Tom Paris vs Nicholas Locarno

[Nerys Myk]

Wasn't Locarno in his early twenties? (as most people in their fourth year of university/college are) How much older was Paris? From what I can tell the incident that cost him his commission happened shorty after he graduated. So he was in his early twenties as well, a year or two older than Locarno was when he was expelled. A "kid" as well.

Locarno was a cadet not yet graduated when the group accident resulted in tragedy. Paris had graduated and was serving on board the USS Exeter when his screw up resulted in three deaths.

Just enough difference in age and experience for it to be noteworthy as far as I'm concerned. Plus Locarno and pals simply chose to omit the truth whereas Paris actively "falsified reports."

In a discussion about who is redeemable, I'd say those facts go in Locarno's favour.

Maturity is more important than experience and age. Tom isn't exactly a poster child for that. Nick doesn't seem to be either. Cover your ass is a reflex action at any age. Doesn't matter if you're cadet or a thirty year vet.

 

[Melakon]

It doesn't sound like RDM and Roxann were that crazy about the romance/marriage arc. McNeil preferred characters more of the flawed antihero type, so maybe he liked Nick and early Tom better.

 

[hux]

Maturity is more important than experience and age. Tom isn't exactly a poster child for that. Nick doesn't seem to be either. Cover your ass is a reflex action at any age. Doesn't matter if you're cadet or a thirty year vet.

They both try to cover their asses but one involves omitting the truth while the other involves taking the time to actively tamper with computer reports and falsify them.

I see very little difference between Locarno and Paris but if someone is going to suggest Paris was redeemable while Locarno wasn't, I'm going to have to disagree. Looking at the minutia of their individual mistakes, I personally think I would make a slightly better case for Locarno's soul.

Point is, the "easier to redeem argument" is clearly flawed.

 

[stardream]

It doesn't sound like RDM and Roxann were that crazy about the romance/marriage arc. McNeil preferred characters more of the flawed antihero type, so maybe he liked Nick and early Tom better.

They weren't at first but they came around. They were afraid their characters would be locked into a relationship and wouldn't have their own separate stories which as we know did not happen. The two characters weren't joined at the hip. They both acted like professionals about it despite their initial misgivings.

Yes RDM would have been perfectly happy to have played the outcast a little longer but for whatever reason the writers decided to go a different direction. I admit by that time I was tired of the' every Star Trek show must have womanizer' trope and was glad they steered him in a different direction.

 

[suarezguy]

I agree that Locarno was too much of a jerk (ironically, I think Paris seems like a slightly cooler, badder version of Wesley, complete with being named after Roddenberry) but also feel that making Paris a former Maquis member who actually didn't believe in the cause was a bad idea, pick one or the other.

 

[stardream]

I agree that Locarno was too much of a jerk (ironically, I think Paris seems like a slightly cooler, badder version of Wesley, complete with being named after Roddenberry) but also feel that making Paris a former Maquis member who actually didn't believe in the cause was a bad idea, pick one or the other.

I think the original idea was to have a character who would not be trusted by either side because of his past dealings with both and would be true loner. The Network or someone higher up nixed that idea.

In Pathways Paris was recruited by Chakotay because he was a pilot and Paris had nothing better to do. I know the canon of that book is questionable and all that but it looks like its as good a reason for Paris joining them as any.

 

[apollo1984]

Maturity is more important than experience and age. Tom isn't exactly a poster child for that. Nick doesn't seem to be either. Cover your ass is a reflex action at any age. Doesn't matter if you're cadet or a thirty year vet.

They both try to cover their asses but one involves omitting the truth while the other involves taking the time to actively tamper with computer reports and falsify them.

I see very little difference between Locarno and Paris but if someone is going to suggest Paris was redeemable while Locarno wasn't, I'm going to have to disagree. Looking at the minutia of their individual mistakes, I personally think I would make a slightly better case for Locarno's soul.

Point is, the "easier to redeem argument" is clearly flawed.

I think Locarno was many things, cocky and arrogant and a little vain after failing to cover up the incident he became a martyr in his own mind and "fell on his sword" making it look like he did the honourable thing but it was to make the incident about him, yet I don't feel as if he was irredeemable, as he was a young man at the time he would have had a few years to "mature" heck he could have even gone the Paris route and joined the marquee and eventually finding his path by being stranded away from the alpha quadrant.