Except that's what critiques of fiction are about -- examining whether a different choice might have produced better results.
Spoilers Star Trek: Khan 1x06 - "The Good of All"
- Thread starter Avro Arrow
- Start date
Except that's what critiques of fiction are about -- examining whether a different choice might have produced better results.
To turn Khan's most trusted brother against him, which makes the stakes higher and the conclusion even more tragic. There is no tragedy in coming into conflict with someone who's already a rival. But to lose the faith of someone who trusted you is a deeper emotional wound.
Does he strike you as a most trusted brother when he goes behind Khan's back to murder someone against his will in the very first episode? Forgive me, but as an audience member- Khan's trust already seemed to be predicated on false pretenses, and Ivan already felt as if he didn't have faith in Khan to do what needed to be done, hence circumventing him.
I suppose that seeing the inevitable and already obvious building to a foregone conclusion can still be counted a tragedy- as in Revenge of the Sith, where we already know that Palpatine is evil and Anakin will become Darth Vader from the start. But in the sense of seeing that relationship happen or that faith be lost or that trust be misplaced, that seems to have already happened before the story begins, offscreen, and as an audience member, I'm just waiting for what has been clear to me since day one to become clear to the guy with a 'superior intellect.'
Now, Joachin surviving until the end, and him having been the trusted brother that slowly loses faith and betrays Khan- that would have felt like the tragedy you describe. Because he actually seemed to be that friend and the one with faith in Khan.
(A moot point, I know; the production is rather already written! :-) )
That said, thank you for sharing the thought process behind the writing. I know I've been... a little critical, of some of the writing choices in the episodes thus far. But I would be very interesting to get an 'author's commentary' on some of the writing choices- perhaps as a blog post or short companion podcast, once the series is complete?
Wouldn't Khan's most trusted brother have been Joaquin, though? He's the only character we have precedent for seeing in that role. Ivan's just some new character along with all the rest, someone we had no prior investment in, so there was no reason that we'd feel his betrayal was in any way tragic. There's no indication that anything happened to turn him against Khan; his loyalty was merely asserted as an informed trait and then immediately disproven by his murderous actions in the very first episode, making Khan seem rather naive to take his loyalty for granted.
Conflict doesn't have to be tragic, but it should feel motivated. I just feel Ivan's default to treachery would make more sense if he were a rival-turned-ally who still harbored a desire to be the guy in charge. At the very least, there should've been a slower buildup, more establishment of Khan and Ivan's relationship and Ivan's growing discontent with Khan's choices before his actions become treacherous, instead of having Ivan murder someone in the first episode.
the sounds helped
I really enjoyed this weeks episode. And again I really like how they set up a mystery to be revealed in the next episode.
Even great leaders are fallible in their choices. It's an age old story.
Well, sure- it just seems to undercut the stated premise a bit. In this case, the tragedy is just one of Khan putting his trust in the wrong guy 300 years ago before any of these stories even started, and now the inevitable consequences that were already in motion before the story even began... which I don't think was the intention.
Similar threads
- Poll
