Matt Decker...Hero or fool?

[Shaw]

Vance said:
But, thinking that Decker murdered his crew is some all new level of Orewellian think here.


Timo said:
That's not really what I want to postulate - although since I didn't write out the full fanfic on those final moments originally, I can see how one might get that impression.

It's a bit odd that Shaw wants to argue that Decker killed his crew by deliberate beam-down in nonsurvivable conditions, while I want to argue that he had a plan for their survival. In light of the tone of much of this discussion, shouldn't our roles be reversed, with him arguing that Decker was a hero and me saying that he was a fool?

Maybe you've forgotten what you had originally put forward as to your theory of Decker's motivation... hopefully this will help remind you of what you said and your tone.

Timo said (on Jan 28, 2008):
I'd say the exact opposite. All we have on them is the witness statement of Matt Decker, and I don't see how we could trust him on anything he says.

The story of beaming everybody down to "safety" and staying behind stinks to high heaven. As demonstrated, Decker eventually reveals he knew the thing ate planets. Even more damningly, as he had been going through star system after star system, looking for the reason of the destruction of all planets therein, he'd have to assume from the outset that planets everywhere were unsafe.

Decker: "They called me. They begged me for help, four hundred of them. I couldn't. I couldn't..."

What couldn't he?

What wouldn't he?

I wouldn't put it past Decker to have used the crew as bait in some harebrained scheme, deeming the losses acceptable in light of the alternative - letting the thing feast on densely populated systems. His official story, the one he concoted to cover up his scheme, would be one of "sending the crew to safety", but that wouldn't hold up in court, and he'd come to realize it eventually.

I don't really believe that the DDM disabled the transporters at a crucial moment. More likely is that Decker refused a beam-up for some reason, for some scheme that didn't pan out in the end. And that's what wrecked the man, not mere combat losses against an invincible enemy.

• -and-

Initially, Decker wouldn't have been sane enough to care whether his lies were contradicted or not. Later on, he would have been sane enough to understand that none of them would come out of this mess alive anyway. That is, unless he had another shot at his wonderfully wacko original scheme...

OTOH, the logs would not necessarily have extended to the final, damning moments of the ship. If everything else was destroyed, why not the log recorders? (Decker could have seen to that with his hand phaser, just to be on the safe side.)

Wow, if that is your way of arguing that Decker had a plan for their survival, it sure is a strange way of making that point.

Of course, if that is your way of showing a supportive argument for Decker, then maybe you've been my biggest fan all along too... and just have a strange way of showing it.


Edit: Sorry... missed this one.

Timo said:
I don't think he would have needed a crew, or wanted one. Kirk did it alone. Decker would not have wasted lives needlessly if he could do it alone.

Kirk did what alone?

He beamed over with Mr Scott and three other damage control officers. Those men didn't leave until after they had brought the impulse engines back on line, restored the phaser banks, got auxiliary control up and running again, and set the Constellation's impulse engines to explode on a timer.

That sure looks like five highly experienced officers were needed to get the Constellation back in the fight. Kirk didn't do it alone, so what makes you think that Decker could?

 

[Timo]

Wow, if that is your way of arguing that Decker had a plan for their survival, it sure is a strange way of making that point.

Even though I in the quoted bits say no less than four times that Decker had a "scheme"? You know, the synonym for "plan"?

I want to credit the man with something, so that he doesn't become yet another incompetent, half-villainy character whose moronic antics exist only to make the heroes look good in comparison.

Of course, if that is your way of showing a supportive argument for Decker, then maybe you've been my biggest fan all along too...

Well, I thought so.

The options seem clear. Either Decker beams down the crew before going mad, which means he either is a devious villain or has a real plan for saving at least some asses, a plan that his crew approves and cooperates with. Or then he beams them down after going mad, which is ultimately an uninteresting way to play out the plot (not to mention a difficult undertaking for a single man against four hundred).

Kirk did what alone?

Piloted a starship into the maw. A wrecked starship, mind you. Decker in turn was aboard during the process where the originally functional ship got progressively more and more wrecked, and could have piloted her into the maw before the crucial damage was suffered. He had it easy compared with Kirk.

Whatever Decker says about the timeline of that damage in his lunatic state can be disregarded as guilt-ridden half-truths. He would have had a shipful of Scottys and Washburns to prepare for the suicide run before those personnel got beamed down. And then either some silly self-sealing stem bolt would fail under the pure antiproton fire and ruin the plan - or Decker's courage would leave him at the crucial moment. And what was intended to be bait becomes fodder, with Decker listening, either unable or unwilling to act.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vance]

'Scheme' implies a negative connotation to the word 'plan'. It's something nefarious, and you certainly did use it with that connotation.

You've lost, Timo. It's over. Finished.

 

[Shaw]

It is funny, for most people, the minimum requirement before accusing someone of lying without evidence of lying would be other lies. This is to say, he lied one so there is good reason to believe that he would have lied at other times. Within the course of a single hour long drama, if the audience is supposed to believe that a one episode character lies and is lying about the back story of the episode, there would be either other lies or evidence of lies somewhere that couldn't be missed by the average viewer watching the show once (or maybe twice).

You have from the start stated that Decker concocted his official story as a cover up. You later said that Decker wouldn't have initially cared whether his lies were contradicted, but later theorize that Decker could have destroyed the records with a hand phaser.

All of this is incredibly imaginative, but has no foundation in any part of the story. Not once, anywhere, does Decker actually lie about anything. And not anywhere, even after he was gone, was Decker shown to have fabricated or distorted the facts.

You may disagree with his actions, which are quite debatable, but I would hope that you don't assume that everyone you disagree with must be a liar. I would hope that no one would default to accusing people of lying as a reaction to either dislike or disagreement with others. I've disliked and disagreed with tons of people, and unless caught lying, I never assumed that they were liars from the outset.

But here, within this story, Decker has to be a liar in your mind... and the absence of any evidence is (again, in your mind) further proof of his lying ways.

Further, Spock must also be complicit in some way. Spock, a regular character who's main characteristic is to provide accurate information to the other characters and the audience, must (in this case) be completely wrong in most everything he says for your version of this story to work. So even though he may not be lying too, Spock is no more trust worthy in this episode than Decker.

Was their any other character you wanted to cast doubts upon within this story? Maybe Scotty wasn't really having problems fixing the transporter and was weighing the options of either having Spock or someone totally new replace Kirk once he was gone. I mean in the Timo-bizarro version that would be a completely justifiable motivation to apply to any of the characters.

Timo said:
Piloted a starship into the maw. A wrecked starship, mind you.

What piloting? He pointed it at the Planet Killer, pressed the button... and then had to wait nearly 30 seconds because the transporters stopped working. Further, it wouldn't have been enough to just drive the ship into the thing, it had to be set up to explode at the right time and in the right way.

If driving a ship into the thing were all that was needed, then the Planet Killer must have been suicidal too because it wanted to eat the ships. Maybe it regretted what it was and wanted to end it all. Again, in the Timo-bizarro version pretty much anything is possible.

 

[Timo]

Again, what's with these ad hominem attacks of yours?

So I suggest that an adversary character in a Star Trek episode is lying. What's that to you? Can't you survive till the next day unless your personal hero stays blemish-free? That's worrisome, you realize...

To paint Decker as a cowardly hero is one way to do justice to the drama of the episode. To paint him as a stupid coward without redeeming qualities is another. To paint him as a saint is a third possibility. Since the writer dropped the ball here, it's possible to pick it up and pitch it whatever direction feels nicest. In this case, I think the character is done best justice if he becomes a cowardly hero.

'Scheme' implies a negative connotation to the word 'plan'. It's something nefarious, and you certainly did use it with that connotation.

Of course it's negative - it utterly failed, killing 400 people and driving a man insane. Then again, most of Kirk's exploits are "harebrained schemes", too. The difference is that, against all odds, they tend to work...

The best one can do to save Decker is damn him with faint praise, or perhaps praise him with faint damnation. But that's doable, and that still makes the character more acceptable than the idiot he would be in the version where he has no scheme.

Further, Spock must also be complicit in some way.

Of course not, you silly you.

Spock was demonstrably wrong about a detail in the episode, again because the writer dropped the ball. And picking up dropped balls is damn fun. Live with it.

That doesn't slaughter his character. Spock, like all the heroes, has a long track record of being wrong - the teaser of "Space Seed" is a nice example of everybody being dead wrong in their assertions and quickly getting debunked, in a way that is both humorous and tension-building.

What piloting?

That's facetious, you know. Then again, so have all your objections been, for the past few messages. You do have to do better than that.

What Kirk achieved, solo, is what Decker might have been planning on achieving, solo: piloting a ship rigged for a suicidal mission so that the DDM's innards would be blown to bits.

So it's entirely plausible that this is what Decker attempted the first time around.

Could we please, please stop doing what you are doing - worrying about hurting the feelings of a fictional character - and start doing what I am doing - pondering the inconsistencies of writing in a Star Trek episode? The whole point of this thread, according to its header, is to establish Decker as either hero or fool. That can't be done if we pretend we're talking about a real person on one hand, yet thinking we can allow the world in which he lives to be unreal, inconsistent, and made of plywood and velour.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vance]

Because, Timo, you're arguing based on the invention of facts which are not actually in evidence.

Decker is shown as what he actually is, a tragic fallen hero. A desperate gamble to save his crew, a decision that Kirk himself admits he would have made, went wrong and gutted Decker's soul. Indeed, the entire episode is to present Decker as someone pushed 'just that hair too far', like Kirk himself would be in 'Obsession'.

You're having to invent plot elements to justify Decker to be someone like Tracy (who likely DID go insane with the death of his crew at a planet that promised eternal youth), or Merrick (who actually DID sell out his crew). But that's pretty solidly NOT how Decker was established in the episode.

You're entitled to your own opinions, of course, but not your own facts. That's where your argument falls down into the absurd.

 

[Shaw]

Timo said:
So it's entirely plausible that this is what Decker attempted the first time around.

In fan fiction... sure. In the episode as written and presented, no.

Again, what's with these ad hominem attacks of yours?

• -and-

That's facetious, you know. Then again, so have all your objections been, for the past few messages. You do have to do better than that.

Sorry if this is hurting your feelings...



Guys, maybe we should all give Timo a break. The poor guy seems to be feeling the pressure a bit to much for this to be enjoyable. Besides, it is quite obvious that he doesn't have the ability to support his arguments without resorting to his original fantasy version of events.

Funs over, Vance was right, nothing to see here people.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

In the 35 odd years since I first saw DDM I never ever thought of Decker as 'half-villainous' or an 'adversary' until I read Timo's posts. I always felt sorry for Decker as a tragic fallen hero (as Vance said). He was well-intentioned, but a little misguided. He honestly thought that his crew's best chance for survival was on the planet -- his ship was on the verge of being destroyed, and the planet wasn't (in his opninion, anyway). He was obviously willing to risk his life for theirs by fighting the DDM alone in his crippled ship.

In retrospect, one could possibly fault him for making the wrong decision. However, I have to believe that it was the writer's intention for the audience to feel sympathetic toward Decker, not to consider him as 'villainous' or an 'adversary'. I know I personally felt sympathy for him and think of Decker as one of the best guest-characters in all of TOS.

 

[dkehler]

I don't know. I think that Timo has brought up a number of good ideas in this discussion.

Yes, I think we all realize what the episode was going for: a Captain Ahab/Moby Dick story set in the Star Trek universe. What seems clear is that somewhere along the line, Decker became obsessed and irrational in his pursuit of the doomsday machine. I see nothing wrong with speculating about when exactly that occurred.

One of the points that I think Timo is trying to make is that as written, Decker's story is necessarily vague due to episode time constraints, and therefore leaves a lot of room for speculation. And given his erratic state of mind, I don't think it's unreasonable to contemplate whether or not everything Decker says should be taken as gospel truth. After all, he wastes little time commandeering the Enterprise to go on what even Spock knows is a futile mission.

Spock and McCoy also come across badly in their hesitation to remove Decker from command of the Enterprise when he is clearly not acting rationally. No court-martial would convict them of mutiny for refusing to allow the ship to be destroyed when there is no scientific chance of being able to defeat the machine. Their priority should have been to pick up the boarding party left on the Constellation, then get away from the doomsday machine's interference so they can warn Starfleet.

Yes, I know they tried to explain it away with regulations, but I don't buy it. The captain needs to be fully medically examined before he can be relieved by the medical officer? That's an awfully convenient loophole.

Timo also brings up a very valid point with respect to Spock's assertion that the device must come from outside the galaxy. Either he must be aware of some information that we aren't, or the writer just expects us to believe it because Spock says so. I think it's the latter.

It should be said at this point that The Doomsday Machine is my very favorite episode of the original Star Trek. But I do see the flaws with it.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

dkehler said:
...Spock and McCoy also come across badly in their hesitation to remove Decker from command of the Enterprise when he is clearly not acting rationally. No court-martial would convict them of mutiny for refusing to allow the ship to be destroyed when there is no scientific chance of being able to defeat the machine. Their priority should have been to pick up the boarding party left on the Constellation, then get away from the doomsday machine's interference so they can warn Starfleet....

Have you ever read Herman Wouk's novel "The Caine Mutiny" (or see the film)? From what I've heard, Wouk is very accurate in his assertion that a Captain of a ship is basically GOD, and there is very, very, very little justification for relieving a ship's Captain of his command.

In that novel, some of the ship's officers on board a WWII destroyer thought the captain suffered from paranoia and mental illness. The reader was also lead to believe the Capatin was mentally ill, and Wouk provided many scenes which would lead the officers and the reader to believe the Capatin was in fact mentally ill.

During a typhoon, the first officer relieves the Captain of command because he feared the Captain's incompetance due to paranoia and mental illness will directly lead to the ship's sinking during the storm. After the emrgency passes, the first officer is held for court-martial.

However, during the court-martial, the actions of the first officer were very much brought into question, since a Capatin of a vessel is the Prime Authority and the mental illness aspect of the 1st Officer's defense came under scrutiny, and became a subject of doubt -- even to the officers who were there.

In the end the 1st officer is acquitted, but there was no clear concensus to the reader on whether he had the authority to releive the Captain of command or if the Captain was actually 'mentally ill' -- even though the actions of the 1st officer maybe DID save the ship from sinking.

Anyway, my "cliffe's notes" version does not do the book any justice, and I recommend you read it (there is also another officer who is the "true antagonist" of the story, but I didn't want to get into that). But in that book there is no clear hero, nor no clear 'villain', and no clear concensus on whether or not the 1st officer's actions were justified.

In Wouk's book it is clear that in the real world, especially during wartime, it is nearly impossible to justify mutiny -- even if the Captain's actions seem to be endagering the ship. (and, yeah, I realize Star Trek isn't the real world).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I still think that Decker should have known that the planet killer would eventually destroy every planet in that system. Nothing short of an imminent warp core breach should have made him beam everyone off the ship.

 

[Keith1701]

Hero

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Well, I suppose the crew must have agreed with Decker's reasoning at the time he beamed them down. It's not like he forced them to go...

...right?

 

[Timo]

In theory, a single man could have used the transporter to grab them all and shove them to the planet against their will. Or wielded his own phaser to disintegrate them all and then concot this cover story.

The episode as such gives us a lot of facts to go by, but it also gives us an utterly implausible story for the final moments of the Constellation crew. Essentially, if Decker were a chef, he'd be telling the police that he didn't know that knives are sharp so he deeply regrets stabbing his friend 400 times with one...

That is the starting point for speculation right there. Decker is obviously lying. Now, he's also obviously mentally distraught. Most people would tell untruths when mentally distraught, without malicious intent. So we should help the poor guy and set his story straight. Surely he didn't murder his crew in cold blood? Surely he had some rationale for beaming them down to a known 100% efficient deathtrap, out of a dying starship that still at least offered them a minuscule chance of survival? (Hey, he himself survived just fine!) The odds are, he did have that rationale, because his entire crew seems to have cooperated with him. Or else there would be signs of fighting in the corridors or something.

This missing rationale is the slot that yells for fanfic to fill it, as otherwise the important role of the luminous guest star is left incomplete. The other points I discussed were simple writer goofs that warrant mention but not necessarily more: such things are present in virtually all Trek episodes, and only a nitpicking Starfleet auditor, or then some ancestor of Admiral Norah Satie, would find true fault in the conduct of the crew...

Perhaps significantly, though, many of the better Trek episodes are based on a scenario where the options of our heroes are limited. But a single hour of writing cannot generate an airtight predicament, and in retrospect, there would always be more outs for the heroes. "DDM" is one such episode where "needless" excitement is generated by the failure of the characters to sit back and properly analyze the scenario. But of course, that's neither unrealistic nor dramatically undesirable: which of us would have sat back when a planet-killing ice cream cone was thundering down towards us? (Well, Spock might have...)

I think we can all agree here that the DDM did consistently behave as if limited to low sublight speeds, even though we know it must be able to cross from star system to star system. I also think it could be acknowledged that our heroes jumped to conclusions here and there, although not necessarily to the detriment of the story. But none of that really touches upon the personality of Decker, which is the (surprisingly hot) topic here.

For that, my vote definitely goes for hero. A hero who made no idiotic error of judgement (despite what we might think based on his shell-shocked rantings), but who either fell prey to a sudden change of circumstances, or lost his courage for a brief but crucial moment - and then made good of it, in a suicidal gesture that not only satisfied his need for atonement, but ultimately completed the job he set out to do.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[biotech]

If you were in a boat in the sea, and a shark came and bit a hole in your boat so it started to sink, would you stay on the ship to drown, or would you take your chances in the sea, and hope the shark didnt get you before you could be rescued?

 

[Timo]

If I'd spent the past two weeks or so sailing through waters littered with the half-eaten remains of people who had chosen to risk the water, looking for the monster that did this, I'd probably choose to go down with the boat.

...Although Decker's boat wasn't sinking. It was still afloat when Kirk came to rescue him. It might have sunk if all the 400 people remained aboard, though (since life support was supposed to be the big problem).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Maurice]

SPOCK: Nonetheless, Captain, sensors show nothing but debris where we charted seven planets last year.

This is one solar system away from L374. Unless those systems are unusually close, the DDM had to be going FTL to get between two solar systems in less than seven months.

As to life support being a "big problem", it wasn't:

KIRK: Life support systems?
SPOCK: Also operative at a low power level.

later...

KIRK: I can't imagine a man like Matt Decker abandoning ship while his life support systems are still operative.

 

[Vance]

Low power level... which COULD be taken to mean 'it could support a few people for a time' rather than 'all 430 people meant to be aboard her have their air conditioners running'

 

[Maurice]

Vance said:
Low power level... which COULD be taken to mean 'it could support a few people for a time' rather than 'all 430 people meant to be aboard her have their air conditioners running'

I repeat...

KIRK: I can't imagine a man like Matt Decker abandoning ship while his life support systems are still operative.

Which indicates that they were operational enough that Kirk was incredulous at the idea that Decker would abandon ship.

 

[Vance]

I repeat...

They were operational enough for Decker not to abandon ship. They may not have been operational enough for the other 429 sods.