USS Enterprise: stuff of legends, or ship of fools?
After considering various arguments in other threads, I formed the following hypothesis. First, I add the disclaimer that I am a dyed-in-the-wool ST fan, and have been since TOS. I offer these ideas for illuminated discussion, as a thought-provoking, alternative "what if" scenario for the TNG we know and love...
I submit: Commanding the Enterprise-D was not designed to be a reward for an exceptional captain. The project was largely deemed a failure from the start. The history that unfolded in TNG defied the odds and was a dark horse in the annals of Starfleet. Allow me to elaborate.
First, the name "Enterprise" had long since lost any meaning in Starfleet. The 1701-C disappeared over 20 years prior to the christening of the vessel, with no obvious pivotal role in history. The 1701-B likewise had no apparent record of note. And the rich history of Kirk's escapades was almost a century beforehand. What significance did "Enterprise" have, particularly as a "flagship"? This was a trial run of a largely untested piece of hardware running untested software. Perhaps it should have been called the 1701-Beta...
Second, the person chosen as Captain -- one Jean Luc-Picard, a reckless twit who almost got himself killed at the academy -- had spent over 25 years serving on a single, unremarkable ship: the Stargazer. He haphazardly rose to command by pure coincidence -- everyone was killed -- and captained the ship for almost a decade more. Although perhaps "seasoned", he was hardly the type one would expect to helm the leading ship of the Federation. What about Captain Tryla Scott, the youngest ever in Starfleet history to achieve the rank? Why not give her the premiere assignment in the fleet? Why relegate it to a proverbially washed-up one-hit wonder?
Third: we are introduced to the mission (in Encounter at Farpoint) by Picard's personal log: i.e. his impression of the importance of his assignment. Hardly an unbiased position!
Furthermore, assigning Riker as the XO. Here's an officer who desires nothing more than second best: the command of the Enterprise. Sure, he can use this podunk assignment as a much needed stepping stone to launch his illustrious and legendary Starfleet career and venture into uncharted space, but instead he's content to be second fiddle to Captain Once-Was for almost two decades.
Lastly: families on board. How many flagships and exploratory vessels going into uncharted territories have families on board? Face it: Picard was duped by top brass due to his desire to be anywhere else but in the center seat of the Stargazer. The Enterprise wasn't the flagship of the Federation -- it was a weather balloon to test the climate of Starfleet tech and relations, ultimately to yield new designs and commanded by competent staff. Picard et al. succeeded wildly against all odds.
Discuss!!
After considering various arguments in other threads, I formed the following hypothesis. First, I add the disclaimer that I am a dyed-in-the-wool ST fan, and have been since TOS. I offer these ideas for illuminated discussion, as a thought-provoking, alternative "what if" scenario for the TNG we know and love...
I submit: Commanding the Enterprise-D was not designed to be a reward for an exceptional captain. The project was largely deemed a failure from the start. The history that unfolded in TNG defied the odds and was a dark horse in the annals of Starfleet. Allow me to elaborate.
First, the name "Enterprise" had long since lost any meaning in Starfleet. The 1701-C disappeared over 20 years prior to the christening of the vessel, with no obvious pivotal role in history. The 1701-B likewise had no apparent record of note. And the rich history of Kirk's escapades was almost a century beforehand. What significance did "Enterprise" have, particularly as a "flagship"? This was a trial run of a largely untested piece of hardware running untested software. Perhaps it should have been called the 1701-Beta...
Second, the person chosen as Captain -- one Jean Luc-Picard, a reckless twit who almost got himself killed at the academy -- had spent over 25 years serving on a single, unremarkable ship: the Stargazer. He haphazardly rose to command by pure coincidence -- everyone was killed -- and captained the ship for almost a decade more. Although perhaps "seasoned", he was hardly the type one would expect to helm the leading ship of the Federation. What about Captain Tryla Scott, the youngest ever in Starfleet history to achieve the rank? Why not give her the premiere assignment in the fleet? Why relegate it to a proverbially washed-up one-hit wonder?
Third: we are introduced to the mission (in Encounter at Farpoint) by Picard's personal log: i.e. his impression of the importance of his assignment. Hardly an unbiased position!
Furthermore, assigning Riker as the XO. Here's an officer who desires nothing more than second best: the command of the Enterprise. Sure, he can use this podunk assignment as a much needed stepping stone to launch his illustrious and legendary Starfleet career and venture into uncharted space, but instead he's content to be second fiddle to Captain Once-Was for almost two decades.
Lastly: families on board. How many flagships and exploratory vessels going into uncharted territories have families on board? Face it: Picard was duped by top brass due to his desire to be anywhere else but in the center seat of the Stargazer. The Enterprise wasn't the flagship of the Federation -- it was a weather balloon to test the climate of Starfleet tech and relations, ultimately to yield new designs and commanded by competent staff. Picard et al. succeeded wildly against all odds.
Discuss!!
Last edited:
Jabbing your children with a painstick is probably less traumatizing than having them worry about if the borg are hiding under their bed. Captain Picard day was never the same again after stardate 44002.3.
