Spoilers Saints of Imperfection and Gene's Vision

[fireproof78]

In Star Trek or in Starfleet?
Star Trek is full of "bad" characters. Rogue captains and admirals, the misguided doing the wrong thing for the right reasons and folks just following orders. Often they are the darkness that allows our heroes to "shine".

I guess the idea of evil organization is more uncomfortable in the optimistic future, over the, um, rather significant percentage of rogue admirals and officers we have seen over the years-Tracey, Merrick, Finnegan, Decker, Cartwright, Valeris, Colonel West, Maxwell, Kennelly, Leyton, Ross, Hudson, Eddington, Doughterty. Not to mention the times Kirk, Sisko, and Picard went off the reservation.

But, as long as there is no evil organization that's fine. It's a feature, not a bug.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I am a few episodes behind and I do enjoy the show but I thought the scene where Cornwell tells Leland and Pike to work together was uncomfortably symbolic.

Firstly, it's a pitch from the writers for the Section 31 show and I'm fine with that.

Secondly, and more troubling, it felt like an uncoupling of Gene's vision of a better future from the Star Trek universe. Pike, the clean-cut poster child for Gene's liberal and hopeful future is an illusion, only able to exist because his cuddly world is underpinned by dirty tricks and ugly 'nation-building'. That the pitch comes from a standard Starfleet Admiral feels like ths is an official stamp.

Do people think this is an olive-branch to try and unite the old and new fans? I'm a fan of the show, but I actually thought this was a step too far for me. I've always loved Trek's, albeit inconsistent, vision of a liberal, optimistic future as the framework against which darker stories could be told. A desire to tell darker stories doesn't mean they should sacrifice the core values that made Star Trek so great. Do spymasters really need to have no ethical boundaries as the default?

Section 31 as spymasters and undercover agents is intriguing. Section 31 as right wing puppetmasters duping the liberals into thinking their cosy ethos actually works feels a bit insulting.

Without spoiling anything specifically, suffice it to say that Section 31 goes on to be depicted as having caused at least as much trouble as it has prevented, if not more, in following episodes. As has been the case since their introduction on DS9 more than twenty years ago, they obviously pitch themselves as a "necessary" underpinning of the hopeful "illusion"—and indeed find at least tacit endorsement from elements within Starfleet Command and the Federation Council, when the pressure is on, particularly in times of war—but to what extent this belief is actually justified will likely remain a matter of debate, and moreover one that will ultimately yield only uncomfortable uncertainty, both onscreen and off.

Mike Okuda often quoted of Roddenberry (specifically in reference to cloaking, yet more broadly applicable here than to just that aspect) that "our people...don't sneak around." The very point of Section 31 as a device is to make us question: Who are those people? Are they ours? If so, why are they acting like that? And how are they being allowed to get away with it? Do they know something we don't? Can we trust them? Are they telling us the truth? How far does the rabbit hole go? Are they the tail or the dog? Does their very existence prove them right? Great Bird, is this what we've come to?

Yet, as @Ovation and others have said, Section 31 stories (including the current one) have generally tended rather less toward devaluation of Gene's Vision™ than they have toward reinforcing the sense of value placed in it by Our Heroes™ on balance. Of course, there is always a hint of ambiguity as to whether they may have a point or not. Are they good guys gone bad, or bad guys gone good? A little of both? It's one of those "gray areas" amid the black and white. It remains to be seen how a show with Section 31 as its protagonists rather than its antagonists might treat the subject, but DSC thus far doesn't seem to be grossly mishandling the concept to me. It's certainly provoking all the right questions and discomforts here, that's for sure!

The organization literally names itself after a part of the Starfleet Charter authorizing the complete and total abandonment of any and all Starfleet regulations under emergencies. I don't think a moral compass is high on their priorities. At all.

As a unit, I think their moral compass is pretty straightforward, from their perspective: the Federation must survive, at all costs. (Of course, that's probably decidedly not Mirror-Georgiou's point of view. And others among their ranks may implicitly correlate to it: Section 31 must survive at all costs.)

I have a Ouija Board at home. I can ask Gene what he thinks about "Saints of Imperfection". Anything else any of you want me to ask him while I'm at it?

Ask him if he ever remembered whether it was a D-6 or a D-7. He'll love that one.

-MMoM

 

[The Wormhole]

I could be wrong, but I don't think we, the viewing audience, have ever actually been told the exact language in that section of the charter. They could be willfully twisting and misinterpreting it to justify what they do.

Kor

Agent Harris in Enterprise quotes Section 31, Article 14 of the Charter, in what is generally presumed to be an exact quote, that's how the novels treat it. Indeed, even before that episode aired, the novels had their own Section 31 of the Charter which though worded differently basically meant the same thing. In Saints of Imperfection, Admiral Cornwell does reference Section 31, Article 14 of the Charter while defending the organization to Pike.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Agent Harris in Enterprise quotes Section 31, Article 14 of the Charter, in what is generally presumed to be an exact quote

All he says is: "There are a few lines that make allowances for bending the rules during times of extraordinary threat." How could that possibly be an exact quote?

-MMoM

 

[The Wormhole]

Oh, I thought he actually did quote the line. I guess I mixed it up with the novels where they provide the exact quote.

 

[Kor]

Agent Harris in Enterprise quotes Section 31, Article 14 of the Charter, in what is generally presumed to be an exact quote, that's how the novels treat it. Indeed, even before that episode aired, the novels had their own Section 31 of the Charter which though worded differently basically meant the same thing. In Saints of Imperfection, Admiral Cornwell does reference Section 31, Article 14 of the Charter while defending the organization to Pike.

In the ENT episode "Divergence," Harris simply says the following:

Reread the Charter, Article 14, Section 31. There are a few lines that make allowances for bending the rules during times of extraordinary threat.

That's not what I would call an exact quote of the section in question. It doesn't really say anything at all.

Edit: MMoM already quoted Harris's line.

Kor

 

[ISS_Einstein]

I thought the scene where Cornwell tells Leland and Pike to work together was uncomfortably symbolic.

...it felt like an uncoupling of Gene's vision of a better future from the Star Trek universe. Pike, the clean-cut poster child for Gene's liberal and hopeful future is an illusion, only able to exist because his cuddly world is underpinned by dirty tricks and ugly 'nation-building'. That the pitch comes from a standard Starfleet Admiral feels like ths is an official stamp.

That is exactly how I felt about that scene - deeply troubling. Starfleet's own Kissinger Doctrine.

Maybe they are back tracking now, as Section 31 have turned out pretty awful, but Cornwell is still around speaking like final arbiter of morality, and Section 31 are too.

 

[saladdays]

Maybe they are back tracking now, as Section 31 have turned out pretty awful,

 

[The Wormhole]

Maybe they are back tracking now, as Section 31 have turned out pretty awful, but Cornwell is still around speaking like final arbiter of morality, and Section 31 are too.

I should think it's obvious from recent episodes that Admiral Cornwell is not on Section 31's side anymore.

 

[DaveyNY]

I should think it's obvious from recent episodes that Admiral Cornwell is not on Section 31's side anymore.

Only because of the belief that the Control AI is behind the current troubles.
Otherwise she probably still thinks it's a viable part of Star Fleet.

 

[XCV330]

I should think it's obvious from recent episodes that Admiral Cornwell is not on Section 31's side anymore.

She once shot a bowl of cookies in a crowded room. She's advocated genocide. She gave an empress from an alternate universe with 10 years of spoilers command of starfleet's most advanced ship. She sleeps with subordinates she believes may be suffering from mental illness, is willing to give 2 minutes worth the Dr Phil Therapy to a resurrected officer having an actual existential crisis and get him back in a uniform. She knowingly agrees with Section 31's violations of UFP regulations and yet had issues with Lorca bringing Burnham on board. She is as stable as a California fault line

I still like her, for the character she is, but she has her place in a long line of screwy Starfleet Admirals.

 

[zar]

She once shot a bowl of cookies in a crowded room. She's advocated genocide. She gave an empress from an alternate universe with 10 years of spoilers command of starfleet's most advanced ship. She sleeps with subordinates she believes may be suffering from mental illness, is willing to give 2 minutes worth the Dr Phil Therapy to a resurrected officer having an actual existential crisis and get him back in a uniform. She knowingly agrees with Section 31's violations of UFP regulations and yet had issues with Lorca bringing Burnham on board. She is as stable as a California fault line

But she walks like Rihanna.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Agreed about "Gene's Vision"........usually when I see that phrase I tune out immediately. It's a myth that was invented after the fact. Gene was trying to make a living.

I too agree. Gene Roddenberry's original "vision" for Star Trek was for it to be a cash cow that it would also provide him opportunities to meet and "greet" (if you know what I'm sayin') women. Sometime after he left TOS (prior to season 3) he took to convention appearances and college lectures to help support him, his family, and his swinging lifestyle (along with his creation of Lincoln Enterprises). His retooled "vision" was for the benefit of his audiences (his de facto patrons) and never really meshed up with the original series produced.

 

[The Wormhole]

Only because of the belief that the Control AI is behind the current troubles.
Otherwise she probably still thinks it's a viable part of Star Fleet.

Even before learning that, she willingly went renegade because of Pike's report on what they attempted to do to Spock.

 

[Nyotarules]

She once shot a bowl of cookies in a crowded room. She's advocated genocide. She gave an empress from an alternate universe with 10 years of spoilers command of starfleet's most advanced ship. She sleeps with subordinates she believes may be suffering from mental illness, is willing to give 2 minutes worth the Dr Phil Therapy to a resurrected officer having an actual existential crisis and get him back in a uniform. She knowingly agrees with Section 31's violations of UFP regulations and yet had issues with Lorca bringing Burnham on board. She is as stable as a California fault line

I still like her, for the character she is, but she has her place in a long line of screwy Starfleet Admirals.

That's why she made it all the way to Admiral, more likely under the Medical Division of Starfleet.
The Federation and Starfleet are about as perfect as present day USA and the US armed forces (whose 'ideal' values the show is based on, right?) compared to life in Colonial America 1776 and the Revolutionary Army...

 

[Arpy]

I don’t understand people’s problem with “Gene’s vision.” He doesn’t have to have come up with it in the “The Cage”’s writers bible for it to be legitimate.

Character assassination of Gene doesn’t help either. Regardless whatever else the man was about, his vision for Trek remains his vision for Trek.

More importantly, it doesn’t matter if it originated with Gene or anyone else. The point is that it’s a vision shared by many fans then, now, and in the future.

Section 31 undermines the idea of the Federation (the best part of Star Trek) — that it’s doable without secret genocidal gestapo making it happen. That the utopia is a fraud, if not a dystopia.

 

[fireproof78]

Because Star Trek didn't start out as a utopia. Humanity was still savage, perhaps less so, but was willing to grow and become better.

As for "Gene's Vision" I hesitate to use the phrase because there is little consistency to it. It changed from TOS to TMP to TNG. It went from humanity growing and working together and surviving together to an enlightened society that can't imagine primitive 20th century humans without shuddering. It became less optimistic to idealism to elitism.

Which one should I want?

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I don’t understand people’s problem with “Gene’s vision.” He doesn’t have to have come up with it in the “The Cage”’s writers bible for it to be legitimate.

"Gene's vision" is more a buzz phrase than anything else nowadays. More and more it is being used by folks who are farther and farther away from the source. Also, as stated previously, even G.R.'s "visions" as he laid it out was often at odds with what was produced.

Character assassination of Gene doesn’t help either. Regardless whatever else the man was about, his vision for Trek remains his vision for Trek.

It is not "character assassination" if it's the truth. He was a proud swinger. He was married and had kids when he was out partying with Majel Barret. When he married Majel Barrett he had another child and still had affairs. To say he looked to Star Trek to be his winning lottery ticket is not necessarily a negative considering that is the ambition of most in Hollywood. The only real negative is that he abandoned ship prematurely (prior to season 3) but again that is the truth.

More importantly, it doesn’t matter if it originated with Gene or anyone else. The point is that it’s a vision shared by many fans then, now, and in the future.

It would be interesting to do an in depth survey of Star Trek fans, cast and crew to find out just how shared the "vision" of Star Trek truly is. Not being sarcastic as I think folks would be surprised (including myself). I'm not just talking about the superficial kumbaya stuff.

Section 31 undermines the idea of the Federation (the best part of Star Trek) — that it’s doable without secret genocidal gestapo making it happen. That the utopia is a fraud, if not a dystopia.

Personally, I disagree. Granted I'm a TOS era fan where the series POV was fundamentally different from Modern Trek. TOS held up a mirror so we could see our true reflection while Modern Trek tended to point a finger and pontificate. So Section-31 is a touch of realism and relevance added back into the mix as our greatest enemy will always be ourselves. And all great enemies adapt. S31 is a possible testament to that.

S31 also goes to where GRs stated "vision" always diverged from the reality of what we got in the series. In his lectures he always tried to describe a future where we had mastered ourselves while the very definition of sound drama lay in the illustration of how we haven't. Even in TOS you had Starfleet captains wanting immortality or glory others wanted power or wealth. The snake never left the garden - that is the point of S31 and why it's existence is valid.

As I see it anyway.

 

[XCV330]

Section 31 undermines the idea of the Federation (the best part of Star Trek) — that it’s doable without secret genocidal gestapo making it happen. That the utopia is a fraud, if not a dystopia.

I disagree. Section 31 shows that humanity has come a long way but ultimately must still be vigilant against the lesser angels of its nature.

 

[Alan Roi]

Section 31 undermines the idea of the Federation (the best part of Star Trek) — that it’s doable without secret genocidal gestapo making it happen. That the utopia is a fraud, if not a dystopia.

Your assumption is that Star Trek always and completely has shown us every aspect of the Federation. Its been a propaganda piece as much as anything else. Secondly, in fiction (which Star Trek is) Utopias are often veneers over less perfect societies which are often, but not always, dystopias in disguise.

And, honestly, so what if the Federation isn't a perfect utopia? As many people often say, what Star Trek is about the hope that our journey to the future is about things getting better. Perfection isn't part of that journey. What stories can be told of perfection that we can relate to? Its an absolute, and we don't live in a world of absolutes.