“Pen Pals”
Written by Melinda M. Snodgrass, story by Hannah Louise Shearer
Directed by Winrich Kolbe
Season 2, Episode 15
Original air date: May 1, 1989
Star date: 42695.3
Mission summary
Enterprise enters the Selcundi Drema sector to investigate unusual geological instabilities that are destroying its planets, and Commander Riker decides this would make a great test of young Wesley Crusher’s ability to command a survey team to study the problem. Wesley is eager as always, but apprehensive about his performance and whether he’s qualified to give orders to officers who are older and more experienced than him. Meanwhile, Data is experimenting with enhancing the ship’s sensors and picks up a troubling transmission: “Is anybody out there?”
He’s either picked up Pink Floyd on subspace radio, or he’s communicating with someone in the system. He strikes up regular communications with the alien girl, Sarjenka, but he doesn’t bring this to the captain’s attention until six weeks later, when he realizes that her planet, Krypton Drema IV, is inexplicably tearing itself apart. Picard’s response to this startling revelation of Data’s inordinately bad judgment: “Oops.”
Sarjenka and her people don’t know anything about space travel or the Federation, so Data is grossly in violation of the Prime Directive, a “strict” “policy” of “noninterference” with “developing” cultures. But he wants to do even more: He wants to save her by discovering what is destroying her planet and reversing the process. Picard grudgingly calls a meeting to discuss the matter.
WORF: There are no options. The Prime Directive is not a matter of degrees. It is an absolute.
PULASKI: I have a problem with that kind of rigidity. It seems callous and even a little cowardly.
PICARD: Doctor, I’m sure that is not what the Lieutenant meant, but in a situation like this, we have to be cautious. What we do today may profoundly affect upon the future. If we could see every possible outcome–
RIKER: We’d be gods, which we’re not. If there is a cosmic plan, is it not the height of hubris to think that we can, or should, interfere?
LAFORGE: So what are you saying? That the Dremans are fated to die?
RIKER: I think that’s an option we should be considering.
LAFORGE: Consider it considered, and rejected.
TROI: If there is a cosmic plan, are we not a part of it? Our presence at this place at this moment in time could be a part of that fate.
LAFORGE: Right, and it could be part of that plan that we interfere.
RIKER: Well that eliminates the possibility of fate.
DATA: But Commander, the Dremans are not a subject for philosophical debate. They are a people.
PICARD: So we make an exception in the deaths of millions.
PULASKI: Yes.
PICARD: And is it the same situation if it’s an epidemic, and not a geological calamity?
PULASKI: Absolutely.
PICARD: How about a war? If generations of conflict is killing millions, do we interfere? Ah, well, now we’re all a little less secure in our moral certitude. And what if it’s not just killings. If an oppressive government is enslaving millions? You see, the Prime Directive has many different functions, not the least of which is to protect us. To prevent us from allowing our emotions to overwhelm our judgement.
Picard ultimately decides that they can’t get involved and orders Data to cut off communication with Sarjenka. But as he complies, her voice cuts in… and touches all of their hearts. (Maybe not Worf’s hearts.) The doomed little girl is scared, calling out for Data. And Picard’s resolve falls away. They have to help.
Despite some rocky interactions, and with a little fatherly advice from Riker, Wesley has successfully managed his team and convinced them that he’s every bit as awesome as everyone else thinks he is. Thanks to Wesley’s insistence on a time-consuming scan, they’ve discovered that Drema IV is lousy with dilithium—so much so that it’s turning the planet’s own heat into mechanical energy that is stressing its tectonic plates. They set to work on a way to get rid of the crystals. But Data, oh, Data… He decides to beam down to Mordor the planet to make sure Sarjenka is safe.
She’s happy to see her friend, but it’s too late to save her, unless he brings her back to Enterprise. So guess what he does next? Go on, guess.
Yeah, he beams up with her, to everyone’s dismay. She hangs out on the Bridge, to Picard’s great annoyance, while the survey team’s plan is put into motion: They fire probes in torpedo casings into the planet’s surface, where they shatter the dilithium crystal lattice with harmonic vibrations. The plan works, the planet is saved!
Picard determines that the only way to protect Sarjenka, to allow her to grow up the way she was meant to, is to selectively wipe her memories of Data and the Enterprise. Data carefully returns the unconscious girl to her home, leaving her a small remembrance: an Elanin singer stone that he pilfered from Pulaski’s desk. Dammit, Data.
There’s just one thing left for him to do when he gets back to the ship: fess up for his mistake. Or not.
DATA: I came to apologize, sir.
PICARD: No apologies are necessary. You reminded us that there are obligations that go beyond duty.
DATA: I appreciate your seeking other options, sir. Your decision could have been unilateral.
PICARD: One of my officers, one of my friends, was troubled. I had to help. Is Sarjenka safely home?
DATA: Yes, sir. She will not remember me, sir, but I will remember her.
PICARD: Remembrance and regrets, they too are a part of friendship.
DATA: Yes, sir.
PICARD: And understanding that has brought you a step closer to understanding humanity.
Analysis
I’m not a heartless person, but what the hell, Data? Although this is an intriguing premise that invites lively debate—much of which informs the crew’s discussion in the episode—it also seems unlikely. Data is an android who acts because of an emotional response, answering a lonely “whisper from the darkness,” even though his programming and training tell him that he is making the wrong decision. He compounds this mistake with worse errors in judgment, acting irrationally even for a human. He can offer no real logical justification for any of his actions except for wanting to help Sarjenka, unlike Picard who responds much more professionally and believably—to a point.
The problem with these Prime Directive episodes is they operate on the assumption that this is the first time this situation has come up, so obviously it doesn’t apply here, or surely the spirit of the regulation never intended… But these aren’t Kirk’s days, when he could get away with interpreting an early, incomplete version of the Prime Directive. And look how well that always turned out.
“Sophistry,” Picard calls it. He very astutely points out the reasons why a unilateral directive like this exists, and decides to uphold it, even if he ultimately fails to follow through. You can argue every side of this as the crew does, but in the end it comes down to whether or not you are guided by your head or your heart. Though they wipe Sarjenka’s memory, so no harm is done, they have still violated their own law. That may be the determining factor: no harm was done. At the end of the stardate, it’s much easier to live with breaking a rule and saving millions instead of having all those deaths on your conscience. I wonder if Starfleet would see it that way.
It was actually good to see the crew argue with each other, presenting so many diverse points of view, even if some of those perspectives included the idea that there is some “cosmic plan.” When did Riker become such a fatalist, first in “Time Squared,” now here? But I’m also shocked that we’re still debating this. The Prime Directive only works when it’s convenient for all involved; Picard is right when he says they should tread softly because they could be affecting the future. I assume he means setting a dangerous precedent, rather than messing up God’s plan. But I wonder why no one ever proposes doing away with the Prime Directive entirely, when most people seem to disagree with it.
I also might have been fine with Data breaking rules and them going along with it, but the other problem with the Prime Directive is there’s no penalty for violating it. Unless you’re breaking some kind of general order that demands the death penalty, you’ll never be court-martialed for interfering with another culture, and even then you can still talk your way out of it. Picard brushes away Data’s mistake, chalking it up to him learning about humanity and actually—unbelievably—doing a good thing by reminding them of their higher purpose.
As for the B-plot about Wesley and his first command… Would they have given any other ensign an opportunity like this? Would they really call a staff meeting to discuss one boy’s upbringing? On a ship where violating the Prime Directive is merely par for the course, any and all ludicrous behavior is acceptable. This subplot seems an odd juxtaposition with the central conflict, but I found myself considering one key point: Wesley listened to a member of his team instead of following his instincts and demanding that icogram, and Picard does the same thing when he allows Data and the others to convince him to help Sarjenka and her people when his instinct is to leave it all alone. What would Picard do? Looks like Wesley wins this round. It seems strange to me that Picard would let himself get in over his head when he knows every step of the way that it’s wrong, but in Star Trek, what you do out of friendship, loyalty, and compassion trumps all. I can’t really argue with that sentiment, but again, there need to be serious repercussions. Data doesn’t even get detention.
Along the same lines as the characters being forced to act a certain way in service to the plot, the dialogue is often bad, or the lines come across as forced and flat: “These planets live fast and die hard.” Right. How about extended metaphors about raising a boy being like riding a horse, or forging a weapon? But there are some other nice little touches that I appreciated:
- Picard tying up the horse on the holodeck, even though he’s about to end the program
- The married couple on the geological survey team completing each other’s sentences
- Riker apologizing to his potential one-night-stand by claiming a “family emergency” to help Wesley
However, this episode also includes one of my biggest bugaboos in fiction: forced loss of memory for a character’s own good. This is the only time Data questions if they’re doing the right thing, and despite the reasoning, I don’t buy that anyone would take solace in the knowledge that at least they can remember what really happened for the other person. And of course he undermines this decision by leaving her the singing stone.
I was all set to give this one a Warp 3, but writing up my analysis has gotten me all worked up.
Eugene’s Rating: Warp 2 (on a scale of 1-6)
Thread Alert: This is more of a “head alert,” because Sarjenka’s makeup has always freaked me out. I mean, she’s very alien looking, so I guess that’s a good job, but I don’t know, maybe it’s the long fingers, or the hair, or her you know, face.
Best Line: RIKER: O’Brien, take a nap. You didn’t see any of this. You’re not involved.
O’BRIEN: Right, sir. I’ll just be standing over here, dozing off.
Trivia/Other Notes: This episode featured the only location shoot of the second season, at a ranch near the Los Angeles suburb Thousand Oaks. It establishes Picard’s fondness for horses, which was inspired by Snodgrass’ own interests.
The spectral analyzer in the geology lab might be recognizable to fans of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai as the oscillation-over-thruster.
Previous episode: Season 2, Episode 14 – “The Icarus Factor.”
Next episode: Season 2, Episode 16 – “Q Who.”
Liars, and the lying liars who tell them, I tells ya. “It gets better” indeed.
Hmph.
@1 CaitieCat
Next week!
Yeah, another “who cares” episode. Mostly this just calls the whole interpretation of the Prime Directive into question. How does the general refusal to investigate and then prevent the destruction of these planets square with, say, “The Paradise Syndrome”? We have here a natural disaster for which these people are in no way to blame and we’re supposed to be okay with the idea of the crew just shrugging and going, “Thems the breaks”? And how did all this “cosmic plan” malarkey get past Roddenberry’s atheism?
As for Sarjenka’s makeup, man all they did was give Cha-Ka a shave! I only just realized that for the first time today when my browser window cut the picture of her off just below the bridge of her nose. I’ve always wondered why she looked sort of familiar. Apparently Michael Westmore ripped himself off.
I think, to give it a bit more thought/comment, that this episode bugs me because it reinforces the weird fatalist thing that so many of the ST shows have, the sense that time has a “right” setting, and any variation from it is “disastrous”, as viewed by the future people. Of course it would to them, but what about the people in between? If killing Hitler really stops the Holocaust, even though it ends up chaining into something else horrible, say a nuclear war in the middle of the 22nd century or whatever – doesn’t the survival of those millions of innocents get any weight? And all their children and descendants’ contributions?
I know this isn’t a time travel one, so it’s an odd time to mention it, but it’s always bugged me, this “time has a Right Form” idea, and they sort of touch on it in the ready room expositionfest – here, let’s give each character one of the eight different ways we came up with to approach this, that’ll totally be good writing! Ooh!
Also, yes, you’re absolutely right that the complete botch-job that Data does on “being a Starfleet officer” this week would mean he was a major villain, if he didn’t have ContractualImmortality.
I tend to think of this one relatively fondly, compared to the previous two or three pieces of crap that we’ve recently experienced. I don’t think it was very well done: Eugene’s comments about Data’s unData-like behavior, and the weird fatalistic viewpoint that Riker offers are good points, along with the question as to whether any other ensign would get the kind of opportunity that Wesley got, not to mention discussing him the way they did.
But, like so many other episodes, the potential in this one was pretty strong and just got waylaid by…whatever gets in the way of the potential of the other episodes. Mostly, what I liked about the episode is the notion of some kid talking out to the universe and getting an answer. It doesn’t make any sense at all that Data was the one who answered (why didn’t they go with Wesley for this?) but it’s still a romantic notion that appeals to me.
I also like the discussion of the Prime Directive that followed, even though I thought all the arguments were pretty poorly crafted. It’s nice to see people actually talking about it, even if I can’t agree with any of them.
Ultimately, this is just another episode that had a considerable potential to be excellent that was squandered…but without doing it quite so disastrously as some of the earlier episodes did. I’d probably give it a warp 3 solely on the basis of lowered expectations.
In some ways, the infantilization of Data approaches perihelion here.
How has Data spent 20 years in Starfleet, risen to the rank of commander, and not know as well as anyone (better, in fact) that his communications were a breach of policy and protocol? By his very concept, Data should be the ultimate regulation-spouting martinet, devoid of the kinds of nuance and emotion that plague biological beings.
The problem with Data should not be that he is a child. The problem with Data should be that he is a machine.
If Picard is correct, and assisting the Dremans is a violation of the Prime Directive, then Data should know and comprehend that better than anyone. Why does a living databank need a lecture on the perilous history of General Order One?
Which brings us to this episode’s other stupidity, which is another exploration of the inane aspects of the Prime Directive.
They’re forbidden from making even small changes to a planet’s geology because that would interfere with a culture’s development? Even if such adjustments might be done simply, entirely surreptitiously, and without involving the culture at all (as they are!)? Culture and society are so important that they must be allowed to be destroyed utterly? In order to allow them to flourish? Preposterous!
“Alas, if only they’d been a society better equipped by natural evolution to avoid being vaporized by magma, they might have been a fine addition to the Federation. Now, who wants to play some swell Risa beachball on the holodeck?!”
Picard is always lecturing how the PD was earned through hard-won experience. I’d like to know what society the Feds once saved, what genocide they prevented, that turned out so badly as to produce this policy. “Oh, gosh, there was that time we saved the Hyrkanian Hillbillies and then they, like, had kids and stuff.” I think he’s just making things up here, bullshit artist.
It’s like a treatise on Darwinism delivered from Oral Roberts University by Homer Simpson—a completely daft misrepresentation with zero comprehension of the subject matter or what it is trying to explain.
Just once I’d like to see an episode that demonstrates the wisdom of the policy—how it actually makes a decision easier—rather than continued explorations of its nonsense and non sequiturs, a policy that invites more violations than it satisfies.
Re-viewing Picard’s slippery slope arguments, he sounds positively deranged. How has a vast interstellar society become so doctrinaire that it cannot distinguish between
• Simple, one-time or periodic non-invasive interventions that forestall catastrophe and allow societies to continue unharmed and unaware (surreptitious humanitarian relief); and
• Very complex, time- and re-source consuming invasive operations that dramatically change societies and sort winners from losers (war)
and therefore treats them as identical? How can the captain not distinguish between these things? He sounds like a lunatic here.
Lemnoc has stolen the thunder with all the overwhelming and deserved criticism of the Prime Directive, so I am forced to resign my commentary to this:
geological… survey team… rocky interactions
I see what you did there.
—
On second thought, I do think that there’s an argument to be made for the Prime Directive, but the episode fails to make it. There’s even episodic evidence to back it up.
The Prime Directive does not exist to protect the cultures with which the Federation should not interfere. It exists to protect Starfleet from the misapprehension of godhood. From internalizing the kind of paternalism that would lead one to believe that one can mold a society based on “the most efficient government mankind has ever known” and winding up with the Nazi Planet. What’s surreptitious humanitarian aid for a plague — should they dress up in costumes and beam down with magic drugs? Bioengineer a curative plant and place it in a forest where some group ought to be able to find it? Kill the pathogens from space with a magic beam? All smack of godhood, of Starfleet as better-knowing puppet masters tugging the strings of society because they know how it’s going to go. I’m sure the societies appreciate the interference — Lord knows I’d be happy if friendly space aliens came by and discreetly made the whole climate change thing go away with MagiTek — but godlike powers create a slippery slope in the mind of those who wield them, and that’s the danger & the justification for the policy.
And of course there are counterarguments, but this is the only justification I can think of that holds any water at all…
As with Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, Star Trek’s Prime Directive is a flawed storytelling device. The writers and the characters within the stories are able to use those flaws to what they hope will be their advantage. There are real world comparisons. How many people violate their ‘Prime Directives’ (the Ten Commandments) everyday but feel that they didn’t do anything wrong because everything came out all right – for them. The end justifies the means. But, all too often, the means becomes the end.
The trouble with Star Trek’s Prime Directive is that when you strip everything else away, it comes down to ‘Those with stars upon thars.’ You have attained a warp capable culture? Well congratulations. You now have stars on your bellies. You’re one of us. And those who don’t? Well. If they’re lucky, they may one day attain stars upon thars. If not, well then they are not worth our worry. A Federation with a strictly enforced Prime Directive is not different from the worst that Human civilization has had and currently is.
Maybe The Sneetches and Other Stories by Dr. Seuss should be made required reading the Star Fleet Academy.
Just because Star Trek is what it has become doesn’t mean that its views are correct. Non interference is not the only model in science fiction. Two James White stories, Red Alert and False Alarm explore situations where interstellar civilizations take a different approach toward the underdeveloped civilizations. I find the societies in these two stories more appealing than I do the Federation.
This is a Data episode that I do like. Others, with their comments, have pointed to Data’s programming and his access to all Human knowledge and asked why he couldn’t see that what he was doing was wrong. I saw his actions differently. Here, he was going beyond the limitations of his basic programming. He was taking another step from being just an android to becoming a true being. Too bad it gets reset before the next episode. And about his answering the call in the dark. Who wouldn’t at least want to answer that call?
I also feel that this was an episode in which the A and B plots do work together. Were I one to give ratings, I’d give it a Three after considering a Four. I like that they had Data making a step and I like that the Prime Directive was being challenged but the storytelling could use some cleanup work.
@8 DeepThought
Believe it or not, that pun was not intended! But when I noticed it, I had to leave it in.
@9 Ludon
Here, he was going beyond the limitations of his basic programming. He was taking another step from being just an android to becoming a true being.
I’ll buy that and I admire it, but instead of acknowledging what he’s doing, he keeps trying to bend the rules. “Could this not be seen as a call for help?” “You told me to deliver the message. What is the difference if I do it in person?” Riker calls him on his BS, and it’s frankly insulting that Data even says it aloud. He has made up his mind and he can come up with any excuse to justify it. And while Picard decides to help him as a friend, Data doesn’t afford his captain the same courtesy: He creates a bad situation and then asks Dad to bail him out. Yes, he’s growing up, but the issue is that he has the intellectual capacity to know better and blatantly ignores it to get what he wants.
If they had built this up as Data being lonely, and responding in kind to another person reaching out, that might make some sense. I remembered liking this episode, and I’ve had some spirited arguments over the interpretation of the Prime Directive, but this time around I’ve realized that I don’t like the way the question was raised in this instance.
Frankly this didn’t rile p my anger, I was more bored than anything while I watched the episode. I remembered bits and pieces of the episode – I don’t believe Ive seen it since the original air date — but I had forgotten Wesley’s first ‘command.’ (It’s not a frigging command it’s an assignment, and and it’s stupid unless you do like I do and just pretend everyone on his team is enlisted.)
I would score this as the worst Prime Dee episode ever done. Taking the Prime Dee from relativism to fate/destiny is unworthy of SF. Picard’s argument that they could not know where this would end is an argument to do nothing, always. Stay at home and even that may effect things negatively. And the whole frigging memory wipe is just a cop-out to cheat having any real consequences to their actions and without consequences there is no drama.
I loathe this episode. It’s way worse than “The Icarus Factor” as far as I’m concerned, for one simple reason: it states once and for all that the Federation is NOT a humanitarian organization.
I just don’t get it. If the prime directive of the Prime Directive isn’t SAVE LIFE, then what in the universe are they all out there for? To satisfy their own curiosities and advance their own understandings, and let the rest of the universe burn, but you know, take some notes in case it becomes relevant to their own self-interests? I find Picard’s (and anyone but Geordi’s) attitudes here reprehensible. We’re not talking about making the universe a better place per some subjective ideal; we’re not even talking about intervening in widespread victimization or genocide (a circumstance I would hope our friends would intervene on but they surely wouldn’t)–we’re talking about watching an entire species of life die en mass because of conditions wildly beyond their control. What’s the point of seeking out new life if you just let it die?!
This kind of thing goes beyond bad writing, bad acting, and weak plotting–it’s morally disgusting, and I can’t stand it, and I hope I never watch it again.
Ahem.
That said, it’s not a bad idea. I really love the idea of a person, alone in the universe, calling out for help, and someone answering. And I even like that it’s Data that answers. It speaks to the fact that beneath the circuits and programming there’s an ineffable human quality to him, one that’s deeper than the mere expression of emotion. Only a human component would answer a call in the dark. It’s a beautiful first step for him. Too bad it sucks so bad.
The less said about the Wesley subplot the better. I really have nothing to say about that except I it reminds me of every shitty job I’ve ever had and that’s not an experience I like to re-live in fiction.
Warp Core Implosion
@ 4 CaitieCat
This is an excellent point, and I also have that problem. Riker is especially weird in his godly fatalism. Ultimately they’re not having a serious conversation, they’re just puppetting some talking points they read in their How To Be A Soulless Dick From Starfleet manual. Except Geordi, who seems passionate and compassionate, but he’s not a real man, of course.
@ 5 Toryx
I think it’s a romantic idea, too. It’s the whole appeal of SETI. I mean isn’t that what Starfleet itself is about: asking “Is anyone out there?” And instead the episode says if an aliens saw our planet burning they should think “poor fools!” and keep moving. Wouldn’t we want an answer, just for the sake of an answer, even if nothing at all was wrong?
@ 6 Lemnoc
He knows it’s “wrong” (according to people who are more wrong, in my not-so-humble opinion) and that’s why he keeps it a secret. I think it’s the first step of him becoming more human.
I agree Picard sounds completely preposterous.
@ 8 DeepThought
This goes to my serious issue with the fact that Starfleet is a fundamentally selfish organization with zero interest in the life of the universe beyond its purported usefulness to their own understanding.
Oh, and one more thing:
MIND-WIPING. Extremely unethical, or the MOST unethical? Tonight at 11.
@8 DeepThought
That’s quite a well reasoned and spirited, even dignified, defense of the PD as a precautionary measure.
What the PD does not do—in its “absolute” rigidity, as Worf puts it—is provide any scalability and therefore invites abuse and ridicule. As Eugene noted in his analysis, you’d think at this point there’d be some playbook, some case law, that would help define when an intervention is permissable, even advisable. Otherwise it is dogma and doggerel.
I DON’T think this is the stupidest depiction of the PD we’ve seen. far from it. All you need do is scroll back (if you can stomach it) to the first season and episodes like ‘Code of Honor’ and ‘Justice,’ where the Enterprise was unable to protect even its own frickin’ interests and officers through some wacko-bizarro application of the PD… openly visiting those societies, culturally polluting them, and then declaring their hands were tied by some arcane principle. At least this episode does have some fig leaf covering it, that this society was virgin turf.
I think it’s that faint stench of Social Darwinism, and the role the Feds take as judges and arbiters and archivists of that “greater good” they’re creating through this policy, that rankles. Star-bellied Sneetches, indeed!
The problem is discussing the Prime Dee is that there are three variants depending on the episode so there really isn;t a PRIME directive.
Variant 1 – No Contamination This one has grow in popularity over the years it i basics the sociologists’ credo. Don;t let them natives know about things beyondf their world until they are ‘ready’ (And the Feds are the final arbiters of ready)
Variant 2 – No Judging – Thier rules, laws, and customs have the same validity as yours and you aren’t allowed to judge or in thier lands violate their customs. Do as the romans as a moral imperative, and taken to an extreme usually,
Variant 3 – No Messing with Fate The stupid idea that there is a ‘natrual sequence of events’ and you have to let the happen because it was ‘meant’ to happen. That was thi episode. It is also the least used verson inw riting because it’s friggin stupid.
@10 Eugene
You are making the point I tried to make when I’ve complained in the past about how TNG used Data’s character. From the start they set him up as an android trying to become more Human, or you could say, trying to become more than just his programming. From time to time they gave us stories in which Data takes some risks and makes some steps toward his goal but then they never let his growth stand. In the next episode you get no feel that Data even remembers it. (The Tasha Yar experience was an exception but even that could have been handled better.)
This afternoon I thought of a real world situation that reflects Picard’s attitude toward the Prime Directive in this episode. I’m sure we’ve all heard stories of how a firehouse crew stood and watched a building down the street – or even across the street – burn to the ground before the crew from another firehouse could get to it. They didn’t get involved because down the street – or even across the street – happened to be on the other side of an arbitrary line (county line or tax district line) so it was out of their hands. I believe laws have been adjusted to permit emergency crews to cross those lines now but there was a time when they would have no legal protections if they did.
@Lemnoc #14 thanks! Though I hope I make clear that most of the time my comments on here are speculation or devil’s-advocacy, rather than a position I’m firmly wedded to; I like to try exploring ways to make things work, even if I don’t necessarily believe them.
On that note, @Torie #12 —
I apologize for taking this to a political level. But I think part of the reason this rings so false is that it’s totally out of touch with Federation society as elsewise described. Here they’ve supposedly outgrown money, outgrown need, have basically a post-scarcity gift economy where people achieve status by visibly contributing to society; and yet this version of the Prime Directive, with its Olympian disdain for the well-being of others, seems like something out of Ayn Rand. Oh, well we can’t help you even if you’re all going to die through no fault of your own, because if you don’t pull yourselves up by your bootstraps then Horrors Unfold and you might become dependent or “polluted” by our interference or something… Our good little socialists are suddenly showing a totally out of character libertarian streak. And it’s *weird* and doesn’t work.
—yeah–i feel sorry for the girl too–but is it worth wasting an episode?–
Not only is the mind-wiping completely unethical (in my opinion) but it’s very existence completely undermines the argument of non-interference. If the Federation can interfere in the survival of a civilization and make it impossible for anyone to know that they’re there, how could they in good conscience allow a civilization to perish?
I honestly think that the only real reason the Prime Directive exists (from the minds of the creators) is that they didn’t want to handle the responsibility question. If a more powerful life-respecting civilization has the capacity to save millions of lifeforms through action, isn’t it their responsibility to do so? But given the variety of life-bearing planets in the Star Trek galaxy, and the tremendous numbers of world-destroying dangers that also exists, there’s probably no way for Star Fleet to save everyone, unless that was literally all they did (hell, even then). In which case, the whole thing breaks down to who gets saved and who doesn’t?
So they just cut through the Gordian knot by saying that they won’t save anybody. Unfortunately, that attitude also ruins it for those of us who love the future that Star Trek promotes.
Torie @ 12: You bring up another issue. Even supposing that the Prime Directive is right and just, and that the only responsible solution is to allow an entire civilization to perish rather than interfering with their development (which disgusts me just to type up, but still, assuming) why is it so wrong to answer the girl’s question? She and everyone she knows is doomed. There can’t be any possible interference in a civilization that isn’t going to exist anymore in a couple of weeks.
More to the point, even if they couldn’t save the civilization and the responsibility wasn’t a question, wouldn’t it be more humane (sic) to at least acknowledge that someone out there knew of those people’s existence? At least that way they wouldn’t have had to die completely alone and could know that in some small way they’d at least live on.
Frankly, if they’d addressed even one of these questions or some of the other questions people had brought up, it’d have been a much better episode.
@19, 20 Toryx
Good points.
Probably correct, But then, why keep focusing on it and eroding its edges?
I see this as analogous to something like Superman’s secret identity, which only works if he is some anonymous schlub who blends in with the crowd. The minute characters begin to fixate on the thing—say, doesn’t he look like…—the essential point is blown.
But it is the absurdities created by the device that attract the writers like moths. I mean, after a while, back in the day, Superman was all about the secret identity schtick, little else. Same risk here; breaking the PD is like some kind of story-generating treasure trove, the goose that lays golden eggs.
At the risk of overanalyzing it, in the same way you couldn’t kill Superman but you could ruin his life (and that created interesting drama), you couldn’t depict actual tension and conflict in Roddenberry’s little utopia but you could throw the paradoxes of the show’s humanitarian interests versus noninterference imperatives against the characters for dramatic effect. Gene-o’s own ridiculous fiats probably drove stories like this.
Just a brief digression: Today marks the 25th anniversary of TNG! Surprising that it survived its terrible twos, but I’m glad it did. Mostly.
I neither love nor loathe this episode. I do remember thinking when it first aired, ” At last! Some conflict between the main characters”. I agree it might have been handled better, but it was so refreshing to see our main cast disagreeing with one another and having a spirited debate, that I’m willing to forgive.
I don’t know exactly why, but I am reminded of the Kirk, Spock, McCoy debate in “The Apple” when they discover the natives feeding Vaal. Spock expouses the logical viewpoint, McCoy espouses the emotional response and Kirk makes the judgement call. The wisdom of the Prime Directive gets a workout there too and I would deduct points for Kirk’s decision being biased by his concern for the ship and crew, but somehow the argument makes more sense there ( and that’s a mediocre episode, with a rather unsatisfying conclusion as well… maybe that’s why I think of the two together. )
“I honestly think that the only real reason the Prime Directive exists (from the minds of the creators) is that they didn’t want to handle the responsibility question.”
I actually think they invented it to allow for dramatic tension… so that Kirk would have to ( at least appear to ) wrestle with the moral consequences of his actions, instead of just going in and meddling willy-nilly with societies at will…not that it ever stopped him.
Oh, and selective mind-wiping? Didn’t like or neccesarily believe in it then, and still don’t. Although now, with the ( sometimes frightening ) advances science has made, I can actually find the concept more believable. I think it opens a can of worms in the Trek universe, because it could have been used as some sort of “Magic Slate” for eliminating the consequences of interfering ( sure would have come in handy in “Tomorrow Is Yesterday”, wouldn’t it? ).
@ Lemnoc
“It’s like a treatise on Darwinism delivered from Oral Roberts University by Homer Simpson—a completely daft misrepresentation with zero comprehension of the subject matter or what it is trying to explain.”
I’m sure a person as eloquent as yourself can find another way to get your point across than writing this garbage.
Warp 2. Mainly for the tired PD argument and the well said thoughts above of why Data would be acting in a manner appropriate for a 13 year old rather than a 20+ year Starfleet veteran.
Que?
@ 24 ShameAndFailure
Moderation time: I’m not sure where that is coming from, but this kind of direct personal attack toward Lemnoc is not appropriate on our site. Feel free to disagree on anything–politely.
With all due respect, if someone wants to take me to task for suggesting ORU might be a place that might “misunderstand” Darwin’s work, I will accept the criticism. I did not even intend the remark as a controversial or belligerent statement.
Or was it the crack about Homer?
@ Torie
Well then. I don’t believe that was a personal attack anymore than I think his “writing” about the comparison of the PD logic to Darwin’s work and Oral Roberts argued by a simpleton (HS) had any comparisons to politics and topics that should be outside the realm of this board. He insults a religious faith, a University, and Homer Simpson for crying out loud and you ignore.
He does it again in his latest response. Does he really want a creation vs. evolution argument?
I come here to read about ST not about religion, Universities or the implications of Darwin’s findings.
@ 27 ShameAndFailure
First, I think you’re misreading his comment. Unless I’m grossly mistaken, it’s neither controversial nor contrary to fact to assert that ORU doesn’t believe in evolution, and the line is meant as an illustration of Picard’s own bizarre lecturing on PD beliefs he doesn’t hold. Second, if you do take offense, then I am genuinely sorry. I don’t want this to be a space where anyone feels personally insulted. But we are adults, attempting to engage in an above-average level of discourse. As such, I ask that if you do perceive something as hurtful or offensive, you express that without calling someone’s writing (no scare quotes needed) as “garbage” or similar.
Look, we’re all political people here, and I think that speaks to the unusual thoughtfulness and sophistication of ideas that’s usually on display in these comments. I wouldn’t have it any other way (this is, in fact, one of a handful of sites where I can stand to read the comments), and as such I wouldn’t ask anyone to leave their politics/ religion/ whatever at the door. I obviously don’t. Star Trek is a thoughtful and sophisticated show, and it would be both difficult and unfortunate if we prohibited that kind of engagement by our commenters. Discussion is richer for it, as long as we can be respectful.
In any case, a debate about Homer’s ORU degree is neither here nor there. Let’s move on.
@ 14 Lemnoc
Why aren’t there examples of application of the prime directive on record?? That’s an interesting theory… maybe the Federation is a civil law society, based entirely on statute? Those French! They won the day!
@ 15 bobsandiego
I always loved that expression of “do as the Romans do,” because the greatest success of the Roman military was exporting its own culture out, so that everyone everywhere did what the Romans did. In any case, you broke that down pretty well. Sort of depressing to see it all laid out like that.
@ 16 Ludon
I think the lack of immediate character growth from episode to episode is more a function of writing for syndication than anything else. There is some character growth over the series, it’s more evident season by season than episode by episode, and that was probably intentional.
@ 19 Toryx
That’s an excellent point about mind-wiping, and you’re probably right about responsibility. It makes me wonder what kinds of stories they could have told if they had actually tackled the responsibility question. I guess i still don’t understand why they won’t interfere in environmental disasters entirely outside the control of these people. I get why they may not want to get into UN Peacekeeper territory, debating the merits of intervening in cultural conflict, but the planet’s about to explode.
As far as answering the girl, I think that act automatically assumes some kind of responsibility for her fate. It does for Data, at least.
@ 21 Lemnoc
Once Gene leaves, this gets so much better. As I think I mentioned before, I really like the episode “The Enemy,” where Worf’s racism actually means letting someone die. It’s completely inconceivable at this point in the series to have a character show that kind of callousness.
@ 23 dep1701
I like that they argue, too, but none of it is substantive. It doesn’t feel like a real moral issue, like, say, it does in “The City at the Edge of Forever.” I still can’t believe Riker cites Fate as a reason not to intervene!
I still can’t believe Riker cites Fate as a reason not to intervene!
Ahh, but that’s because you haven’t noticed the little wristlet that he wears with the initials “WWCD” on it: “What Wouldn’t Calvin Do?”
@ 30 CaitCat
No no, he has WWPD. This is in the text!
RIKER (to Wesley): In your position, it’s important to ask yourself one question. What would Picard do?
@31 Torie: *laughs* Okay, you win. :)
It is always—and particularly on this 25th anniversary—worth reflecting on and commenting on Star Trek as a product of its time. And it seems the clumsier and more dated episodes (such as this) provide exceptional opportunity to do so.
In the same way TOS was commentary on the post-WWII, Vietnam-era Cold War projected on to the future, so too was TNG commentary on the post-Cold War, pre-Bosnia, pre-9/11 projected on to the future. A much simpler, more certain time.
At the time of the series’ creation, American exceptionalism was triumphant and non-intervention was the greatest conceivable good—whether as an expression of American free market values or as a cautionary tale in the wake of Vietnam, as reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine isolationism, or even, as bobsandiego suggests, an expression of the modern scientific ethos (“the Petri dish must not be stirred”). What we today find remarkable about this episode is that Picard could so declare, without a blush, what the higher, greater good is… and we today find it smug and wanting, dated.
In its own way, this episode is locked into its own smug little self-righteous world as much as TOS “Omega Glory.” We notice it, without perhaps even being able to articulate its flaws.
I mean, if Kirk is the expression of activism in pursuit of the higher good (which is about as classic a definition of Kirk as I can imagine), then what Picard expresses here is its intellectual opposite.
For what it’s worth, I for one would welcome a discussion of creationism versus evolution as it pertains to an examination of the STU. Particularly given ST’s focus on the softer sciences of biology and psychology in preference to focus on harder science. IMO, the STU is extremely creationist / determinist in overall outlook and ethos—ironic, considering GR’s professed agnostic atheism—whether it is the Preservers, the Prophets, or the Greater Good espoused in the PD as described here. I’d go even further to suggest that it is Star Trek’s persistent, omnipresent misunderstanding of the mechanic of natural selection, impugning to its action a moral arrow (the future is better than the past), that is central to its worldview and charm—we’re all charmed by the idea that we’ll “evolve” beyond our petty disagreements toward a better future. That evolution is toward “Good.” I know my heart wants to believe that, even though my head knows it is improbable.
That concept of “evolution” has nothing to do with Darwin, and everything to do with Star Trek.
@29 Torie
I think the lack of immediate character growth from episode to episode is more a function of writing for syndication than anything else. There is some character growth over the series, it’s more evident season by season than episode by episode, and that was probably intentional.
I know you won’t finish watching Babylon 5, but that’s a syndicated show that features remarkable character development over the course of a season, and even more so from season to season. DS9 certainly managed to accomplish this on some level, and even Voyager developed plot arcs and character arcs over the course of several episodes. I really think TNG was just mirroring the style of the original series and most shows at the time that basically “reset” the main characters at the end of the episode. It’s interesting because they stressed in their writers’ guidelines that stories with guest characters had to emphasize how that character and the events affected the main cast members (as in, you couldn’t introduce a guest who was the main focus of the plot), but this devotion to character development didn’t extend from episode to episode. In these early days, I don’t think the writers planned out the series in advance as much as they do now, so it would be difficult to maintain that continuity from show to show. Just look at the production order vs. the air order, and the number of times they run episodes with star dates out of sequence. They were practically interchangeable.