'Mister Michael, you misunderstand us. We can be against him and admire him all at the same time.'
Spoilers Star Trek: Khan 1x02 - "Scheherazade"
- Thread starter Avro Arrow
- Start date
A pretty good one. I like how it fleshed out Khan and Marla and offered a new perspective on Marla's choices in "Space Seed."
Although I still find the zero-narration approach to audiodrama very confusing in an action scene. A lot of the time, it's just a bunch of noise that I can't follow until the dialogue afterward explains what happened.
I don't know about that. He fancied himself a benevolent tyrant, and I can buy that he embraced the rhetoric of tearing down the old, environmentally rapacious order and painted himself as a savior of the planet. His attitude here, that he aspired to build a paradise but believed you had to destroy the old order before you could build a better one, reminds me of Mao Zedong in his early days -- before he got so impatient to bring about his dreamed-of future utopia before he died that he tried to force it with the Cultural Revolution and caused untold suffering and death.
Rather, the duology The Eugenics Wars, to which To Reign in Hell was a sequel, portrayed them as a hidden history, a conflict that went on behind the scenes. (At least as far as Americans were concerned, since we never pay attention to anything elsewhere in the world unless it affects us -- which is why I find the novels' version plausible, since Americans actually did largely ignore some major wars in Africa during the 1990s.)
Ooh, maybe I made a mistake going with Audible, then, since there were four commercial breaks, counting the one before the episode. Turns out I really hate audiobook commercials, since I can't mute them like I do with TV commercials.
Good point. I think there's always room for reinterpreting why a character did something, as long as it's consistent with the facts of what they did. Often we do misunderstand the intentions and motivations of other people because we don't know them well enough. How they appear to be acting to us may be very different from how they see themselves acting.
I do have an issue with the idea that a ship's historian is a specialist who rarely leaves her quarters. I mean, if you're exploring alien civilizations, it's not enough to observe how they are in the present; you can't truly understand them without studying their history and how they got to where they are. Not to mention that, as Jonathan Archer said, explorer ships are making history with every light year, so someone should be observing and documenting that. Even if a ship's historian doesn't go out and participate in away missions or battles, just studies and compiles the logs, you can't document events effectively without interviewing the participants.
Aside from that credibility issue, though, Marla's sense of alienation does clarify why she was drawn to Khan and willing to align with him above her crewmates and her oaths.
But so far, we haven't seen that much of him in action -- we've mostly just heard him talk about his beliefs, goals, and intentions. That's entirely consistent with what you said, that he just believes he's a good guy. The test will be how he actually behaves when faced with reality. We saw (well, heard) hints of that more domineering side when he challenged the boar (Ceti boar?) and when he insisted on hunting for Richter alone. I got the sense that he was motivated as much by his own pride, his need to prove his dominance over the wilderness, as by his concern for Richter.
Although I still find the zero-narration approach to audiodrama very confusing in an action scene. A lot of the time, it's just a bunch of noise that I can't follow until the dialogue afterward explains what happened.
I don't know about that. He fancied himself a benevolent tyrant, and I can buy that he embraced the rhetoric of tearing down the old, environmentally rapacious order and painted himself as a savior of the planet. His attitude here, that he aspired to build a paradise but believed you had to destroy the old order before you could build a better one, reminds me of Mao Zedong in his early days -- before he got so impatient to bring about his dreamed-of future utopia before he died that he tried to force it with the Cultural Revolution and caused untold suffering and death.
Rather, the duology The Eugenics Wars, to which To Reign in Hell was a sequel, portrayed them as a hidden history, a conflict that went on behind the scenes. (At least as far as Americans were concerned, since we never pay attention to anything elsewhere in the world unless it affects us -- which is why I find the novels' version plausible, since Americans actually did largely ignore some major wars in Africa during the 1990s.)
Ooh, maybe I made a mistake going with Audible, then, since there were four commercial breaks, counting the one before the episode. Turns out I really hate audiobook commercials, since I can't mute them like I do with TV commercials.
Good point. I think there's always room for reinterpreting why a character did something, as long as it's consistent with the facts of what they did. Often we do misunderstand the intentions and motivations of other people because we don't know them well enough. How they appear to be acting to us may be very different from how they see themselves acting.
I do have an issue with the idea that a ship's historian is a specialist who rarely leaves her quarters. I mean, if you're exploring alien civilizations, it's not enough to observe how they are in the present; you can't truly understand them without studying their history and how they got to where they are. Not to mention that, as Jonathan Archer said, explorer ships are making history with every light year, so someone should be observing and documenting that. Even if a ship's historian doesn't go out and participate in away missions or battles, just studies and compiles the logs, you can't document events effectively without interviewing the participants.
Aside from that credibility issue, though, Marla's sense of alienation does clarify why she was drawn to Khan and willing to align with him above her crewmates and her oaths.
But so far, we haven't seen that much of him in action -- we've mostly just heard him talk about his beliefs, goals, and intentions. That's entirely consistent with what you said, that he just believes he's a good guy. The test will be how he actually behaves when faced with reality. We saw (well, heard) hints of that more domineering side when he challenged the boar (Ceti boar?) and when he insisted on hunting for Richter alone. I got the sense that he was motivated as much by his own pride, his need to prove his dominance over the wilderness, as by his concern for Richter.
Good news -- episode 2 is on YouTube after all!
I guess we just have to wait until about 6 PM Eastern, judging by the time stamp.
I guess we just have to wait until about 6 PM Eastern, judging by the time stamp.
The last episode should have Leerman out in the final tape, and just get "Yeah this is Commander Kyle of the starship Reliant, I don't know what kind of crazy lies this traitor told you, but she totally betrayed Starfleet because she fell in love with this guy, and he's totally crazy, and this is the second starship he's hijacked out from under me... anyway, if anyone ever listens to this, just don't believe any stories she tells you, she's just going to try to make both of them sound good anyway. Don't buy a word of it."
This RSS feed should allow direct downloads.
Something that kept jumping out to me this week was how the dialogue jumps between normal conversational interchanges and then odd "classic movie" type phraseology, like the kind I would hear in biblical epics like Ben-Hur where the dialogue is a bit more "flowery."
Beyond that, the story is starting to gel and I dug episode 2 more than the first.
Beyond that, the story is starting to gel and I dug episode 2 more than the first.
What I find puzzling is the format. The frame story with Marla's tapes seemed like the setup for an epistolary or found-footage kind of story, where what we're hearing is the actual recordings. But the bulk of the series is very much not that, since there are scenes that Marla isn't present for. What we're hearing is not what Dr. Lear is hearing, and there are parts that Marla, and thus Lear, wouldn't even know about. So there's something of a disconnect between the two parts of the storyline.
It's also weird because it seems to me that a log- or journal-based format would be a handy way to allow for narration within the story, to fill in details that a pure dialogue-and-sound-effects format can't provide. Of course, framing stories with log entries is a foundational Star Trek tradition.
It's also weird because it seems to me that a log- or journal-based format would be a handy way to allow for narration within the story, to fill in details that a pure dialogue-and-sound-effects format can't provide. Of course, framing stories with log entries is a foundational Star Trek tradition.
Marla: I'm so glad to be away from the Enterprise with a real man like you Khan. I lost count of the number of wimpy creeps trying to hit on me, the worst was that transporter officer Gyle, I mean Kyle.
I doubt that they're going to go with a "Khan was right" narrative, and would be disappointed if they did so. That said, I have no problem with giving a little more depth and dimension to the character.
So far I'm not hearing anything incompatible with "Space Seed." The episode stressed that he was the best of the tyrants. Like Alexander or Genghis, he was benevolent to his loyal subjects but ruthless to his enemies or those who resisted his rule. So far in the podcast, we haven't seen him interact with anyone but his loyal subjects (as far as he knows), so there's no inconsistency.
9. I loved it, though it was dragged down a little by needing to fill out minor characters.
I don't get why people are saying Khan is being softened. He is showing enthusiasm, but signs of his tyranny are always present. "What if their lies flatter me more than your truths" (paraphrased) was a chilling statement.
I don't get why people are saying Khan is being softened. He is showing enthusiasm, but signs of his tyranny are always present. "What if their lies flatter me more than your truths" (paraphrased) was a chilling statement.
Khan's portrayed as described in Space Seed, but other takes (Into Darkness, SNW) portray his reign as one filled with murder and torture. It seems like this audio is just taking the lead from Space Seed and ignoring how Khan was described in the 21st century works.
I look at it as: in the future, when this is done, I'll be able to go from "Space Seed" to Khan to TWOK, and that will be a sort-of Khan Trilogy.
I don't watch SNW and forgot about Into Darkness a long time ago. So, I'm trying to go by what I remember of "Space Seed".
I'm going to give "Space Seed" a re-watch just for Khan. I'm fully invested in this.
I don't watch SNW and forgot about Into Darkness a long time ago. So, I'm trying to go by what I remember of "Space Seed".
I'm going to give "Space Seed" a re-watch just for Khan. I'm fully invested in this.
Last edited:
There was one line in Into Darkness about Khan committing genocide, but in other respects, STID portrayed Khan as a nuanced figure consistent with "Space Seed" and with this, a leader whose highest priority was taking care of his followers. I'm not going to weigh that one line over the rest of the movie.
I don't remember exactly what was said in SNW, but Marla's description of how history remembers Khan sounds consistent with SNW's portrayal of what La'an believes about Khan. The whole point is that Marla believes history got him wrong and wants to set the record straight. So there is no contradiction with SNW. (Indeed, "Tomorrow..." itself ended with La'an questioning her certainty about Khan's nature.) Part of the theme of this audio series is that history is told differently by different people. One of the most basic things I learned as a history major was never to assume any single source is correct, because every source has a bias. Historians often disagree with each other over the interpretation of a historic figure or event, and the perception of a historic figure can change over time (for instance, Christopher Columbus or General Custer). So different characters in different works describing Khan in different ways is not a writing error, it's actually quite realistic as a portrayal of how historical figures are interpreted in later generations.
Do not tyrants make appeals to beauty and nature?
I think the softening of Khan is less the fact that he can be gentle with his subjects- and more that he seems to have lost the proud and regal bearing that we saw him display even when talking with them onscreen. His manner is less confident, less forceful, less commanding- lacking the ambition and strength that we saw demonstrated in Space Seed. (In my view).
He worries about how he has made Marla feel; in Space Seed, Khan no less wanted her by his side, but such concerns seemed 'beneath him.' Likewise, he was positive and not harsh with his followers, but he never seemed so informal or concerned about their feelings (not wanting to embarrass two of his party in the second episode, for instance). And there's a certain leadership distance- we see it with Kirk (in Roddenberry episodes more than Coon episode) and Picard, as well. A certain formality with those under your command. Khan seemed to have that in all prior appearances. Here, he seems a little too... familiar, with his people. Acting like one of them, conversing on that level, acting as a peer. In a manner that just doesn't fit 'these people swore to live and die at my command...' There's a certain relational hierarchy there that seems to be absent.
I guess I would say- to sum up the case for the opposition (which oddly seems to be my function around here... :-) ), that it's less that Khan is incapable of being genial or caring or any of these other things, and more that the manner in which he does them doesn't seem to fit the strong personality and outlook of the man we saw onscreen.
For those that get the reference- there's Ron Swanson kindness, and Leslie Knope kindness. Both care about people deeply, in their own ways- but the way they express that (and how much they express or open up) varies greatly between the two of them. Both have those traits, but express them in vastly different ways.
For me, I don't object to the traits that Khan displays, per se... but the way in which he displays them does not seem to match the haughty, regal bearing we had depicted... even when he was alone with his followers.
He worries about how he has made Marla feel; in Space Seed, Khan no less wanted her by his side, but such concerns seemed 'beneath him.' Likewise, he was positive and not harsh with his followers, but he never seemed so informal or concerned about their feelings (not wanting to embarrass two of his party in the second episode, for instance). And there's a certain leadership distance- we see it with Kirk (in Roddenberry episodes more than Coon episode) and Picard, as well. A certain formality with those under your command. Khan seemed to have that in all prior appearances. Here, he seems a little too... familiar, with his people. Acting like one of them, conversing on that level, acting as a peer. In a manner that just doesn't fit 'these people swore to live and die at my command...' There's a certain relational hierarchy there that seems to be absent.
I guess I would say- to sum up the case for the opposition (which oddly seems to be my function around here... :-) ), that it's less that Khan is incapable of being genial or caring or any of these other things, and more that the manner in which he does them doesn't seem to fit the strong personality and outlook of the man we saw onscreen.
For those that get the reference- there's Ron Swanson kindness, and Leslie Knope kindness. Both care about people deeply, in their own ways- but the way they express that (and how much they express or open up) varies greatly between the two of them. Both have those traits, but express them in vastly different ways.
For me, I don't object to the traits that Khan displays, per se... but the way in which he displays them does not seem to match the haughty, regal bearing we had depicted... even when he was alone with his followers.
Last edited:
I would absolutely take a Rashamon/dueling banjos/he-said-she-said finale with Kyle and Marla's differing accounts bickering over how things 'really' went down. Sign me up for that Kickstarter project! :-)
I listened to this one over the last couple days and I really enjoyed it. It gave us some nice character work for everybody, and it was cool getting more a feel for what predisaster Ceti Alpha VI was like. One other advantage I realized to the way this has been portraying Khan, is that it will make it even more tragic when we hit the disaster and he completely loses it.
That's pretty typical of a lot of these kind of stories nowadays, the same thing happened a lot with shows like How I Met Your Mother and Burn Notice, which were both presented as a character telling the story, but showed a lot of stuff that the narrator wouldn't have actually been aware of.
I am getting them through my Audible account. They appear as released.
BTW, the voice of Marla is outstanding! Congrats to Wrenn Schmidt!
Similar threads
- Poll
