Re: A Farewell To Klingons
- Glad you agree with me on so many points.
This thread has developed an own dynamic, but I originally wanted to express my concern about the Klingons not being part of new Trek. So while they defined Kirk in the OTL, another timeline without them is possible, too. Kirk would just project his "Feindbild" (http://www.dict.cc/german-english/Feindbild.html) onto others. Romulans seem to volunteer for this part, as one of them has killed his dad. There needs to be a personal opponent for his character to 'work'. The Klingons were perfect for this, but, sadly, there could be others, too.
--- In email@example.com, The Sweetest wrote:
> > Before the movies, Kirk also was kinda 'anti-Klingon'.
> [ATA]Sure, but that doesn't define him, just say simething about him.
> > He's this
> > space-cowboy, who violates any rule there is. In the show (TOS), they try to
> > mark it as 'individualism' and oppose it to any culture/society, which isn't
> > totally 'free' in that special sense.
> [ATA}That is more defining of his character. Agreed
> >I guess that was the zeitgeist of the
> > era, where 'individualism' was the positive counterpart of 'communism'.
> [ATA]Oh, couldn't have said it better.
> > Sure, this is totally simplified, as Kirk is from a planet, where Lennon's
> > lyrics (no countries, no money, no religion) have already become true. In
> > that way, he was a 'perfect commie', fighting autocratic ideas/systems. This
> > is anti-Klingon. Not specifically, but basically.
> [ATA]Have to say that I agree.
> > So no, it's not only an episode of his life. It's the core of his nature.
> > Chris
> [ATA]I agree in that regard. The issue was that it seemed that only
> the Klingons was what defined Kirk and as you have stated is the sum
> of all you have mentioned.
> Glad you agree with me on so many points.[ATA]I'm also glad we agree in more points than not. And even in these
> This thread has developed an own dynamic, but I originally wanted to express
> my concern about the Klingons not being part of new Trek. So while they
> defined Kirk in the OTL, another timeline without them is possible, too.
> Kirk would just project his "Feindbild"
> (http://www.dict.cc/german-english/Feindbild.html) onto others.
two that we have some disagreement, I think it is a matter of degrees.
1) Kirk is not defined by Klingons in the OTL, but certainly is an
non-irrelevant part of his definition as a whole. 2) Although in
terms of what a timeline is one without the Klingons is possible, this
one without them will be very unlikely. Although they don't have to
have any protagonistic role.
> Romulans[ATA}I don't think the dad thing will be that relevant. At least not
> seem to volunteer for this part, as one of them has killed his dad. There
> needs to be a personal opponent for his character to 'work'. The Klingons
> were perfect for this, but, sadly, there could be others, too.
as relevant as David's death was regarding the Klingons, For one, we
must remember that they were not facing The Romulans but a Romulan.
And that one is dead. In David's death case Kirk blamed the whole race
and when he let it out in STVI, the David's passing was relatively
recent so his wounds were still open while his dad died 25 years
before. I deon't think we would dwell over this. Although is always
there for a future dramatic scene.
But at this point seems reasonable to think the Romulans might switch
with the Kiingons to be the deffault Villains.