RIP Harlan Ellison (1934-2018)

It would be the most human decision possible.

Which is not to contradict you.

Anyway, a bit too demanding of the audience.

 

Yes, that's the way he had it.

 

It would have to be one of those split second decisions. He intends to let her die, but at the last second his gut reaction takes over. Remember in Dr. Who when Rose saved her father from the car accident and risked destroying the universe? A writer can make it work without letting us lose respect for the character.

 

Not really. Spock could have prevented him, which is what Ellison's script called for.

 

Interesting. I just ordered the book. But, was Kirk's attempt premeditated or a gut reaction? If premeditated, I find it difficult not to lose respect for him.

 

What you're arguing here is that humans would not do the right thing. I don't believe that to be true. If there is one thing Star Trek was about, it was about humanity at its finest. While yes, there is a balance between the selfish nature and the common good, in the case of Edith Keeler, there was no choice. She had to die.

This isn't a case of cold Vulcan logic either. One of Star Trek's most famous Vulcan quotes was that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. In Star Trek III, we saw a case where the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.

Knowing which side of that argument is right is something a human would have to decide, and as the representation of humanity at its finest, Kirk's judgement would always be perfect. Not that perfection is human, but when it counts, Kirk ALWAYS did the right thing.

In the case of rescuing Spock versus their careers, Kirk chose a loyalty to his friend. The consequences were that Kirk would lose his career. A big consequence to be sure, and one that Kirk felt was worth it. He was right.

In the case of Edith Keeler though, Kirk's personal desires could not measure to the millions of men, women, and children that would die or cease to exist because of his selfishness. Kirk would have had to be a monster to let that happen. It would be borderline insanity, and while love can make you do things you weren't capable of before, it would be as inhuman as possible for Kirk to make the wrong decision.

I'll give a perfect comparison--Janeway. In Endgame, this woman made the most selfish decision possible, altering a timeline because she didn't like things. Millions of lives altered and changed because of her selfishness. Janeway IS the biggest villain in Star Trek history, and the writers didn't even understand that.

 

How is this different from the whole Tom Paris / Nick Locarno thing?

 

History is replete with examples of humans not doing the right thing because emotion and self-interest takes over. You don't have to look that far back, either (and unfortunately).

 

Wasn't having to pay a writer for use of a character part of the reason that Tom Paris wasn't Nick Lacarno, even though the same actor portrayed both characters and they essentially had the same back story?

whoops, looks like somebody beat me to that one?

 

I think there was a change to the standard WGA work-for-hire contract between TOS and TNG/DS9/Voy. Sometime in the '70s, I think.

 

My position is that it was done that way for the emotional impact....which is what so many people focus on when they make references to the episode. So, in that sense, the aim succeeded.

But it was not much in keeping with Star Trek, and with science-fiction in general, and with Spock's "There are always possibilities." As shown onscreen, no other possibilities were even discussed. Whenever something like that happens, I feel it opens everything up to taking it in various different directions.

Bringing Edith into the future could have been very dramatic in its own right. How much emotional impact would there have been if she went off to establish peace with the Klingons and he realized that his career was something that he just couldn't bring himself to sacrifice for anyone? They are both alive, they love each other very deeply, but they realize that they are on different paths. In many ways that can be much more difficult to deal with than death. That's what my fanfic is beginning to explore.

 

Why couldn't Kirk go back in time later, using one of the many methods shown in the series. He could transport down on the other side of the street, grab Edith, give a wink to his alternate self and then transport back with Edith.

Remember they contemplating bringing Capt. Christopher back to the future.

 

Don't forget that, although he immediately regretted it, Kirk's immediate reaction to the Klingons plight after Praxis exploded was to say "let them die". Sometimes your heart speaks out before your head has a chance to run interference.

 

No...no, I wouldn't say that at all.

(I kind of skimmed ahead after that, and then saw you go into a thing about Janeway so I just moved on.)

 

Yes, but none of these humans were Captain Kirk, who represents humanity at its best. The idea of condemning so many millions to die would make Kirk more of a monster than the Nazis themselves. It was a bad call on Ellison's part, and GR rightfully changed that. That would have been very out of character for Kirk.

Yes--no doubt. The idea that Edith had to die to save the universe was tremendous writing. The moral dilemma Kirk had to face was worthy of all the praise and discussion. The issue was that Ellison wanted Kirk to make the wrong decision, which would have been very contrary to the character. To make the RIGHT decision in light of all he felt took a level of strength that was worthy of Kirk.

It was still 1960s TV and they didn't want an Edith arc. What you're describing would work better in today's television world, where storylines are possible and they don't have so many self contained stories that could air in any order.

Keep in mind in THIS episode--their only way back to their present was the Guardian, and Edith being alive prevented that from happening. In the past, everything they did, every person they encountered, endangered the timeline.

Plus, going back to get Edith would eliminate the need to go back and get Edith, and create another paradox.

It would introduce time travel for selfish purposes and another moral dilemma. If Kirk can go back and grab Edith, why can't every death be prevented with time travel? Every red shirt that died under Kirk's command could be prevented with time travel.

If the Edith experience taught the Federation one thing--time travel is too dangerous and changing history has unintended consequences.

 

I'm not aware that any details of the settlement were ever revealed. Ellison said, when he announced a settlement (and, I should note, he was only demanding $1 in damages plus attorneys fees), that there would be a statement from his lawyer, John Carmichael, and CBS, in a few days, but I've never seen that statement.

To be frank, I have always wondered over the years if Ellison simply declared victory (ie., there was no settlement) and dropped the entire matter. CBS wouldn't dispute him -- there would be no point -- and Ellison's fans would believe him.

 

I doubt bringing Edith into the future would work.

Kirk, Spock and McCoy could return via the Guardian because they used it in the first place. I'm guessing that the Guardian could only bring them forward in time because it had a 'lock' on them, so to speak. A means of tracking them while they're in the past. Since Edith never used the Guardian, it has no way of locking onto her.

 

Just finished reading The Ellison script, as he published it. Aside from the unnecessary space pirates, it works well.

 

The Last of Us ends with a similar moral dilema.
The main character, Joel bonds with a young girl, Ellie, who is the only person known to be the immune to a fungal infection that is turning people into zombie-like monster. They travel across the US together and eventually end up at a lab where scientists can use Ellie to create a cure for the infection.

Spoiler: End of The Last of Us

It turns out the only way to make the cure is to kill Ellie, and once Joel learns this he attacks the lab, wipes out most of the people there, and saves Ellie. So basically he destroys the only chance to cure the infection because Ellie reminds him of his daughter who died the night the infection started. It's a scripted moment, but I have to confess, if I was able to choose what happened in that moment, I would make the same choice.

 

Yeah, so would I.

Stories of one kind or another are always telling us that innocents have to die for the greater good. Nice indoctrination.