Near the beginning of ST '09, we're told that as of 2245 in the alternate reality, Winona Kirk is off-planet, so she's presumably still in Starfleet. We know James' father is dead, but how did things go in the prime universe? After James was born, would both George and Winona have remained in Starfleet, or would one of them have resigned their commision to care for their kids? Or would they have left James and his brother to be cared for by relatives while they were away in space?
Who raised James Kirk in the primary reality?
- Thread starter Noddy
- Start date
Kirk's backsory was informed by Diane Carey's old novels Final Frontier (no relation to STV) and Best Destiny. In them, George Kirk is a security chief of Starbase 2, having taken a post just a week's shuttle ride from Earth rather than a deep space assignment on a starship. Winona (who in this version was never part of Starfleet) is a stay at home Mom for James and Sam.
I imagine something similar came about in the canon Prime-Trek universe.
What I'm curious about is: Who was Sam with while George and Winona were on their Kelvin mission?
I imagine something similar came about in the canon Prime-Trek universe.
What I'm curious about is: Who was Sam with while George and Winona were on their Kelvin mission?
^^Sam was likely with Drunk Uncle Frank.
No wonder he left Earth and grew that pornstache
Maybe the Kirk brothers were sent down to Kansas to stay with the Kent family in Smallville. 
In terms of on-screen canon, I don't think there's anything indicating Kirk's parents were in Starfleet. And the late Sam in Operation-- Annihilate! didn't appear to be in Starfleet either.
In terms of on-screen canon, I don't think there's anything indicating Kirk's parents were in Starfleet. And the late Sam in Operation-- Annihilate! didn't appear to be in Starfleet either.
We don't really know that Winona would have been in Starfleet payroll at any point, now do we? She was wearing civvies the only time we glimpsed her, and wasn't addressed by rank.
Spock Prime confirms that George Kirk Sr. lived to see little Jimmy become a starship captain, and inspired Jim to do so, but that tells us nothing about George's career as such. This does mean Jim's parents weren't slaughtered by Kodos the Executioner, or at least his dad wasn't, which really raises the question of why Jim would have faced Kodos alone. What possible reason would George Sr. (or George Jr. for that matter) have for survival if not absence from Tarsus IV?
If we are forced to assume absence of parents, we probably have to assume Jim was an independent sort of character. It doesn't sound as if Tarsus IV would have been running a summer camp for Starfleet kids or anything. Had little Jimmy left home behind at that date already? Also, why is it that he got his sponsorship (or other backing) for entry to Starfleet Academy from Ensign Mallory's dad, and not from his own? Would sponsorship from relatives not be accepted?
Did Winona or George ever have anything to do with Iowa, or was that just a Jim thing? Or Uncle Drunk thing?
Lots of questions there. Lots of noncanon answers that no longer quite fit the evidence...
Timo Saloniemi
^^^FWIW, the original script for "The Conscience of the King" had lines stating that Kirk was a midshipman, stationed on Tarsus, during Kodos' genocide. This of course would have made Kirk in his late-30s or 40 during the events of this episode. It is later in (iirc) "The Deadly Years" that he is stated on screen to be 34, which retroactively made him (what?) 13 or 14 during the events on Tarsus.
Sir Rhosis
Sir Rhosis
Just because Jim was on Tarsus IV doesn't mean his parents were. Could be any number of reasons. He could be visiting other relatives, or (as that original script suggests) be involved in Starfleet training.
Indeed, since prime-George lived long enough to see Jim receive command of the Enterprise, then logically speaking at least HE had to survive Tarsus (whether as a survivor of the massacre or not being there in the first place)
Also, we don't know that Winona was ever in Starfleet. The line in ST XI about her being "off planet" could also mean anything. She could be in the diplomatic corps, or involved in other such civilian work that might take her away from Earth. Sure, she was on the Kelvin, but we don't know what she was doing there either.
Indeed, since prime-George lived long enough to see Jim receive command of the Enterprise, then logically speaking at least HE had to survive Tarsus (whether as a survivor of the massacre or not being there in the first place)
Also, we don't know that Winona was ever in Starfleet. The line in ST XI about her being "off planet" could also mean anything. She could be in the diplomatic corps, or involved in other such civilian work that might take her away from Earth. Sure, she was on the Kelvin, but we don't know what she was doing there either.
...Perhaps George Kirk Sr. pulled a few strings to have his wife whisked to Earth for childbirth on state expense.
Regarding Tarsus IV, we not only have to wonder why young Jimmy faced Kodos alone, but why only nine people out of 4,000 faced him at all, and why two of them (Jim and Kevin) and perhaps more (Thomas Leighton wasn't all that old-looking) were mere kids. One line of reasoning would be that Kodos wasn't one of the colonists at all, but a person who came to Tarsus IV on the same ship as Jim and Kevin and Tom - which is why these three knew his shipboard identity, whereas the 4,000 survivors only knew the Kodos identity he assumed when taking power, an identity worthless to investigators. (No doubt, the man who became Kodos would have been traveling under false identity on the ship already, but at least that identity would be one step closer to a proper trace.)
We could speculate Winona traveled from colony to colony as part of her profession, taking her children with her since George was unavailable and her brother Frank couldn't be trusted - and perished in the hands of Kodos, which is why she doesn't count as a witness despite having enjoyed the same view of the pre-Kodos Kodos as her son did. (Although why George Jr. wasn't with them, or was but didn't become a witness, remains unexplained then.)
Timo Saloniemi
Regarding Tarsus IV, we not only have to wonder why young Jimmy faced Kodos alone, but why only nine people out of 4,000 faced him at all, and why two of them (Jim and Kevin) and perhaps more (Thomas Leighton wasn't all that old-looking) were mere kids. One line of reasoning would be that Kodos wasn't one of the colonists at all, but a person who came to Tarsus IV on the same ship as Jim and Kevin and Tom - which is why these three knew his shipboard identity, whereas the 4,000 survivors only knew the Kodos identity he assumed when taking power, an identity worthless to investigators. (No doubt, the man who became Kodos would have been traveling under false identity on the ship already, but at least that identity would be one step closer to a proper trace.)
We could speculate Winona traveled from colony to colony as part of her profession, taking her children with her since George was unavailable and her brother Frank couldn't be trusted - and perished in the hands of Kodos, which is why she doesn't count as a witness despite having enjoyed the same view of the pre-Kodos Kodos as her son did. (Although why George Jr. wasn't with them, or was but didn't become a witness, remains unexplained then.)
Timo Saloniemi
The episode describes Kirk, Riley and Leighton as eye witnesses not as members of the resistance. They are said to be survivors of the massacre. I would infer from that they were in the group rounded up for execution and only lived because the relief ships had arrived and Kodos apparently died. Kodos seemes to be in power when the famine started and is described as taking "full power". What the other 4,000 people, the "superior" ones. were doing at this time isn't really said. Surely they knew what Kodos looked like. Kirk found a picture of him easily enough and had access to a recording of his voice. Possibly, only the unfortunate 4,000 actually heard and saw Kodos give the orders.
For what it's worth, one of the recent novels said she was in Starfleet in the Prime timeline.
But that's just the thing: everybody already knew everything about Kodos. There were images; there were voice recordings. There probably was a full DNA trace for all we know.
This leaves nothing of value for Kirk, Riley and Leighton to witness - unless they in fact hold information about Kodos that doesn't come from the time of his reign of terror, and somehow differs from the widely available information from that time. That is, they might have information from a time when he was not Kodos.
Sure, it might be that only the Fabulous Nine would have been witness to the sort of specific utterances that would seal Kodos' fate in a court of law. But nothing in the episode hints at such, and indeed it would seem silly that anybody would need to hear a third party deliver a testimony of Kodos' willingness to execute colonists when the very recording of his voice has him deliver the incriminating orders!
Rather, the episode emphasizes that only the Nine "saw Kodos" or can "identify Kodos" and only Kirk and Riley now can tell for sure whether Karidian is Kodos. Which makes no sense at all, but could at least be claimed to make sense if the seeing and identifying is all about "the man who once called himself Kodos".
Timo Saloniemi
Its one of those scripts where they probably needed another rewrite before filming.
The idea that Kodos can walk off a transport and declare himself Governor seems far fetched. The dialog implies Kodos was in charge before the famine happened. Not sure what you mean about Kodos being someone else. Does it matter if he's Kodos, Karidian or John Doe?
^ Kodos was the man's real identity. He was Governor of the colony even before the massacre took place.
It was "Anton Karidian" which was the fake.
It was "Anton Karidian" which was the fake.
Explain that to Timo. I'm well aware.
Since the plot is utterly nonsensical as such, any interpretation deviating from it must be preferred. 
No, the dialogue does not establish Kodos as the governor of the outfit before the coup. And we have every excuse to assume that "Kodos" isn't a real name, but rather a nom de guerre for somebody obsessed with power and law.
The thing is that Kodos was known to 8,000 people at the time of the massacre, and to the entire universe afterwards: there'd be no point in having "witnesses capable of identifying him", either from the point of the law (physical evidence, recordings and the like would suffice) or from the point of Lenore Karidian (eliminating the nine would accomplish nothing). However, people would presumably arrive at the colony in smaller groups; if "Kodos" is a recent arrival, then there could well be just nine witnesses to who he "really" is.
The plot is full of other illogic as well, further affecting the interpretation of Kodos. The writer suggests ambiguity in whether the Executioner's ruthless decision was a rational one - but doesn't realize that it never could be. Killing half the people to allow the other half to survive is not viable in the scenario outlined: if there are going to be scheduled supplies, remaining food can be stretched essentially indefinitely, and if there are not, everybody will die anyway. So we must argue that Kodos took power solely in order to be able to kill 4,000 people. This is not something a madman like that would spend years quietly waiting for, in the position of Governor...
A man who comes, kills, and goes would thematically fit James T. Kirk also being the sort of boy who travels a lot. The other option, of him being one of the actual colonists, is the one where we run into problems regarding his parents or custodians. Although of course that's also a path worth exploring.
Timo Saloniemi
No, the dialogue does not establish Kodos as the governor of the outfit before the coup. And we have every excuse to assume that "Kodos" isn't a real name, but rather a nom de guerre for somebody obsessed with power and law.
The thing is that Kodos was known to 8,000 people at the time of the massacre, and to the entire universe afterwards: there'd be no point in having "witnesses capable of identifying him", either from the point of the law (physical evidence, recordings and the like would suffice) or from the point of Lenore Karidian (eliminating the nine would accomplish nothing). However, people would presumably arrive at the colony in smaller groups; if "Kodos" is a recent arrival, then there could well be just nine witnesses to who he "really" is.
The plot is full of other illogic as well, further affecting the interpretation of Kodos. The writer suggests ambiguity in whether the Executioner's ruthless decision was a rational one - but doesn't realize that it never could be. Killing half the people to allow the other half to survive is not viable in the scenario outlined: if there are going to be scheduled supplies, remaining food can be stretched essentially indefinitely, and if there are not, everybody will die anyway. So we must argue that Kodos took power solely in order to be able to kill 4,000 people. This is not something a madman like that would spend years quietly waiting for, in the position of Governor...
A man who comes, kills, and goes would thematically fit James T. Kirk also being the sort of boy who travels a lot. The other option, of him being one of the actual colonists, is the one where we run into problems regarding his parents or custodians. Although of course that's also a path worth exploring.
Timo Saloniemi
^ Kodos was referred to in dialogue as Governor. That's all the proof I need that 1) he really was a Governor, and 2) Kodos was his real name.
As for any perceived ridiculousness in the plot: Blame Kodos. He may have been the Governor, but he was also obviously batshit insane.
As for any perceived ridiculousness in the plot: Blame Kodos. He may have been the Governor, but he was also obviously batshit insane.
We shouldn't want Kirk to be batshit insane as well, though. And that's what we get if we pursue the idea that he believed himself to be an important eyewitness to who Kodos was.
Why should that follow? Obviously, he would be both "Governor" and "Kodos" at the time he committed his atrocities, but that's all we can learn from this.
Timo Saloniemi
Why should that follow? Obviously, he would be both "Governor" and "Kodos" at the time he committed his atrocities, but that's all we can learn from this.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
