• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

novel Federation - Why did TNG crew not recognize it?

^Yes, Kirk's a famous captain, but he wouldn't be the only famous captain. Heck, when you're exploring the uncharted reaches of the galaxy, it would be hard not to achieve history-making feats.

Besides, just because somebody's famous, that doesn't mean that every single person in the future has studied his career so intimately that they'd immediately know the difference betwen two versions of his ship 20 years apart. I mean, I know about Ferdinand Magellan's historic circumnavigation of the globe, but I couldn't tell you what any of his expedition's ships looked like at any point in their lifespans. I'm not denying that Kirk is a famous historical figure, I'm just rejecting the kneejerk assumption that everyone in the 24th century is a Trekkie who's studied every one of Kirk's adventures as exhaustively as TOS fans have done.
 
^^No, of course he wouldn't be the only famous captain. But the way I understood it when I was younger, Roddenberry said something along the lines of the Enterprise being the only ship worth being A, B, C, D designations, so on and so forth, which I think is a ridiculous idea cause as you said, there had to be other famous captains. I guess I'm just thinking that it seems like from everything that I've read that Kirk is probably the most famous captain.

But in any case, I still see your point. :) :techman:
 
I don't like the idea of Kirk being this super-famous, unmatched cosmic hero in-universe. For one thing, it's small-universe syndrome, having the guy around whom the TV series revolved also be the guy around whom the whole in-story universe revolved. More importantly, what made Kirk effective as a character is that he wasn't some larger-than-life superman, but just a very competent everyman, a symbol of Roddenberry's belief of the potential all human beings have. He got the job done, but he was fallible, vulnerable, human. He had people that he looked up to as heroes, like Garth of Izar. If Garth was Kirk's hero, doesn't it stand to reason that he'd be held up by history as a comparably great captain?

Yes, granted, it makes sense that someone who saved the Earth from destructive alien probes twice in less than 15 years would become somewhat more famous than the average starship captain. But I just don't think putting Kirk on a pedestal fits the character. Maybe it fits Shatner's ego, but not Kirk's.

I suspect the only reason Roddenberry postulated in his TMP novelization footnotes that there was anything uniquely remarkable about Kirk's 5-year mission is because he was writing the book with the conceit that it was an in-universe chronicle of Kirk's adventures, and that the original series had been a somewhat fictionalized and exaggerated in-universe portrayal of the "real" 5-year mission of the Enterprise. So in order to justify why this particular crew would've gotten that kind of special focus, with their adventures being made into popular fiction, he put forth the idea that it was because of the exceptional fact that it survived its 5-year mission more intact than any other starship. It wasn't necessarily something he passionately believed had to be the case; it was just a way of rationalizing the conceit behind his approach to the novelization.
 
And yet it was precisely the larger than life aspects that were front and center in IX. Got into the Academy without even having to apply. Beating the Kobayashi Maru (granted, Prime Kirk did this as well), graduated in three years rather than four and went straight from the Academy to Captain on the newest and most advanced starship. Sounds pretty larger than life to me.

If NuKirk can acomplish all that, including saving Earth, as a cadet, who's to say Prime Kirk isn't help in the same regard?
 
Christopher said:
I don't like the idea of Kirk being this super-famous, unmatched cosmic hero in-universe. For one thing, it's small-universe syndrome, having the guy around whom the TV series revolved also be the guy around whom the whole in-story universe revolved. More importantly, what made Kirk effective as a character is that he wasn't some larger-than-life superman, but just a very competent everyman, a symbol of Roddenberry's belief of the potential all human beings have. He got the job done, but he was fallible, vulnerable, human. He had people that he looked up to as heroes, like Garth of Izar. If Garth was Kirk's hero, doesn't it stand to reason that he'd be held up by history as a comparably great captain?

Yes, granted, it makes sense that someone who saved the Earth from destructive alien probes twice in less than 15 years would become somewhat more famous than the average starship captain. But I just don't think putting Kirk on a pedestal fits the character. Maybe it fits Shatner's ego, but not Kirk's.

I suspect the only reason Roddenberry postulated in his TMP novelization footnotes that there was anything uniquely remarkable about Kirk's 5-year mission is because he was writing the book with the conceit that it was an in-universe chronicle of Kirk's adventures, and that the original series had been a somewhat fictionalized and exaggerated in-universe portrayal of the "real" 5-year mission of the Enterprise. So in order to justify why this particular crew would've gotten that kind of special focus, with their adventures being made into popular fiction, he put forth the idea that it was because of the exceptional fact that it survived its 5-year mission more intact than any other starship. It wasn't necessarily something he passionately believed had to be the case; it was just a way of rationalizing the conceit behind his approach to the novelization.
Click to expand...

I would also add that in TOS men like Pike, Tracy, Garth and Decker are held in high regard and even looked up to by Kirk. So there are references in TOS to other Captains of fame for their time in the center seat.

Couold one even argue that at the time of TOS, Pike was considered is the "top dog" slot of fame, from the way he is talked about?

A side note, interesting thread and made all the better by an author's back-and-forth with us. Thank you Mr. Bennett.

Personally I think the USS Titan and Capt. Riker are the best, but that's me. LOL ;) (Seriously though, as someone who serves I always have thought of Riker as a role model of how to conduct myself in my leadership positions, and the Titan novels have only built on that.)
 
Christopher said:
I don't like the idea of Kirk being this super-famous, unmatched cosmic hero in-universe. For one thing, it's small-universe syndrome, having the guy around whom the TV series revolved also be the guy around whom the whole in-story universe revolved. More importantly, what made Kirk effective as a character is that he wasn't some larger-than-life superman, but just a very competent everyman, a symbol of Roddenberry's belief of the potential all human beings have. He got the job done, but he was fallible, vulnerable, human. He had people that he looked up to as heroes, like Garth of Izar. If Garth was Kirk's hero, doesn't it stand to reason that he'd be held up by history as a comparably great captain?

Yes, granted, it makes sense that someone who saved the Earth from destructive alien probes twice in less than 15 years would become somewhat more famous than the average starship captain. But I just don't think putting Kirk on a pedestal fits the character. Maybe it fits Shatner's ego, but not Kirk's.

I suspect the only reason Roddenberry postulated in his TMP novelization footnotes that there was anything uniquely remarkable about Kirk's 5-year mission is because he was writing the book with the conceit that it was an in-universe chronicle of Kirk's adventures, and that the original series had been a somewhat fictionalized and exaggerated in-universe portrayal of the "real" 5-year mission of the Enterprise. So in order to justify why this particular crew would've gotten that kind of special focus, with their adventures being made into popular fiction, he put forth the idea that it was because of the exceptional fact that it survived its 5-year mission more intact than any other starship. It wasn't necessarily something he passionately believed had to be the case; it was just a way of rationalizing the conceit behind his approach to the novelization.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. :techman:
 
kkozoriz1 said:
And yet it was precisely the larger than life aspects that were front and center in IX.
Click to expand...

Where was Kirk mentioned in Insurrection? :p

IX is the Roman numeral for nine, where as XI is the Roman numeral for eleven.
 
Then again, IX is as good a way to spell "Yikes!" as any, and thus probably apt for the 2009 movie. :vulcan:

Timo Saloniemi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top