• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What's in a Name? Dagger of the Mind & Mirror, Mirror

Roger C. is always too smarmy, but a least in Mudd's Women he's also vaguely sinister. Stanley Adam s is fine, he's just kind of a buffoon. My opinion of Helen Noel is very much in the minority. The actress is extremely appealing, but I can't say the same for the character.

Agreed, on all counts.

Keeping in mind that depending on his mental illness he may not be focusing fully ahead, I would imagine that he would attempt to sell his device as being a "miracle cure" for improving mental focus, agility and memory. Basically becoming a salesman that would allow him to take it off of Tantalus to demonstrate the superiority of his invention.

Perhaps; but, do you feel a misguided professional who ends up a quixotic snake-oil salesman, would truly rate as being villainous - when compared to ending up as a sadist who secretly engages in unopposed buggery late in the wee-hours of the night with the helpless patients left in his charge and care - as expressed in @ZapBrannigan's excellent post: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/wha...ind-mirror-mirror.309839/page-2#post-13969333 ?

Maybe. We don't know. Since in the Federation rehabilitation is the goal then Adams might have further reach than initially suspected. Again, multiple colonies who need his help. So he branches out, "helps" more people, expands his influence, gains fame and notoriety. Don't mistake "power and control" as merely political ambition. Control over people, any person, can be just as satisfying as political capital.

While the intended purpose of the Tantalus facility is what you describe above; however, I would say in this case:"rehabilitation", is more accurately the motivation and goal of the Federation; whereas, the real motivation and covert goal of Dr. Adams is protecting his sinister secret from getting out - and, at any cost - as failing to meet that goal, would expose his criminal shenanigans.

Perhaps Adams was just a stone cold sociopath.Difficult to say the least, as I believe that any mental health professional of his ‘rank’ would be required to be counselled themselves by a peer.Difficult but not impossible for an individual as brilliant as Adams undoubtedly was.A true sociopath might conceivably seek out a position of power over an already marginalised group coupled with the thrill of ‘hiding his true nature in plain sight.
As to his motivations...well who knows.Perhaps exposure to the unfortunate inmates unhinged him and allowed his darkest desires loose.Maybe there was no grand plan.

The more we discuss this, the more I am convinced that the Dr. Adams character has no grand plan - when compared to that of the scale of Dr. Roger Korby's grand plan.

As @ZapBrannigan pointed out, maybe the Adams' character is completely fulfilled as the sado-master of his secret playground of abuse and violation, deep in the bowels of Tantalus V, satisfying his darkest, most private and primal urges, away from prying ears and eyes; provided, he can continue to do so under the veil of protection from exposure offered to him by his official post and position - hence, no grand plan would be needed - other than continuing to protect his secret from being exposed.

Therefore, I completely agree with your proposition of Adams as: "just a stone cold sociopath."
 
Last edited:
Potentially, yes.

Boardrooms are full of examples.
Cabinet rooms too I’ll wager.

While I can see where all these cases, can or could be, potentially and/or actually evil in their immoral wickedness;

But,

Do theses cases truly qualify as: Villains; when properly defined as: "a cruel and malicious person who is involved in and devoted to crime." ?
 
Last edited:
However, Morgan Woodward is amazing, Spock's first (yet unnamed) mid-meld is winderful and there's this one unique shot of the Enterprise (lost with TOS-R) as it approaches Tantalus V that looks like an outtake from "Where No Man Has Gone Before." It stands out as being really primitive but back then they used any shot they could get their hands on.

Morgan Woodward was indeed amazing as Van Gelder. He presented an agonized soul desperately fighting for freedom, and sanity...
 
While I can see where all these cases, can or could be, potentially and/or actually evil in their immoral wickedness;

But,

Do theses cases truly qualify as: Villains; when properly defined as: "a cruel and malicious person who is involved in and devoted to crime." ?
I would still be inclined to say yes, but to me malice includes removal of a person's ability to make choice.
 
Roger C. is always too smarmy, but a least in Mudd's Women he's also vaguely sinister.

He was interesting in one ep of I,Spy where the smarm is a put-on. He wasn't smarmy in the one ep of Patty Duke I saw him on a few years back.

My opinion of Helen Noel is very much in the minority. The actress is extremely appealing, but I can't say the same for the character.

My wife can't stand Dr. Noel. Understand? Maybe. Like? Heck no!
 
I would still be inclined to say yes, but to me malice includes removal of a person's ability to make choice.
Well, by your expanded concept of what traditionally defines, Malice: being, the desire to inflict injury or hurt through hostility; if, we then interpolate the added act of removing Agency, being: the ability to make meaningful choices, or exert influence; from the target-victim - then yes, I now see where you are coming from; and why.
:beer:

We may soon find out.. but that's veering into TNZ territory. ;)

I don't know what TNZ means; would you clarify for me, please?
 
"The Neutral Zone" -- the politics discussion channel here on TBBS. :)
Blimey!

Thanks for the warn.... err, the clarification..... that sounds like it could be potentially more hostile, dangerous, and, explosive than the plants and rocks on Gamma Trianguli VI.

I have no doubt my 2nd post there might very well read something along the lines of:

Message: From Captain Tracy to TrekBBS Command this sector. Have inadvertently encroached upon The Neutral Zone. Surrounded and under heavily-opinionated and emotionally-passionate attacks. Escape through logic and reason, impossible; Shields based on historically documented and verifiable facts, failing...


Hard-Pass; thanks. :lol:
 
Last edited:
... a wretched hive of anti-civility, delusions of superiority and tolerated misbehavior ...

Sounds like you are giving a historical review of most the family vacation car-trips my family took when I was a kid. :lol:

That's not really correct.

The Neutral Zone is an opt-in forum that discusses all kinds of things, it's just very lightly moderated.

Thanks for the further illumination; but, I'll stick with 'Hard-Pass' - just the same. :cool:
 
Both the name of the Tantalus Field/Device from the episode, Mirror, Mirror, and the name of the penal-planet Tantalus V from the episode, Dagger of the Mind, make use of the Greek name of the mythological figure and legend of Tantalus; who, was punished in Tartarus; the deep abyss, which is used as a dungeon of torment and suffering.

The name Tantalus means: Damned to eternal torment.

Pretty clever... those Star Trek writers.
In Margaret Wander Bonanno's Mirror Universe story "The Greater Good" (found in the 2009 Mirror Universe anthology Shards and Shadows),
Kirk gets the Tantalus Field Device on Tantalus V,
which I thought was a pretty clever extrapolation.
 
In Margaret Wander Bonanno's Mirror Universe story "The Greater Good" (found in the 2009 Mirror Universe anthology Shards and Shadows),
Kirk gets the Tantalus Field Device on Tantalus V,
which I thought was a pretty clever extrapolation.

I was sad when we lost Garamet. :(
 
I can certainly agree with that. Although as unprofessional as she is at times, she does rise to the occasion when she needs to crawl through the ventilation system and find the power supply, and doesn't shy away from killing in the line of duty (none of which was in her job description).

And yes, Roger Carmel did tend to specialize in "smarmy" characters. I'm thinking of his Banacek appearance.
Was she any more unprofessional than Kirk though.
He was dismissing McCoy's and Spock's concerns and defending Adams too.
Once she realised that something was wrong (well Adams revealed himself) she was entirely professional.
Yes the fliting had me rolling my eyes but I've seen worse behaviour (from KIrk) in Requiem for Methuselah.
 
Was she any more unprofessional than Kirk though.
He was dismissing McCoy's and Spock's concerns and defending Adams too.
Once she realised that something was wrong (well Adams revealed himself) she was entirely professional.
Yes the fliting had me rolling my eyes but I've seen worse behaviour (from KIrk) in Requiem for Methuselah.
Kirk following his own muse and not taking his people's concerns all that seriously isn't unprofessional. It's not the best judgment, but he was blinded slightly by a little hero worship. As the captain, he can discount any and all input.

Helen was unprofessional and flirting right out of the gate, in front of others and making the captain obviously uncomfortable. Sure, she turned it around once Adams started twirling his mustache, but up until then, she couldn't stay on task without making some comment. "I know my profession" was something she HAD to say because until then she wasn't taking anything seriously.

Kirk in Requiem was awful, totally agreed.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top