Spoilers TOS: Agents of Influence by Dayton Ward Review Thread
- Thread starter Avro Arrow
- Start date
Just finished it. It was all right, although I would have wanted a little more character development for Nogura
Any chance we see a novel which tells us where the command crew of the Endeavour is posted?
Any chance we see a novel which tells us where the command crew of the Endeavour is posted?
Loved this one.
I usually enjoy Dayton's books, and my favorites are the ones set in the 23rd century, especially connected to the Vanguard series (even tangentially). clandestine espionage/military themes Trek books are also some of my favorites (yes, here's VAN again
, and the combination of TOS and espionage usually provides a great reading experience.
So it's no wonder I was excited for this novel since its announcement, and it certainly lived up to the hype, and then some!
I loved seeing the USS Endeavour after the too-short Seekers series and actually this seems like book #5 in that series, co-starring the Enterprise crew for a 'series finale' (not much different than their appearance in the end of the VAN series..).
I usually enjoy Dayton's books, and my favorites are the ones set in the 23rd century, especially connected to the Vanguard series (even tangentially). clandestine espionage/military themes Trek books are also some of my favorites (yes, here's VAN again
, and the combination of TOS and espionage usually provides a great reading experience.So it's no wonder I was excited for this novel since its announcement, and it certainly lived up to the hype, and then some!
I loved seeing the USS Endeavour after the too-short Seekers series and actually this seems like book #5 in that series, co-starring the Enterprise crew for a 'series finale' (not much different than their appearance in the end of the VAN series..).
A solid page-turner. I just wanted to read a new TOS book and this one gripped me despite the fact that I hadn't read the Seekers series.
I'm just wondering about the justification for destroying
. Wouldn't Starfleet benefit from its thorough investigation?
I'm just wondering about the justification for destroying
the Klingon facility
It was pretty good. An interesting story with some imaginative set pieces I haven't read before. The reveal of the spy was rather anticlimactic but I'm glad it wasn't one of the Intelligence officers. I haven't read the Seeker or the Vanguard series but the story was still easy to follow which is good.
I take that description the Klingon officer was giving at the start of chapter 36 was a Discovery reference? I always find it jarring when that series is referenced in these novels. To me, those two universes just don't mesh at all. Like adding oil to water.
The only major issue I had with it was that Kirk didn't sleep with Binnix. Felt very out of character to me. It's not a proper TOS story if kirk doesn't get at least one girl.
I take that description the Klingon officer was giving at the start of chapter 36 was a Discovery reference? I always find it jarring when that series is referenced in these novels. To me, those two universes just don't mesh at all. Like adding oil to water.
The only major issue I had with it was that Kirk didn't sleep with Binnix. Felt very out of character to me. It's not a proper TOS story if kirk doesn't get at least one girl.
It's all the same universe, only differing in the stylistic interpretation. There were people back in the '80s who didn't believe the movies or TNG took place in the same universe as TOS because the details were so different, but ultimately most people learned to reconcile them all.
And part of the fun of being tie-in writers is building in connective tissue between different, poorly meshing pieces of the Trek universe (and there have been poorly meshing pieces all along -- it's nothing recent) and making them feel more like parts of a consistent whole.
Try it again in a few years. You can get used to new ideas over time. I remember when people were complaining that Enterprise was too different and got everything wrong -- now people are complaining that Discovery isn't enough like everything else including Enterprise. The difference is time and familiarity.
I'm about 3/4 of the way through and so far it's a fun ride.
One thing I noted is I'm up to the point where the Endeavor is under siege by the Orions and just before the attack Kirk is thinking about his studies of battle strategies at the Academy. It noted how Kirk used unorthodox methods to achieve his goals.
That made me think of some other debates here about whether Kirk was a rule-breaker or not. Generally I feel he was not, at least until the time of TSFS (with the rare exception like in "Amok Time"--but nobody's perfect
).
But it made me think that maybe what people mistake as "rule-breaking" is really just unorthodox, which is not the same thing. You don't have to break the rules to be unorthodox. You just find ways to achieve your goals by thinking outside the box. One of the things that made Kirk one of the great Starfleet Captains was his ability to see the big picture, use creative thinking and sometimes find ways to make the rules work for him, instead of vice versa.
At the same time I could see how some in Starfleet might think of Kirk as a maverick. There are always those in the upper echelons in any military that don't like unorthodox. They have a strict interpretation of how things go and don't like deviations from that, despite how successful it might be and whether it still follows the regulations.
Though Kirk obviously had the necessary support of the brass or he wouldn't be where he was.
One thing I noted is I'm up to the point where the Endeavor is under siege by the Orions and just before the attack Kirk is thinking about his studies of battle strategies at the Academy. It noted how Kirk used unorthodox methods to achieve his goals.
That made me think of some other debates here about whether Kirk was a rule-breaker or not. Generally I feel he was not, at least until the time of TSFS (with the rare exception like in "Amok Time"--but nobody's perfect
).But it made me think that maybe what people mistake as "rule-breaking" is really just unorthodox, which is not the same thing. You don't have to break the rules to be unorthodox. You just find ways to achieve your goals by thinking outside the box. One of the things that made Kirk one of the great Starfleet Captains was his ability to see the big picture, use creative thinking and sometimes find ways to make the rules work for him, instead of vice versa.
At the same time I could see how some in Starfleet might think of Kirk as a maverick. There are always those in the upper echelons in any military that don't like unorthodox. They have a strict interpretation of how things go and don't like deviations from that, despite how successful it might be and whether it still follows the regulations.
Though Kirk obviously had the necessary support of the brass or he wouldn't be where he was.
That made me think of some other debates here about whether Kirk was a rule-breaker or not. Generally I feel he was not, at least until the time of TSFS (with the rare exception like in "Amok Time"--but nobody's perfect
But it made me think that maybe what people mistake as "rule-breaking" is really just unorthodox, which is not the same thing. You don't have to break the rules to be unorthodox. You just find ways to achieve your goals by thinking outside the box. One of the things that made Kirk one of the great Starfleet Captains was his ability to see the big picture, use creative thinking and sometimes find ways to make the rules work for him, instead of vice versa.
The thing people miss is that that's a basic part of a captain's job. It's not supposed to be some unique idiosyncrasy of Kirk's. Every commanding officer of a frontier starship needs to be an independent thinker capable of interpreting rules and adapting them to the needs of unique situations, because such a captain is frequently the highest available authority. In the TNG era, Starfleet Command was always a hail away, but TOS often established that it would take days or weeks to get a response from any command base. So a captain in that situation had to be independent and adaptable. It's really crazy the way people today misread that as Kirk being a "maverick" or a rulebreaker or something. It was part of his job responsibilities, not a defiance of them. Any captain in the same situation would've been expected to have the same independence, or they would never have been given that responsibility in the first place.
If anything, the other starship commanders we saw in TOS were usually bigger rulebreakers than Kirk. Matt Decker defied protocol and regulations to seize command of the Enterprise, had to be ordered out of the chair by its rightful commander, and then beat up a guard and stole a shuttle. Ron Tracey threw the Prime Directive out the window and stomped up and down on its corpse. Garth of Izar broke under the strain and tried to annihilate a civilization. Sure, sometimes we saw Kirk chafing against a hidebound civilian authority figure like Commissioner Ferris, but then you have the opposite situation where Ambassador Fox was the one pushing Kirk to violate interstellar protocols over Kirk's objections. (And of course, Kirk obeyed both authority figures' orders despite disagreeing with them, which is the exact opposite of being a rulebreaker.)
Of course, if they were stupid orders, he had no problem obeying them to the letter, while subverting the stupidity.
I agree with what you are saying. I just think Kirk is the 'best' of the best. He stands out among the others, and partly is probably his unorthodox methods and his ability to see the big picture. And it makes some sense because he is the 'hero' of our show, one of the main characters. Of course the writers would build Kirk up that way.
That doesn't rule out other great captains. In fact Dayton Ward (and David Mack) have built up Captain Khatami as another great captain.
Kirk is just that rare breed that takes it to a whole other level. And even in real life, occasionally you have that one person who stands out as the best of the best. I always saw Kirk that way, which is probably why he became the youngest captain in Starfleet at the time, and not long after the youngest to be given command of a Constitution class starship.
He gets his unfortunate reputation as a rule breaker, I think, primarily from TSFS. And partly because of his interpretation of the Prime Directive in some cases. I believe he interpreted it correctly as it was intended, but I can also see why some Admirals might think he took his discretion too far. They might not agree with his interpretation and feel he should not have interfered in those instances. So in story, perhaps, I can see why some might feel he is a maverick, however unfair that might be. But at the end of the day, those that were most important felt he did the right thing or he wouldn't remain in command. So if some Admiral gets all holier than though about it, that's their problem.
I just like how Dayton Ward described Kirk as 'unorthodox'. He's not a rule breaker or a maverick. Unorthodox is a good way to describe Kirk. I'm sure he's been described that way at some other point in the past, but it was something I picked up on and I liked that description of Kirk.
That's another one of those reinterpretations after the fact, filtered through TNG's insanely strict view of the PD. Again, part of a 23rd-century captain's job was to decide whether and how to apply a regulation in a given situation. Kirk was the one who had the right to make that decision. And most of what Kirk did was actually upholding the PD in the more activist way it was defined in TOS -- to preserve or restore a society's freedom to evolve naturally.
We never once saw an admiral question Kirk's application of the Prime Directive. That never happened. The closest thing was in "For the World is Hollow..." when Admiral Fitzpatrick pulled Kirk off the Yonada mission, but that was not about the Prime Directive, just about the need for the ship to get back to its assigned mission while Starfleet Command continued dealing with the Daran V situation. The only characters we ever saw questioning Kirk's approach to the PD were Spock and McCoy, and it was their job to offer alternative viewpoints before he made his decision. This latter-day narrative of superiors questioning Kirk's application of the PD is an extracanonical invention. Hell, Picard got grilled over the PD more than Kirk did.
Right, but what I'm saying is because of the way the PD was in the 23rd century it was open to some interpretation. I can see situations where someone might disagree with his interpretation and take another. Some may feel Kirk should have interpreted the PD differently.
But that's different from 'breaking the rules'. It would just be two different people interpreting the same rule in a different way. And I could see TNG era officers seeing Kirk a bit differently. However unfairly we have a tendency to apply today's standards to people in the past. Sometimes not on purpose, it's just what we know.
And even during TNG era, there was still a little bit of wiggle room. Captain Picard had interfered in some cases and he obviously was cleared by the PTBs at Starfleet, so there's still some flexibility.
Yes, but the point is, a myth has taken hold that Kirk was canonically, textually portrayed as "violating" the Prime Directive, and like most modern opinions about James T. Kirk, that is absolutely false. TOS portrayed the Prime Directive in an activist, Peace Corps sort of way, helping oppressed civilizations get back on their feet so they could advance independently from there. TNG warped it into a "never help anybody for any reason whatosever" extreme and retroactively defined Kirk's Kennedy-era activism as an overreach. But that was never in the text of TOS itself. It was not how he was portrayed by that show's makers.
I just find it so bizarre that the modern image of Kirk as a character is so completely disconnected from what's explicitly there on the screen. Almost everything about it is dead wrong. He wasn't a maverick. He didn't go around breaking the Prime Directive. He wasn't an inveterate skirt-chaser. I don't recognize this guy that pop culture has substituted in Kirk's place. It's insane how consistently wrong his image is. How did that happen, when the episodes are right there?
Are you sure about that?
I always saw that a bit differently. Laws and regulations change many times over time and I just viewed TNG's view of the PD as what can happen over time to any regulation. Whether it's right or wrong is a different issue, but I don't think it's unreasonable that the PD, or the interpretation of it, changed over 100 years. I've noted before I've wondered if there was some catastrophe that occurred during those years that led to a stricter interpretation, maybe with good intentions but not so good results. The novel "The Rings of Tautee" planted a potential seed for that when Kirk interferes to save a civilization and his co-captain on the mission had some disagreements with how Kirk interpreted that. That captain (was it Bogle?) felt Kirk was following the letter of the PD, it wasn't an issue of him breaking it, but that he felt the PD needed more refinement (however right or wrong that was), which I thought was maybe the authors intent to show the very beginnings of a change in the PD to what it would be in TNG. That novel indicated it wouldn't be something that would happen overnight of course.
And like I noted, whether it's fair or not we do tend to judge historical figures by current standards. So officers of the 24th century may feel Kirk was a cowboy, or even a maverick, based on their then current standards on the PD. It's not fair, but it happens. And probably part of it is they are just looking at the surface, and not doing an in depth study. A 24th century officer may feel Kirk blantantly violated the PD on Landru's Planet (I forget the exact name, Beta III maybe?). And yes, if you just look at the headline, 'Kirk causes the destruction of an AI that has run the planet for centuries' you might think he violated the PD. It's on closer examination that you find, no he did not.
And while TNG inarguably have a stricter interpretation, there was still some wiggle room. In "Pen Pals" Picard uses the girls plea as a 'distress call'. It could be considered a bit of a stretch to consider that a distress call to save her planet, but it was just enough to give Picard the flexibility he needed to save her planet. And there were other cases like that during the TNG era. The had less freedom to take actions like Kirk did, but it wasn't totally black and white.
Hell, yes. That's one of the most annoying and stupid myths. Look at "Mudd's Women." Kirk's the only human male not affected by the title characters. In "Miri," Rand is frustrated that he won't look at her legs. Especially in season 1, Kirk is a disciplined, dutybound officer married to his ship and his career. We see women chasing him. We see him reuniting with old flames that he dated years ago. We see him lusting after women when he's in altered mental states -- split into good and evil halves, infected by the Psi 2000 virus, brainwashed into thinking he's in love with Helen Noel (and shaking off that brainwashing quite easily and then callously ordering her to risk her life), affected by Kanutu drugs or Elasian tears. We see him calculatingly using seduction in order to advance a mission or achieve a goal. Three times, we see him fall deeply and committedly in love, two of them in cases where he's away from his command responsibilities for weeks or months and has time to grow close to the woman in question. It is occasionally implied that he takes a more active interest in the ladies while on shore leave on Argelius or elsewhere, but that's just the blowing off steam that would be expected of a naval officer taking liberty at a friendly port. It's not a defining facet of his character.
Yes, certainly as a male lead in 1960s TV, Kirk was required to have multiple romantic interests of the week. But they were rarely cases where he was actively pursuing them purely for the sake of having sex with them, which is what being a womanizer means. That makes him different from contemporary TV leads like Jim West or Napoleon Solo. People today who think Kirk was a skirt-chaser have no idea how a skirt-chaser in '60s TV actually behaved.
Yes, but that's not the point. The problem is when people erroneously presume that the PD was defined that way in Kirk's time. That's what leads them to assume he was "violating" it. That is dead wrong.
What is the point of saying that? Of course it happens. I know it happens. That's what I'm complaining about!! Unfairness is not something to shrug off and tolerate, it's something to speak out against and try to change.
Allright, allright. I was just trying to be funny, lighten things up
. I never considered Kirk to be an insensitive sex machine. It just seemed he ended up in those situations a lot in the original series, but I concede your point, most times there were extenuating circumstances. "Catspaw" is one of the few situations where I see he was using 'sexuality' as a tool, but in that case you could argue it was justified to save the ship.I know that. But my point is that it does it add a bit of 'realism' to how they see Kirk in TNG. Because it does actually happen in real life, I can see how it can happen in a fictional universe. I don't excuse it, but since I see it happen in real life, adding that bit to TNG makes it a bit more realistic.
Similar threads
- Poll
