Spoilers TOS: Agents of Influence by Dayton Ward Review Thread

[hbquikcomjamesl]

. . . TNG's insanely strict view of the PD. . . .

<Gaby Johnson>Rarebitz!</Gaby Johnson>
<Army Creole>Fuckin' A</Army Creole>

Which is to say that CLB and I are once again in complete agreement on something. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

*****

and then callously ordering [Lt. Noel] to risk her life

Which she did willingly and without question or hesitation:

Anything's better than Adams' treatment room.

*****

As to Kirk being judged according to standards of another era, I might add that for most of U.S. history, Thomas Jefferson was held up as the author of the Declaration of Independence, and as one who abhorred slavery. Then, more recently, he was deprecated as one who was eventually as brutal a master as any other Southern slaveholder. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle: a brilliant but deeply flawed individual (gee, sounds like I could be describing our own Great Bird) who was probably one of relatively few Southern planters with the capacity to feel shame over being a part of (and stuck in) a whole political, economic, and social order based on slavery and racism.

 

[Christopher]

But my point is that it does it add a bit of 'realism' to how they see Kirk in TNG.

One more time: I am not talking about how the imaginary characters in TNG are depicted in-story as perceiving Kirk. I am talking about how real, actual, flesh-and-blood people in our world misinterpret Kirk as he was depicted in TOS itself. I'm talking about the popular image of Kirk that's out there in real life, and how completely divorced it is from what's actually in the text.

 

[Damian]

One more time: I am not talking about how the imaginary characters in TNG are depicted in-story as perceiving Kirk. I am talking about how real, actual, flesh-and-blood people in our world misinterpret Kirk as he was depicted in TOS itself. I'm talking about the popular image of Kirk that's out there in real life, and how completely divorced it is from what's actually in the text.

Nah, I don't care about real people

Just kidding.

I guess we're just focused on 2 different things. I was more focused on how Kirk is perceived in universe. You were more focused on how fans actually perceive Kirk. You'll get no argument from me there.

I think there's probably a couple reasons for that. One is of course TSFS. Kirk broke many regulations there and it's a significant event in his history so that's more likely to get remembered.

And partly is probably because it's more exciting for some to think of Kirk as a maverick as opposed to someone who follows the rules. For some it's probably more fun to think of Kirk as someone who flaunts authority. And they use some of what he does as an excuse, incorrectly assuming his actions were 'breaking' the rules instead of interpreting them based on the rules and each individual circumstance.

Another is likely his portrayal in the Abrams movies. The studio sold Star Trek (2009) in particular as partly a prequel. That Kirk is not the same as the Kirk we know and love in the prime universe, for a number of obvious reasons. Eventually he seems to get it together by the time of Beyond, but he's not exactly the model Starfleet officer to start, and some people probably think that reflects the prime-Kirk as well.

And going back to how Dayton described him as unorthodox---some may feel Kirk's 'unorthodox' methods of command = a him being a rule breaker or maverick. The two are not one and the same.

I admit at one time I thought of Kirk as a sort of maverick, likely because my first exposure to Star Trek were the movies. But I know better now.

 

[Christopher]

Another is likely his portrayal in the Abrams movies.

No, other way around. He was portrayed that way in the Kelvin movies because that was already the popular misconception of his character.

And going back to how Dayton described him as unorthodox---some may feel Kirk's 'unorthodox' methods of command = a him being a rule breaker or maverick. The two are not one and the same.

The problem is that when people put these descriptions onto Kirk like "unorthodox" or "womanizing," they don't realize that they're describing routine character traits of 1960s-70s TV action leads. Insofar as Kirk manifested those qualities, it was because he was being written as the leading man of a TV adventure series and certain expectations had to be met. But when you compare him to other examples of the trope, he's much less of those things than most of his contemporaries.

 

[Damian]

No, other way around. He was portrayed that way in the Kelvin movies because that was already the popular misconception of his character.

Yeah, I guess that's true. It's my way of 'self correcting' the continuity. I know that's not how Kirk is in the prime universe so I assume the Kelvin-Kirk is different because he had a much different upbringing.

But one other thing people might incorrectly assume is that because Spock questions Kirk on those occasions when he interferes in a society that he's breaking the Prime Directive.

When in reality what Spock is doing is doing his job as a First Officer. Being the "Devils Advocate". Kirk thinks it's appropriate to interfere and Spock is simply providing him the other side of the argument so Kirk can make an informed decision. It's not that Spock disagrees with his actions, but some may think, well, Spock knows the rules backward and forward and if he is saying something about it then he must disagree with Kirk and Kirk is breaking the rules.

The problem is that when people put these descriptions onto Kirk like "unorthodox" or "womanizing," they don't realize that they're describing routine character traits of 1960s-70s TV action leads.

Unorthodox isn't a bad thing though. We do know Kirk is very good at creative thinking and strategizing, and those that use unorthodox methods and strategy together can be very successful. And Dayton Ward does go on to explain a bit why Kirk is that way. Probably the best captains are those that are unorthodox because those types of people think outside the box. That's what you'd want in a captain of a ship of the line.

I would even say later captains like Picard to some extent, Sisko and Janeway have their own creative and unorthodox patters, just in different ways.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Yeah, I guess that's true. It's my way of 'self correcting' the continuity. I know that's not how Kirk is in the prime universe so I assume the Kelvin-Kirk is different because he had a much different upbringing.

That would be putting it mildly. The Prime Kirk had both his father and Captain April to nip juvenile delinquent tendencies in the bud.

I will note that years before TNG was released, the Novelverse of the time did portray Kirk as having a rather active sex life. In particular, I remember it being mentioned in both The Wounded Sky and Death's Angel. By female aliens from species for whom recreational sex is both unknown and anatomically unlikely.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not saying Kirk didn't have a sex life. I'm saying people make false assumptions about the extent to which it intruded on his professional life as depicted onscreen. As a captain, he was "married to his ship," and was not as easily distracted from his duties as the caricature would have it.

 

[Dayton Ward]

The problem is that when people put these descriptions onto Kirk like "unorthodox" or "womanizing," they don't realize that they're describing routine character traits of 1960s-70s TV action leads.

 

[Damian]

I'm not saying Kirk didn't have a sex life. I'm saying people make false assumptions about the extent to which it intruded on his professional life as depicted onscreen. As a captain, he was "married to his ship," and was not as easily distracted from his duties as the caricature would have it.

That's certainly true. Sex life or not, the Enterprise and his career were his first loves. That's even spelled out as late as TWOK when we learn why Carol Marcus kept David's paternity from David, and wanted Kirk to stay away.

But it was noted numerous times on the TV series that his first loyalty was to his ship and crew. That I don't think there can be any doubt of.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I'm not saying Kirk didn't have a sex life.

That is wise. And I never accused you of saying so. And "Mark of Gideon" makes it rather obvious that he and Odona had some fun together. And I suddenly find myself wondering whether Hodin was watching what obviously could not have been shown on network television.

 

[Christopher]

I'd say Odona is one of a number of cases where it's the woman who pursues Kirk more than the reverse.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

You get no arguments on that.

 

[Damian]

And I suddenly find myself wondering whether Hodin was watching what obviously could not have been shown on network television.

I'd say Odona is one of a number of cases where it's the woman who pursues Kirk more than the reverse.

"Wink of an Eye" is one that quickly comes to mind as well.

Captain Kirk had a good appreciation for the ladies, but calling him a womanizer is unfair, I agree. I remember out discussion some time ago about what would now be considered awkward/inappropriate with the slave girl in "Bread & Circuses". But in a way it's precisely because I see Kirk as respectful of women, not a womanizer, and that he wouldn't take advantage of any woman that I sort of rationalize it 'in story' that Kirk would never take advantage of a woman in that situation if he felt she was in any way an unwilling participant. Plus, I mean, we don't have positive proof they did anything more than kiss/snuggle for the night. It's strongly implied of course, and I've just gone with it since it seems to be the intent of the writers that they did sleep together, but I suppose you could make an argument in story that nothing more happened.

I'm starting to go off on a tangent now. I guess my overall point is I don't feel Kirk is a womanizer a la James Bond. Perhaps he has a bit better luck with the ladies than I would , but he's not a womanizer, all joking aside .

 

[Charles Phipps]

I thought it was well-established that Gene Roddenberry and the others established the Prime Directive solely so it COULD be broken.

So it gave our heroes something to angst over.

 

[Christopher]

I thought it was well-established that Gene Roddenberry and the others established the Prime Directive solely so it COULD be broken.

So it gave our heroes something to angst over.

No, it was a reaction against cultural imperialism. ST's creators lived in a time when the devastating impact of colonialism was becoming clear in places like the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia. Vietnam and other conflicts had shown that powerful civilizations meddling in or dominating less powerful, less "advanced" cultures "for their own good" almost always turned out to do enormous harm, because the powerful interlopers didn't truly understand the cultures they were meddling in and tried to impose their own values and beliefs. So the enlightened thinkers of the era had come to realize the necessity of respecting other cultures' freedom to make their own choices and solve their own problems, even if their choices didn't seem "right" by your own standards.

As I've been saying, it's erroneous to see Kirk as "breaking" the PD. As a rule, in TOS, he mostly intervened to uphold the PD as TOS defined it, by freeing societies of influences that prevented their natural, healthy, and independent development, whether ancient computer gods, Klingon spies, or rogue Federation/Starfleet operators. Either that or he was forced to overthrow the entities in power in order to prevent them from destroying the Enterprise ("A Taste of Armageddon," "The Apple," etc.), so his primary goal was to save his ship and freeing the culture from oppression was just a bonus. There was rarely any real angst or debate; either Kirk was there to blatantly uphold the PD by fixing someone else's interference, or there was a brief discussion with Spock where Kirk explained why the Directive compelled intervention to free the culture to develop normally. It wasn't until TNG that we started to see stories that really dwelled on the PD as a moral dilemma for the characters to struggle with.

 

[Damian]

There was rarely any real angst or debate; either Kirk was there to blatantly uphold the PD by fixing someone else's interference, or there was a brief discussion with Spock where Kirk explained why the Directive compelled intervention to free the culture to develop normally.

Yeah, most of the angst had to do with the Enterprise being in peril, such as "The Return of the Archons" and "The Apple". I'm not even sure the PD came up in "A Taste of Armageddon", though you can argue a PD angle exists there, even if only implicitly.

I think the only time I recall where the PD was a source of angst was in "A Private Little War." That's probably the closest Kirk ever came to 'breaking' the PD, but he had a very good argument for what he did, as the alternative was to allow one society to wholly dominate or even exterminate another because of outside interference. But that seems to be the only episode I can think of where the PD seemed to be the source of the angst as opposed to some other threat to the ship, or something localized to the planet like Vaal or Landru, or an internal war like in "A Taste of Armageddon" that wasn't caused by outside interference.

I personally liked the idea of the PD. How many problems on our own world could have been prevented had we had our own version of a PD?

 

[Christopher]

I'm not even sure the PD came up in "A Taste of Armageddon", though you can argue a PD angle exists there, even if only implicitly.

Not really, since the Eminians had effectively declared war by marking the Enterprise as a casualty and attempting to kill its crew. The PD doesn't prevent defending yourself against an outright attack, otherwise the Federation would've had to surrender to the Klingons because conquest was part of their normal cultural development.

The first draft of the TNG writers' bible actually made it explicit that the Prime Directive includes an exception for cases where the survival of the entire ship or crew is endangered (in addition to the TOS/Phase II bibles' pre-existing exception where vital Federation security interests were at stake). So they were apparently trying to retroactively codify episodes like "Armageddon" and "The Apple" where the writers used an attack on the Enterprise as an excuse for Kirk to bring down the social order. Although, of course, TNG later went in a much stricter direction with the PD.

I think the only time I recall where the PD was a source of angst was in "A Private Little War." That's probably the closest Kirk ever came to 'breaking' the PD, but he had a very good argument for what he did, as the alternative was to allow one society to wholly dominate or even exterminate another because of outside interference.

It was the Klingons who interfered first. Again, Kirk was following the Prime Directive by trying to negate their interference, to minimize its impact on the normal development of the society. "Bones, the normal development of this planet was the status quo between the hill people and the villagers. The Klingons changed that with the flintlocks. If this planet is to develop the way it should, we must equalize both sides again."

Granted, that's a questionable way of interpreting it, as if mere parity were all it took to preserve normal development. But as he saw it, he was following the Directive by trying to cancel out a disruption to the status quo.

 

[Damian]

Not really, since the Eminians had effectively declared war by marking the Enterprise as a casualty and attempting to kill its crew.

Yeah, that's true enough. Once they tried to attack the Enterprise and her crew that sort of made the issue moot. And they weren't exactly a "primitive" society. The only angle maybe the PD would even come into play was interfering in their war--but then we're back to the fact that they attacked the Enterprise and crew, thereby making it a Starfleet issue.

In "Bread & Circuses" it was noted Starfleet officers swore an oath to the PD and would rather die that violate that oath. Makes me wonder a bit when that scenario would come into play? Though on further thought I guess Kirk, Spock and McCoy were willing to do just that. It was only Scotty's creative thinking and Merrick's turnabout that ended up saving their skin.

 

[Christopher]

And they weren't exactly a "primitive" society.

That's not an issue. People make the mistake of assuming the PD applies only to "pre-warp" societies, but it's about respecting the autonomy of every society, including technologically advanced, post-contact ones. The PD is the reason Starfleet couldn't intervene in the Klingon Civil War in "Redemption" and the Circle's coup on Bajor in DS9's second-season opening arc until they discovered they were the result of outside intervention (from the Romulans and Cardassians respectively); as long as they were seen as internal matters, they were part of the cultures' natural development and the Federation couldn't interfere. The PD is also why Janeway wouldn't share transporter tech with the Kazon, and why in "Prototype" she wouldn't allow Torres to help the androids reproduce, because it would change the balance of power. Conversely, in "Counterpoint," when she helped the telepaths escape extermination by the Devore, Kashyk specifically called her out for violating the Prime Directive by meddling in their internal affairs.

(Although I've never thought the PD would forbid granting sanctuary or aid to people fleeing from an oppressive state. As long as you don't actively try to overthrow the state or provide military aid to a rebellion, as long as you just help people leave the society, you're not actually altering the society, especially if they would've been killed anyway. There was an early DS9 comic that had Sisko wrestle with granting refugees asylum because of the PD, but I never found that credible.)

Of course, we've been saying how the TOS-era PD and the TNG-era version were interpreted differently, but it comes up in the TOS era too. In "The Magicks of Megas-tu," Kirk describes General Order One (the alternate, and probably more official, name of the Prime Directive) as stating that "No starship may interfere with the normal development of any alien life or society." Any society, not just those below a certain technological threshold. Of course, it's easier to disrupt a society's development if you have a massive power advantage over them, which is why it tends to be applied mainly in those cases, but the rule applies to every society. (So if anything, Voyager's crew taking Q's side in the Q Civil War was a Prime Directive violation, because it affected the development of the Qs' society.)

In "Bread & Circuses" it was noted Starfleet officers swore an oath to the PD and would rather die that violate that oath. Makes me wonder a bit when that scenario would come into play?

I think that applies more to blatant, wholesale intervention of the sort the Proconsul talked about, invading with troops or blasting the planet into ruins from orbit. Or in "The Omega Glory," the kind of thing Tracey did, supplying one side with phasers to slaughter the other. I don't think it applied to more subtle influences, like the younger Kirk revealing his alien origin to Tyree on his first mission there, or to Kirk in "Omega" reminding the Yangs of the meaning of the sacred words they already had. It's more just about being willing to sacrifice yourself to avoid being responsible for the mass death of others.

Also, of course, as I've been saying, the things Kirk did that modern fans misread as violating the PD were actually attempts to uphold it by negating other sources of interference/restriction on their free development. So I don't think it ever really came up.

 

[Damian]

Conversely, in "Counterpoint," when she helped the telepaths escape extermination by the Devore, Kashyk specifically called her out for violating the Prime Directive by meddling in their internal affairs.

I wonder about that though. Was Janeway really violating the PD or was that just Kashyk's interpretation of it for his own benefits? Part of the issue may be that Captain Janeway was at a distinct disadvantage since they were just one ship against a fleet basically. She may have been 'playing' along because of that disadvantage.

We learned in "Pen Pals" a distress call is a valid reason to help. I would certainly think a request for sanctuary would qualify and would not be a PD violation. And that hardly seems to be interfering in an internal society anyway, even by TNG-era stricter standards. I mean, she's not helping telepaths overthrow the Devore, she's simply moving them to a safer haven. So I disagree with Kashyk's assertion in that episode. Not sure why the writer of the episode would think it was a PD violation, if that was the original intent. In fact, IIRC a request for sanctuary had to be given serious

That's not an issue. People make the mistake of assuming the PD applies only to "pre-warp" societies, but it's about respecting the autonomy of every society, including technologically advanced, post-contact ones.

You know what, I think I was confusing 'first contact' procedures with the PD. My bad.

(So if anything, Voyager's crew taking Q's side in the Q Civil War was a Prime Directive violation, because it affected the development of the Qs' society.)

Hmm, that's interesting. Is it a PD violation to interfere with a more superior society. That would make for an interesting debate. Can you violate the PD with a society that's higher on the evolutionary ladder? Something to think about.

And, well, Janeway was trying to save the galaxy (or was it the entire universe even?). I would think that allows for a little flexibility.

Also, of course, as I've been saying, the things Kirk did that modern fans misread as violating the PD were actually attempts to uphold it by negating other sources of interference/restriction on their free development.

Well, "Bread & Circuses" was one of those instances where Kirk was taking a clear non-interference stand. Usually Kirk had to interfere to return a society to it's normal development like "The Return of the Archons" and "The Apple," or to course correct prior interference by someone in Starfleet or the Federation like "Patterns of Force" and "A Piece of the Action." "Bread & Circuses" was one of those instances where Kirk actually took the opposite position, making sure to not interfere since the circumstances in that case did not justify it, even ordering Scotty to follow the PD no matter what happens to Kirk, Spock and McCoy. And we learn that particular society was starting to see the seeds of change without any interference (an instance where you can see the wisdom of the PD).