sudden change in attitude between the movies. I understand a bit of time passed, but it still seemed like a drastic change. I understand people's feeling can change over time, but if these feelings are supposed to be brought on by David's death, then I would think they would be stronger closer to the event (TFF) than farther away (TUC).

The only (lame) justification I could come up for that is that Kirk had been too busy with the Probe incident and the Enterprise-A's maiden voyage to really process what had happened. A delayed reaction, if you will.

Honestly, though, I think I've watched STV about three times (as opposed to at least a dozen times each for STII, STIII, STIV and STVI), and I tend to just ignore it. I think I once heard the theory that all of STV was just a dream that Kirk had on the camping trip with Spock and McCoy (or maybe some sort of weird shared dream between the three of them). It just allows sooooo many things to be explained away, and since STV is referenced so infrequently, it's not that bad.

I mean, obviously that's just me applying my personal continuity to the discussion, but, yeah.

One thing that has always surprised me is how much time passed between STV and STVI. One of the biggest gaps between movies we have.

 

[Christopher]

Honestly, though, I think I've watched STV about three times (as opposed to at least a dozen times each for STII, STIII, STIV and STVI), and I tend to just ignore it.

I used to ignore it, but more recently I changed my mind. The worst parts about it can be ignored or rationalized. There are only three lines referencing the center of the galaxy, so just ignore maybe half a minute of the film and that problem's solved. Ditto with the impossibly high turboshaft. And it's ridiculous that a photon torpedo -- an antimatter weapon more powerful than a nuclear bomb -- goes off maybe 50 feet behind the heroes and they're unscathed; but I rationalize it by assuming the torpedo actually detonated deep underground.

So that just leaves the plot and character issues, and while there are some annoyances there, I think a lot of it holds up fairly well. Sybok is an effective character, even if his abilities are nebulously defined. The key sequence with Sybok showing Spock and McCoy their pasts and Kirk refusing to have his pain released is actually quite effective and worthwhile. And Spock persuading General Korrd to help in the climax can be taken as the seed of his future diplomatic career and his role in UFP-Klingon detente in TUC.

So there's enough good stuff in the movie that I'm no longer willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater and dismiss the whole thing.

It just allows sooooo many things to be explained away, and since STV is referenced so infrequently, it's not that bad.

It's been referenced more than you'd think. In the Name of Honor is a direct sequel to ST V. Nimbus III was a major story thread in Vanguard. Klaa plays a major role in Mere Anarchy: The Blood-Dimmed Tide. Korrd is in the novel Sarek and in "The Unhappy Ones" in Seven Deadly Sins. I've referenced Sybok briefly in Ex Machina and Forgotten History and discussed the death of McCoy's father in the former work. The "God" entity was in the Q Continuum trilogy. Gravity boots (like Spock used to levitate at Yosemite) were featured in a couple of SCE installments.

One thing that has always surprised me is how much time passed between STV and STVI. One of the biggest gaps between movies we have.

That's because II - V spanned 7 years of real time but were only set a few months apart. VI "reset" the time interval to reflect the actors' real ages, just as the previous Nicholas Meyer film, TWOK, had done.

 

[Paper Moon]

Honestly, though, I think I've watched STV about three times (as opposed to at least a dozen times each for STII, STIII, STIV and STVI), and I tend to just ignore it.

I used to ignore it, but more recently I changed my mind. The worst parts about it can be ignored or rationalized. There are only three lines referencing the center of the galaxy, so just ignore maybe half a minute of the film and that problem's solved. Ditto with the impossibly high turboshaft. And it's ridiculous that a photon torpedo -- an antimatter weapon more powerful than a nuclear bomb -- goes off maybe 50 feet behind the heroes and they're unscathed; but I rationalize it by assuming the torpedo actually detonated deep underground.

So that just leaves the plot and character issues, and while there are some annoyances there, I think a lot of it holds up fairly well. Sybok is an effective character, even if his abilities are nebulously defined. The key sequence with Sybok showing Spock and McCoy their pasts and Kirk refusing to have his pain released is actually quite effective and worthwhile. And Spock persuading General Korrd to help in the climax can be taken as the seed of his future diplomatic career and his role in UFP-Klingon detente in TUC.

So there's enough good stuff in the movie that I'm no longer willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater and dismiss the whole thing.

Those are good points. I agree that the Spock-past and McCoy-past scenes are very effective (particularly the McCoy scene). That was why I considered the possibility that it was some sort of odd shared dream. Not very plausible, but more plausible than a trip to the center of the galaxy, and given all the other bizarre phenomena we've come across in Star Trek, I think it's more likely than you'd think. (Residual mind meld effects anyone?)

And Sybok can still be an effective character within the shared dream. I actually don't have much trouble with his character.

I'm less fond of Scotty bonking his head on a bulkhead and waking up in sickbay. Less fond of the weird, seems to be out of nowhere romance between him and Uhura. Not fond of how the fake God is so easily vanquished.

But I see your point about the baby and the bathwater. I'll rewatch the film in the next few weeks, and see how I feel then.

It just allows sooooo many things to be explained away, and since STV is referenced so infrequently, it's not that bad.

It's been referenced more than you'd think. In the Name of Honor is a direct sequel to ST V. Nimbus III was a major story thread in Vanguard. Klaa plays a major role in Mere Anarchy: The Blood-Dimmed Tide. Korrd is in the novel Sarek and in "The Unhappy Ones" in Seven Deadly Sins. I've referenced Sybok briefly in Ex Machina and Forgotten History and discussed the death of McCoy's father in the former work. The "God" entity was in the Q Continuum trilogy. Gravity boots (like Spock used to levitate at Yosemite) were featured in a couple of SCE installments.

Coincidentally, those are almost all books I've never read. (Exceptions: "The Unhappy Ones," and your books, Christopher.) My TrekLit tends to be 24th-century centered. But with the exception of In The Name of Honor and the Q books (less so), none of those books sound like they refer significantly to the Enterprise's absurd trip to the center of the galaxy, but instead focus on other, non-absurd things that are established by the film.

In any case, though, I was actually referring to the film not getting referenced much in subsequent TV and film productions.

One thing that has always surprised me is how much time passed between STV and STVI. One of the biggest gaps between movies we have.

That's because II - V spanned 7 years of real time but were only set a few months apart. VI "reset" the time interval to reflect the actors' real ages, just as the previous Nicholas Meyer film, TWOK, had done.

Yeah, that makes sense. It's too bad that the real-world limitations of Trek productions prevent TPTB from focusing on the fact that people will probably age slower in the future, with extended lifetimes and better health care and stuff. "He's FOURTY-FIVE years old!? He doesn't look a day over thirty!!" That would be cool.

 

[Christopher]

I'm less fond of Scotty bonking his head on a bulkhead and waking up in sickbay. Less fond of the weird, seems to be out of nowhere romance between him and Uhura.

Lately I'm increasingly making references to Roddenberry's TMP novelization, and the preface where he adopted the role of a 23rd-century writer who'd made a fictionalized account of the real adventures of the Enterprise, and admitted he'd taken poetic license and made mistakes in his interpretation. Sometimes it helps to perceive what we see as an approximation or dramatization of the "real" events, and recognize that some portions of the story may be exaggerated or fictionalized.

Coincidentally, those are almost all books I've never read. (Exceptions: "The Unhappy Ones," and your books, Christopher.) My TrekLit tends to be 24th-century centered.

Seriously -- you should read Vanguard.

But with the exception of In The Name of Honor and the Q books (less so), none of those books sound like they refer significantly to the Enterprise's absurd trip to the center of the galaxy, but instead focus on other, non-absurd things that are established by the film.

See above. Like I said, "the center of the galaxy" is only mentioned in three near-consecutive lines in a single scene, so you can just ignore that tiny part of the film and it ceases to be a problem. Or, you can assume that maybe "The Center of the Galaxy" is some traditional or poetic Vulcan name for a more local cosmic phenomenon, or something like that.

It's too bad that the real-world limitations of Trek productions prevent TPTB from focusing on the fact that people will probably age slower in the future, with extended lifetimes and better health care and stuff. "He's FOURTY-FIVE years old!? He doesn't look a day over thirty!!" That would be cool.

Well, they did make Picard ten years older than Patrick Stewart.

 

[DEWLine]

"Or, you can assume that maybe "The Center of the Galaxy" is some traditional or poetic Vulcan name for a more local cosmic phenomenon, or something like that."

And badly translated from Old High Vulcan to English, at that.

 

[Sci]

With regards to Kirk's bigotry against Klingons in Star Trek VI and the idea that it is inconsistent with his earlier characterization, I would like to offer this for thought:

My paternal grandfather, who was white, died when my father was only 11 years old, so I never knew him. But I've grown up hearing stories from my father and paternal grandmother about him -- and something in particular about their stories always intrigued me. It seems that my grandfather, who was a truck driver, had, as was common in those days (1960s), a number of close male friends. They would hang out all day on their days off, working on cars, drinking beer, shooting the breeze, etc.

Most of his friends were white -- but one man among his associates was black. He had a nearly identical relationship with him; they would hang out, talk, work on car engines together for fun. My father and grandmother both describe their relationship as being virtually identical to those with his white friends. And yet, when the sun set at the end of the day, my paternal grandfather would not do as he did for his white friends and invite his black -- friend? associate? -- over for dinner. Nor would this other man invite him over to his house. There was a boundary between them that prevented from from becoming closer friends as they would have with men of their own skin color -- even though, say my grandmother and father, their relationship was up to that point nearly identical with those of other friends.

And when the evening came and this other man had left, my paternal grandfather would often watching the news with my grandmother and father -- and upon seeing a news piece about a white person being attacked by a black man, or about the civil rights movement, or about any crime allegedly committed by a black person, or about a black person at all, my grandfather would often become agitated, use the N-word, and talk about about how black people were ruining the country and could not be trusted.

His having died when I would have been -11 years old, I never met my paternal grandfather. But that story, of the seemingly contradictory behavior -- the man who could be almost-friends with a black man one minute and a raging racist the next -- has always stayed with me. It has often suggested to me that people can harbor prejudices and racial animosities in the same breath that they may try to be friendly and polite, that their behavior can be essentially inconsistent and self-contradictory.

So somehow, the idea that James T. Kirk could believe that prejudice against Klingons as a species is wrong, could work for many years to fight that prejudice in himself, could try to find a way to build bridges of trust and make diplomatic overtures -- and yet find himself blaming their race for the death of his son, and find himself feeling so utterly bitter and threatened at the thought of a fundamental change in the relationship between the Federation and the Empire, at the thought of a peaceful alliance, that he would behave as he did in Star Trek VI... this idea has never bothered me. I can completely accept the idea that James T. Kirk encompasses both of these self-contradictory impulses, and that at his best he's fought his own prejudices -- and that at his worst, he's sometimes given into them.

Just my food for thought, inspired by stories I've heard within my own family. Your mileage my vary.

 

[flandry84]

TBH I don't think anyone has really answered my question about Spock and a possible mind probe too satisfactorily.As the ultimate pragmatist(and a truly moral being),an experienced officer and diplomat(the UFP's foremost expert on Romulans)I think Spock would have few enough reservations in interrogating Tomaleks mind at all.
But, no matter.

Another question this time regarding the previously mentioned Glinn Dygan and the Cardassian officer on DS9,seeing as they are referred to by Cardassian ranks,what uniform do they wear?I can't remember if this detail is mentioned anywhere.

 

[Sci]

TBH I don't think anyone has really answered my question about Spock and a possible mind probe too satisfactorily.As the ultimate pragmatist(and a truly moral being),an experienced officer and diplomat(the UFP's foremost expert on Romulans)I think Spock would have few enough reservations in interrogating Tomaleks mind at all.

That's a perfectly valid interpretation -- as I've said before, I think a strong argument can be made that Spock has a bit of a ruthless streak to him -- but it's obviously quite subjective. Others have answered why they don't agree with that interpretation of Spock's character.

And as I pointed out earlier, the fact that no other telepathic Federates were called upon to probe Tomalak's mind after he was arrested strongly implies that the Federation has a legal prohibition against this.

Another question this time regarding the previously mentioned Glinn Dygan and the Cardassian officer on DS9,seeing as they are referred to by Cardassian ranks,what uniform do they wear?I can't remember if this detail is mentioned anywhere.

Well, they're officers in the Cardassian Guard, aren't they? So they're serving through an officer exchange program -- meaning they're not officers in the Federation Starfleet. So I would think they wear the uniform of the Cardassian Guard while serving aboard the Enterprise and Deep Space 9.

 

[Paper Moon]

Another question this time regarding the previously mentioned Glinn Dygan and the Cardassian officer on DS9,seeing as they are referred to by Cardassian ranks,what uniform do they wear?I can't remember if this detail is mentioned anywhere.

Well, he's an officer in the Cardassian Guard, isn't he? So he's serving aboard the Enterprise through an officer exchange program -- meaning he's not an officer in the Federation Starfleet. So I would think Glinn Dygan wears the uniform of the Cardassian Guard while serving aboard the Enterprise.

That's my feeling as well (although I thought Dygan was a woman... that's what you get for getting too excited and reading quickly).

 

[Sci]

Another question this time regarding the previously mentioned Glinn Dygan and the Cardassian officer on DS9,seeing as they are referred to by Cardassian ranks,what uniform do they wear?I can't remember if this detail is mentioned anywhere.

Well, he's an officer in the Cardassian Guard, isn't he? So he's serving aboard the Enterprise through an officer exchange program -- meaning he's not an officer in the Federation Starfleet. So I would think Glinn Dygan wears the uniform of the Cardassian Guard while serving aboard the Enterprise.

That's my feeling as well (although I thought Dygan was a woman... that's what you get for getting too excited and reading quickly).

I honestly couldn't remember, which is why I went and edited my post to refer to both Cardassian officers rather than one or the other.