The STAR TREK Hero: With or Without Flaws?

[2takesfrakes]

A lot is being made of DS9 and TOS being possessed of flawed, lead characters. But what of the other side of the equation? Gene Roddenberry made a bold move, with STAR TREK: The Next Generation, in allowing its heroes to transcend from mere ordinary doing extraordinary things by making them Living Legends.

Needless to say, this approach to STAR TREK is favourable to me, despite being a fan of the reboots. And I strongly suspected that I was not alone, in that. I'm certainly not the only TNG fan, utlising this forum! Oh, well. Perhaps, the enormous success and popularity of the reboots has swung the pendulum too far in the other direction to see this poll swing back in favour of TNG sensibilities. But I hold out the hope that, indeed, there are more of us than we know ...

 

[BillJ]

A lot is being made of DS9 and TOS being possessed of flawed, lead characters. But what of the other side of the equation? Gene Roddenberry made a bold move, with STAR TREK: The Next Generation, in allowing its heroes to transcend from mere ordinary doing extraordinary things by making them Living Legends.

It was a bold move. But it killed much of the rewatch value of the series for me.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

If a hero is just perfect and can plow over the enemy through natural talent and force of personality, that character is boring and nobody cares if he wins because it was never in question.

@STEPhon IT

Catherine Janeway is a Mary Sue now? She's got even more flaws than Kate Austin. I'm starting to wonder if you have any idea what a Mary Sue is, cause it seems like you just don't make the distinction between a strong proactive female (Not Mary Sue) and an overly perfect unflawed female (An actual Mary Sue).

 

[Greg Cox]

Sorry, I prefer the TOS approach.

Although in TNG's defense, the "people in the future have evolved beyond petty weaknesses" thing was toned down after the first season or so and the characters were allowed to be a bit more human. Picard had family issues and was traumatized by his experience with the Borg, Wesley became less of a Mary Sue and more like an actual teenager, Ensign Ro added some much-needed edge and conflict, and, while he was around, O'Brian was a perfectly relatable Everyman.

And rather than bash TNG, let's look at when they got the balance between heroism and humanity right. "The Wounded" is one of my all-time favorite TNG episodes, and the people in that story are far from perfect paragons. Captain Maxwell is damaged and out of control (but not entirely wrong about the Cardassians), O'Brien is torn between conflicting loyalties and wrestling with his own memories of the war, and the ep ends on a distinctly ambiguous note.

And, to my mind, none of that diminished our heroes or the series. In the end, both Picard and O'Brien do their duty and make what they believe to be the right decisions, even if the situation is far from morally clear-cut.

 

[Six of Twelve]

If I wanted black and white heroes and villains, I'd watch Superman or Batman, because they were never meant to be like real people.

But I don't want to watch shows about heroes. I want to watch a show about real people who want to do the right thing, but who don't always know what the right thing is, so they wrestle with their consciences and end up doing the best they can to do what's right, even if they sometimes miss the mark, as what's right in one situation isn't necessarily right in another. So, I want to watch shows about people who are mostly ethical, who occasionally do heroic things. They don't need to be larger than life.

This is far more interesting to watch than a perfect Dudley Do-Right character. I suspect that a perfect person would be insufferable anyway.

What I especially like is when an antagonist will unexpectedly do the right thing in the end, showing themselves to be a complex character who still does possess a conscience, even though they ignore it most of the time.

 

[Greg Cox]

I

What I especially like is when an antagonist will unexpectedly do the right thing in the end, showing themselves to be a complex character who still does possess a conscience, even though they ignore it most of the time.

I'm a sucker for that kind of twist, too.

 

[Vger23]

I always considered Kirk and Spock both heroically larger than life yet also very flawed. Maybe that's why they continue to stand out fifty years later?

That's it right there.

You can have "flawed heroes" (i.e.: Kirk, Spock, Sisko) without having them be amoral or murderers (Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc).

 

[Vger23]

I'm a sucker for that kind of twist, too.

Sybok!

 

[Vger23]

I am not ashamed of the word "hero." We need heroes, people to emulate. The crew of Enterprise 1701 were people who went forth to do good.

One could argue (as they themselves did) about whether they were correct in their assumptions of what "good" is. Sometimes, in fact, I think they were incorrect ("This Side of Paradise," for example). Yet they often sought to protect the weak, coexist with the different, and enlarge their understanding. These are admirable enterprises, in my opinion. They helped me develop whatever moral compass I have, as did characters from the Lone Ranger and Batman to Nicholas Nickleby.

Much agreed. The good old-fashioned idea (and persona) of a dyed-in-the-wool rugged "hero" has somehow been shamed out of our culture (probably offensive to some special interest group...hahaha). We need more John Waynes, Indiana Jonses and Jim Kirks on our televisions and movie screens.

 

[Six of Twelve]

But it's kind of sad to look to TV to look for role models and someone to emulate. Every community has people worth emulating, at least in part. I never had to look any further than my own parents when needing a role model. I understand that not everyone had good parents, but there are teachers, coaches, clergy, work mentors and so on in every community that have some worthy qualities to learn from.

TV for me is a place to derive entertainment from, not a place to patch up defects in my character. I may glean something useful from time to time there, but mostly, it's strictly entertainment.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I am not ashamed of the word "hero." We need heroes, people to emulate. The crew of Enterprise 1701 were people who went forth to do good.

One could argue (as they themselves did) about whether they were correct in their assumptions of what "good" is. Sometimes, in fact, I think they were incorrect ("This Side of Paradise," for example). Yet they often sought to protect the weak, coexist with the different, and enlarge their understanding. These are admirable enterprises, in my opinion. They helped me develop whatever moral compass I have, as did characters from the Lone Ranger and Batman to Nicholas Nickleby.

Much agreed. The good old-fashioned idea (and persona) of a dyed-in-the-wool rugged "hero" has somehow been shamed out of our culture (probably offensive to some special interest group...hahaha). We need more John Waynes, Indiana Jonses and Jim Kirks on our televisions and movie screens.

Well said. I adore characters who just does things that are right based upon their simple design, and I would hope the writing support those characters' ethics. Everyone can get something admirable about those kinds of fictional images. Those characters can be embraced as much as the issue-driven ones, it all depends on how the viewer connects with them.

 

[Greg Cox]

Much agreed. The good old-fashioned idea (and persona) of a dyed-in-the-wool rugged "hero" has somehow been shamed out of our culture (probably offensive to some special interest group...hahaha). We need more John Waynes, Indiana Jonses and Jim Kirks on our televisions and movie screens.

But those characters had their flaws, too. John Wayne had to overcome his racist attitudes in THE SEARCHERS, and face the fact that he had become obsolete in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. Indiana Jones had pretty much screwed up his relationship with Marion and her father, back in the day, and was skeptical regarding the magical powers of the Ark at first. Kirk let past tragedies temporarily cloud his judgment in "Obsession" and "The Conscience of the King" and clashed with Decker over command of the Enterprise in the first movie, to name just a few examples.

A hero is not someone without flaws. A hero is someone who overcomes their flaws when the chips are down, or who saves the day despite their flaws.

 

[Vger23]

But it's kind of sad to look to TV to look for role models and someone to emulate. Every community has people worth emulating, at least in part. I never had to look any further than my own parents when needing a role model. I understand that not everyone had good parents, but there are teachers, coaches, clergy, work mentors and so on in every community that have some worthy qualities to learn from.

TV for me is a place to derive entertainment from, not a place to patch up defects in my character. I may glean something useful from time to time there, but mostly, it's strictly entertainment.

Sad or not, doesn't change the reality that people DO. People have always looked to fictional heroes for inspiration. Go back to The Illad and even earlier, probably all the way to basic tribal storytelling. Why would that change now?

 

[Vger23]

But those characters had their flaws, too. John Wayne had to overcome his racist attitudes in THE SEARCHERS, and face the fact that he had become obsolete in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. Indiana Jones had pretty much screwed up his relationship with Marion and her father, back in the day, and was skeptical regarding the magical powers of the Ark at first. Kirk let past tragedies temporarily cloud his judgment in "Obsession" and "The Conscience of the King" and clashed with Decker over command of the Enterprise in the first movie, to name just a few examples.

A hero is not someone without flaws. A hero is someone who overcomes their flaws when the chips are down, or who saves the day despite their flaws.

Yes sir- precisely my point. Sorry if I didn't come across that way, but you encapsulated it well here.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes sir- precisely my point. Sorry if I didn't come across that way, but you encapsulated it well here.

Thanks. I don't think anyone is objecting to the basic idea of "heroes." Heck, the title of the thread is "Star Trek Heroes." The question is whether heroes should be "flawed" or not, not whether we need heroes.

And let it be noted that our heroes have always had flaws. Gilgamesh started out as a tyrant and later refused to accept his mortality. Achilles could not control his wrath. Jason abandoned Medea. Lancelot slept with Guinevere. Arthur was betrayed by his bastard son. Robin Hood was a thief. and cocky to boot. Sherlock Holmes used cocaine. Sam Spade was no angel. Etc.

 

[plynch]

Yes, I think someone did, suggesting "protagonist" over "hero." That was what I replied to.

And to someone above who objected to deriving role models from tv: meeting people to emulate (or not) is a prime purpose of literature including teleplays, isn't it?

 

[Sgt_G]

Sorry, I can't resist. Which one do you pick?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[2takesfrakes]

Mr. Cox, thank you, for having helped transform what started off as a trivial diversion into a more - interesting, frankly - insightful, thoughtful investigation. With that in mind, and unless modesty forbids it, you may wish to avail yourself of the opportunity to shamelessly plug whatever licensed project you've been working on in which STAR TREK's flawed, imperfect heroes might've found themselves in. It would seem to be most apt, indeed ....

 

[Greg Cox]

Mr. Cox, thank you, for having helped transform what started off as a trivial diversion into a more - interesting, frankly - insightful, thoughtful investigation. With that in mind, and unless modesty forbids it, you may wish to avail yourself of the opportunity to shamelessly plug whatever licensed project you've been working on in which STAR TREK's flawed, imperfect heroes might've found themselves in. It would seem to be most apt, indeed ....

Thanks. It's been a fun discussion which has helped crystallize some of my own views about writing STAR TREK characters. And let me just tease that much of my next Trek novel CAPTAIN TO CAPTAIN (on sale next month!) has to do with Pike's Number One trying to atone for a guilty secret in her past . . . .

 

[F. King Daniel]

Flawed heroes, please. Being a cocky sod is what drives James T Kirk to all the heroic stuff that makes him great.