turns out I'm on Khan's side after all
Friday, June 15, 2007
I just finished reading Star Trek: To Reign in Hell, a Star Trek novel that chronicled the (so called villain) Khan's 15 years of exile on Ceti Alpha 5, and after reading it, I think I may have been backing the wrong horse all these years.
In Star Trek cannon, between the original show, the movie, and now the book, Kirk actually comes off like a real bastard.
He maroons these people, who have done little more to him than try to take over his ship, on a planet that six months after he leaves gets its orbit shifted and becomes an utter wasteland. Kirk never even checks on them once while they slowly die of starvation, inner turmoil, and horrifying death by parasites that climb into their ears while they sleep. Add to that fact that one of the people who gets killed by these disgusting bugs is Khan's wife.
I'd be in for a little wrath myself.
In all the times that I have watched Star Trek II, (and I have seen it many, many times) I don't think that it ever occurred to me that Khan was justified in his vendetta against Kirk. Not right exactly, but righteous.
But my moral center has always been more 'grey' than black and white I guess. I always play 'neutral' characters in D&D games if I have a choice, and I often end up cheering for the bad guy if the hero of the story isn't worthy. And I needn't bother with whether I'd have what it took to avenge a wrong done to anyone in my own family. Because I would.
So I guess the point of this post, if there need be one, is that I'm less inclined to back the person that says he's in the right and more inclined to back the person who actually is in the right, regardless of legalities. Funny how a post about a book can get so philosophical eh?
Either way, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan is still my favourite Trek movie.
And if you are a fan of Trek at all, and how could you get to the end of this post if you aren't even a little bit of one, check out the random technobabble generator. Its pretty amusing.
In Star Trek cannon, between the original show, the movie, and now the book, Kirk actually comes off like a real bastard.
He maroons these people, who have done little more to him than try to take over his ship, on a planet that six months after he leaves gets its orbit shifted and becomes an utter wasteland. Kirk never even checks on them once while they slowly die of starvation, inner turmoil, and horrifying death by parasites that climb into their ears while they sleep. Add to that fact that one of the people who gets killed by these disgusting bugs is Khan's wife.
I'd be in for a little wrath myself.
In all the times that I have watched Star Trek II, (and I have seen it many, many times) I don't think that it ever occurred to me that Khan was justified in his vendetta against Kirk. Not right exactly, but righteous.
But my moral center has always been more 'grey' than black and white I guess. I always play 'neutral' characters in D&D games if I have a choice, and I often end up cheering for the bad guy if the hero of the story isn't worthy. And I needn't bother with whether I'd have what it took to avenge a wrong done to anyone in my own family. Because I would.
So I guess the point of this post, if there need be one, is that I'm less inclined to back the person that says he's in the right and more inclined to back the person who actually is in the right, regardless of legalities. Funny how a post about a book can get so philosophical eh?
Either way, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan is still my favourite Trek movie.
And if you are a fan of Trek at all, and how could you get to the end of this post if you aren't even a little bit of one, check out the random technobabble generator. Its pretty amusing.
posted by raistlinsghost at 6/15/2007 11:37:00 PM
1 Comments:
hi, dropping by via BlogExplosion: thanx for the link to that random technobabble Generator, that's going to make a LOT of my time disappear now, teeheehe!
Post a Comment
<< Home