I have read that one, but it's been a while.
Spoilers TOS: The Captain's Oath by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread
- Thread starter Avro Arrow
- Start date
I’ve read Buried Age recently and that is indeed a reference to that.
Not really. That event was way too far back to explain it. It's not really a plot point, it's just a contrivance I couldn't allow to go unacknowledged. If I was going to do a classic TOS-style "Alien culture paralleling 20th-century Earth" plot for the second time in five books (I also did it in Uncertain Logic), then I had to at least hang a lampshade on the improbability.
Really, though, the important thing was just to give Ensign Diaz an introductory monologue to set her up as a character. That just happened to be a convenient topic to build it around.
As do the Chapters-Indigo chains in Canada.
(Although it's looking more like Indigo is euthanizing the other brands in their orbit: Coles, Chapters...Smithbooks Canada is already RIP...)
I've been reading this for a couple days now, taking it leisurely yet making good progress despite being a slow reader. My initial interest in the book was its look in to the first days of the Enterprise under Captain Kirk's command, with glimpses of his prior command being a nice bonus. I'm finding myself being drawn in more to the adventures and incidents of the Sacagawea under Kirk's command; having a version of this story available for fans to get into makes it seem like a major oversight that this has never been exploited before for its story potential.
Rhenas Sherev is a fun new character, and I'm really enjoying the archaeological tidbits.
I'm enjoying the exploration of Kirk's character based on the earlier conceptions of who he is meant to be, before pop culture impressions skewed the picture. When I watched TOS in production order, I was intrigued by the line in the second Pilot that Kirk was a "stack of books on legs," even though I had seen the episode before a couple times and consider that one of my favorites, I hadn't remember that line before until recently.
Rhenas Sherev is a fun new character, and I'm really enjoying the archaeological tidbits.
Nice to see a first meeting happening between Kirk and Captain Koloth. He was a fun character in the Tribbles episode, and I like how he's still kind of fun, yet with a dangerous edge hinted at behind his eyes and suggested as a possibility in his actions in a combat situation that he might or might not have been involved in. I'm glad to see Koloth is presented as worth taking seriously.
I'm enjoying the exploration of Kirk's character based on the earlier conceptions of who he is meant to be, before pop culture impressions skewed the picture. When I watched TOS in production order, I was intrigued by the line in the second Pilot that Kirk was a "stack of books on legs," even though I had seen the episode before a couple times and consider that one of my favorites, I hadn't remember that line before until recently.
I think a lot of people, myself included I must admit, thought of Kirk as a bit of a maverick, probably partly due to his actions in TSFS, and perhaps the line in "Unification" about cowboy diplomacy.
Now I think you can argue his command style might not be liked by people like Captain Esteban of the Grisson, who has a more literal interpretation of the regulations. And perhaps someone could argue Kirk takes some liberties with his interpretation of the regulations, until TSFS I don't think he outright breaks the rules, but some may disapprove of his interpretation. His high success rate probably kept him out of some trouble as well. Had he failed over and over again his interpretation of the regulations might have been questions more.
But Christopher's depiction of the younger Captain Kirk I thought was very consistent with the early episodes of Star Trek. He became more relaxed and comfortable in his own skin as the series went on but the early episodes he was much more serious. It's also something I noted in the earlier My Brother's Keeper trilogy that also depicted a younger Kirk (mostly in that case his pre-captain days on the Farragut, Republic and Constitution) as a very serious officer.
Even as TOS went on, Kirk never was the rebel who willfully disregarded the rules everyone thinks of him as these days. While he wouldn't hesitate to disregard a rule if it served a greater good, the "I'm my own man, screw the rules" attitude everyone applies to him now didn't really come into play until the movies. Even then, it's easy to view that as a sort of midlife crisis, though TWOK revealing he cheated on the Kobayashi Maru is certainly at odds with that interpretation.
Not to mention, as I point out in the book, that it was part of his job as a frontier captain to interpret the rules. He was often the highest available authority, weeks away from any answers from Starfleet Command, so it wasn't like the TNG era where you could always just Skype an admiral for instructions. So he had the right to decide whether and how a given rule applied in an exceptional situation. People mistake that for a violation of his responsibilities, but it was actually part of his responsibilities.
I think maybe that's harder to understand for people today, walking around with incredibly fast and powerful computer networking and telecommunication devices in their pockets, than it was for people in the '60s who had to find the nearest corner drugstore or phone booth and talk to an operator if they wanted to get in touch with someone, or else send a letter and wait days for a reply (well, unless they sent a telegram instead).
That's probably part of it for sure. It's hard to believe for some people probably that you could be literally out of touch.
I think a lot of the perceptions of Kirk come from his actions in TSFS for one, and more recently his portrayal in Star Trek (2009). And I also think people mistaken his 'interpreting' rules and regulations with 'breaking' rules and regulations. They are not the same thing.
And as I've noted before, I can see how a literal-minded admiral or fellow captain might feel Kirk is a bit too freewheeling in his decision making. I remember that in "The Rings of Tautee" in particular with Captain Bogle's reaction to Kirk's decision making. Bogle acknowledged Kirk's interpretations of the rules may be within his purview as Captain, but Bogle preferred a more literal interpretation and believed in a lot less leeway. But that's still a far cry from breaking the regulations. Good people can disagree with how closely you interpret the 'language', but it's not the same thing as breaking the rules.
Well, no; the whole reason he was portrayed that way in ST '09 was because the myth of Kirk as a womanizing renegade had already been firmly established for a generation or more. It was an effect of the myth, not a cause of it.
Yes, that's just what I'm saying. It was part of his job to interpret and modulate the rules to fit the specific, unpredictable situations he encountered. His position gave him the authority to make that call.
And I think that's a circular argument, stacking the deck to reinforce the preconception of Kirk as a loose cannon. I think it's more likely that other captains would be just as willing to interpret the rules flexibly, because that ability to make those judgments rather than just clinging blindly to a rule book is what makes a good captain. Heck, we've seen as much. For all that Picard scoffed at Kirk's "cowboy diplomacy," he bent the Prime Directive even more often than Kirk did -- "The Drumhead" claimed he'd "violated" it 9 times in less than 4 seasons.
In the desire to "prove" the fiction that Kirk broke the Prime Directive, people selectively ignore the times that Kirk stopped others from violating it, like Merik in "Bread and Circuses" and Tracey in "The Omega Glory," and arguably the Klingons in "Friday's Child." (And he was trying to counter Klingon intervention in "A Private Little War," though he was unable to find a good or easy solution to that one.) Even when he intervened against Landru or Vaal, he was trying to free people from artificial restrictions on their right to self-determination. (And more importantly to save his ship. The first edition of the TNG writers' bible said that the Prime Directive could be suspended if the safety of one's ship was at stake, which helps explain Landru, Vaal, and Eminiar VII.) As TOS's writers saw it, they portrayed Kirk as an enforcer of the Prime Directive, stepping in to free societies from others' impositions. The modern perception that he "broke" it or treated it with contempt is egregiously wrong.
Well, he was a womanizer
That's true though. Star Trek (2009) seemed to cement the myth that he was a renegade, when in fact you could argue the changed circumstances of his upbringing resulted in a different background for Kirk.What I mean is it is equally likely there are some captains/admirals out there who prefer a more literal interpretation of the rules and regulations that don't allow for as wide an interpretation of the regulations. A captain who might believe a reading of the Prime Directive would not allow them to interfere with Landru for instance. Those types might view Kirk as a bit of a maverick. Now I believe those would end up being mediocre captains and admirals as they lack imagination.
That's what made Kirk a legend really. His ability to see the bigger picture. And his gifts of knowing what the right decisions are and what the regulations truly mean. His supporters at Starfleet Command obviously saw that. Had Kirk been a true rule breaker he would have been drummed out of Starfleet.
Yeah, and I thought the episodes usually provided an explanation for why he was doing what he was doing. I think part of that is it seems by the time of TNG the Prime Directive had been adjusted. It was obviously tightened a bit by that time and I think sometimes people mistakenly apply that retroactively to Kirk's era. Perhaps what Kirk did on those missions would have violated the PD as interpreted in the 24th century, but that's not how it was during his era.
Another thing I picked up in "The Rings of Tautee" when Bogle disagreed with Kirk's interpretation of the PD, though he admitted Kirk's interpretation was not an actual breaking of the PD as it was written at that time. At the end Bogle wanted to become part of a committee to examine the PD and tighten it's interpretation (which I suspect was probably an attempt to explain why by the 24th century the interpretation of the PD had changed---that it started with that committee).
Well, he was a womanizer
Not really. Rather, he was a main character in an episodic TV series and thus was required by the formula to have a succession of separate brief romances. But he was far less of a "womanizer" than many other '60s heroes who followed the same formula. Usually he only pursued women when he wasn't in his right mind or when he was manipulating them for the sake of a mission. Or they were pursuing him, often over his resistance. Or they were old flames that he'd dated in the past.
That's what made it acceptable -- that it wasn't supposed to be the same Kirk. And by Beyond, he'd matured out of the stereotyped womanizing rogue into the more disciplined version of Kirk we knew from TOS, which I think was always the goal of the trilogy.
I'm not denying that that's possible. But that's a hypothetical invented to support a position that conflicts with the actual evidence, and actual evidence should always outweigh unsupported speculation. What we actually see in TOS is that Kirk was the one enforcing the Directive when other captains like Tracey and Merik ran roughshod over it. He wasn't the renegade, they were. If you have to make up totally imaginary conjectures to argue against what the evidence clearly shows, then you've wandered off into the weeds.
I've never liked the hero worship of Kirk, this idea that just one guy was intrinsically superior to every other captain. It's too much of an elitist "Chosen One" idea. It's far more logical to think that Starfleet has many captains who have the same ability, that they're the rule rather than the exception. Starfleet should be overloaded with hypercompetent people who are great at their jobs. They wouldn't get to be officers on ships of the line if they didn't have that level of skill. So the idea that it's some kind of rare exception, that only the characters we watch on TV have that special ability and everyone else is just a bunch of losers, is obnoxious and nonsensical. What you're describing here is an ability that anyone who's earned command of a ship of the line should have already mastered, not something unique to Kirk. It should be the ability that Garth had before his accident deranged him, that Decker had before his guilt at losing his crew broke him, even that Tracey had before temptation (and probably the loss of his crew) overwhelmed him.
Exactly. TOS was made with a Peace Corps mentality that the more powerful and "mature" civilizations had an obligation to help and protect other societies, while TNG was made with a post-colonial mentality that such benevolent intervention was condescending and could do more harm than good. But TNG tended to take it too far and ended up becoming even more condescending, especially in "Homeward."
Well, I guess I was applying some of the terms applied to Kirk's era by later shows a bit, and those characters you could argue were applying their own current views on an earlier era--which is probably understandable. We do that even today, incorrectly applying today's standards to earlier eras. What a 24th century captain might feel is cowboy diplomacy by Kirk was perfectly acceptable in the 23rd century.
I wonder, how did Trekkies view Kirk before TNG came out and before TSFS? I didn't become a fan until 1986 so my views of Kirk may be colored a bit. Was this idea some have of Kirk being a maverick an opinion before the movies? Or did that not start until after TSFS and particularly before TNG came out?
Well, in defense of that hero worship, he is the hero of the show, the main character. He's probably designed to be a bit larger than life as a result. Plus even among the greats, there still has to be a top dog. And it was noted a few times that Kirk had his own heros and people he himself respected. In the recent novels he even looks towards Captain Archer as a pioneer and someone he draws inspiration from. I agree, you would hope Starfleet has a number of Captains like Kirk. But it's possible Kirk learned from his own heros well and surpassed them. In every era there is someone of destiny and I don't have a problem with Kirk being that hero of destiny who surpassed expectations for even one of the greats. Just as Kirk might look to Archer as inspiration, it's not unreasonable that Picard, Sisko and Janeway may look to Kirk as inspiration.
And again, he is the main character of the source show--the character of Kirk was always going to be a man of destiny when considered in that backdrop.
Yeah, no doubt. I always wondered in story was there some event that caused Starfleet to adopt a more stringent interpretation of the PD. I never had an issue so much with the change of interpretation--it's only natural in some ways and sometimes, being imperfect beings, we take things too far the other way (sometimes even with good intentions). It'd be interesting for a Lost Era story, for instance, to do a story about that. Was there some event between TUC and "Encounter at Farpoint" where something happened related to the PD that resulted in some catastrophe that made Starfleet tighten up the PD?
About half way through. I wondered if we would see Pike and the Enterprise. Did not expect Spock to be a Lieutenant Commander then.
I think he was a Lt. Commander in WNMHGB. The Pike-Enterprise scenes in the novel are about a year or so prior to that so it makes sense. He would become a Commander I believe by the 2nd season so he probably spent a few years as a Lt. Commander (I believe he was a Lieutenant in "The Cage", the decade prior).
Yes, that's all a given. Understanding why people believe something wrong is not an end in itself. It's just a means to the end of correcting that wrong idea. It's more important to focus on the actual facts than to dwell on why someone didn't understand them.
I'm honestly not sure, since it's been so long. But if you look at the novels from that period, the stuff from Bantam and early Pocket, I don't think there's any pattern of portraying Kirk as any kind of renegade.
To be sure, TOS did occasionally portray Kirk as resisting the hidebound orders of his superiors, but that was just typical TV storytelling. And usually he only finessed his orders while staying true to their letter (e.g. in "The Galileo Seven"). I think the only time he broke a direct order outright was in "Amok Time" to get Spock to Vulcan.
Not really. Roddenberry was consciously trying to get away from the fanciful space operas and Lost in Space-type things and do science fiction that was as grounded and plausible as the best prime-time dramas of the day. The templates he cited for writers to follow in the series bible were Gunsmoke, a show acclaimed for its realistic, adult take on the Western genre, and Naked City, a police drama with a gritty, pseudo-documentary approach. He wanted its characters to feel real and relatable, not larger-than-life and fantastic. You can really see that in the early episodes like "The Corbomite Maneuver" with its procedural feel and "The Man Trap" with all the everyday texture of the crew going about their lives. That was lost somewhat as later producers took the show in a less naturalistic direction.
Here's how the series bible described Kirk:
So yes, he's highly capable, experienced, and deserving of his position, but in a naturalistic, nuanced way with believable human weakness and doubt. He was never meant to be some grandiose square-jawed superhero of the starways.
Yeah, and according to TOS, that would've been Garth of Izar until his accident. The problem with later shows treating Kirk as the sine qua non of 23rd-century captaincy is that it ignores the other captains that Kirk looked up to, the more accomplished veterans whose footprints he was following in, like Garth, Pike, Wesley, and Decker. Kirk wasn't meant to be the top dog, he was meant to be the young, upcoming new talent.
I guess Kirk becoming a 'hero' just sort of happened for the reason you mentioned about later producers. It happens to a lot of shows where a main character becomes a sort of hero.
But you could argue when he is being looked at by the later 24th century officers they are looking at his entire career. Sure, early in his career he is not yet deserving of that kind of respect, but looking at him historically from becoming captain until the events of TUC he would be looked at as a hero.
I do agree there are undoubtedly other heroes of the era. And perhaps later shows should have pointed some of those out a bit more. But it's probably a case of brand recognition. The later shows wanted to drop a name that would be instantly familiar. But I have no problem with Kirk being looked at historically as a great, legendary captain by later eras.
My point is that it's ignoring evidence from TOS to assume he would have been the only captain from that period that anyone ever talked about later on as important or heroic. Kirk himself cited Garth as the greatest of Starfleet's captains, but no other production has ever mentioned Garth, and that is a continuity error.
Realistically, what period from history has only one hero? Look at the Old West or WWII or the American Revolution and there will be plenty of famous figures that people talk about. The tendency of later Trek writers to assume that Kirk is the only 23rd-century figure anyone ever talks about in the 24th is lazy and implausible, and it makes Trek feel more like an artificial construct and less like a believable world of its own. Making a world believable means giving it texture and breadth, creating the feel that there's much, much more of it than just what we see onscreen.
I think they referred to him as Commander Spock at least once in Discovery, and they do occaisionally refer to Lieutenant Commanders just as Commander. I believe Worf, Dax, and Tuvok were all called Commander even they were actually Lt. Cmdrs.
Well, I can't argue with you there. I can certainly see Kirk being one of the greats, certainly worthy of being named a century later. But yeah, there would have to be others. Later writers should have dropped a couple other names here and there, such as Garth, or even someone like Commodore Wesley who I believe Kirk looked up to a bit, and maybe Captain April. I think the only other 23rd century name I've heard named is Captain Pike.
Hmm, I haven't seen the 2nd season yet but I would think at the time of Discovery he should probably still be a Lieutenant. How long before Discovery did "The Cage" take place? If it was more than a few years maybe I could see him being a Lt. Commander (and yeah, Lt Commanders were frequently referred to as Commander for short). He certainly should not be a full Commander--that would be a continuity error.
Though since Discovery is in the 2250's I would have kept him as a Lieutenant. Just my take.
Similar threads
