From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 03:08:56 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: clin@coke.eng.umd.edu


In article <54589@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.214150.4350@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>
>>Few if any people here have been arguing the parallel is an exact one, or 
>>that Kirk was as obviously venal a person as Locarno evidently was in some
>>ways.  My own emphasis has been on the Kobayashi Maru incident and the 
>>"I can't lose" attitude which the two share.
>
>I don't think that the two share this "I can't lose" attititude, or at least
>not the *same* "I can't lose" attititude.
>
>Locarno's attitued seems to be "Hey, it's me, and I can't make a mistake, 
>so I'm going to do this, and I'll succeed."
>

   Actually, I think that Boothby's explanation comes closer to what
they wanted to do with Locarno's character.  He's supposed to be this
flying ace, and he is under tremendous pressure (since he likes his
reputation) to top what he did before.  I don't think it's a "I can't
lose attitude" so much as a "How do I stay in the limelight?"

   I've suggested earlier that it would have been interesting to
make some relative of Locarno have been killed, or made some blunder
and hence Locarno may feel some need to clear the Locarno name.
But, this is all speculation....

>From the Kobayashi Maru incident that you're citing, Kirk's attitude would
>be closer to "This is bullshit.  I'm being put into a situation that they
>know I can't beat.  Well, I'll show them."
>

  Now Kirk's attitude was closer to an "I can't lose".  To me, Kirk 
couldn't stand being defeated while Locarno felt the need to be
in the limelight.

>>And, presumably, to teach the student that just such situations exist.  Kirk
>>gave the teachers all the reactions they wanted, presumably; but he never
>>faced the crux of the test, it seems.  
>
>But this is nuts, too.  No matter what, as long as he knows going into
>that test that it's a simulation (which I assume he does), he's not going
>to learn anything from it.  I play paintball all the time.  I've charged
>a fort by myself against 5 of the opposing team, because I know that I'm
>not going to die.
>
>Would I make that same choice in real life?  Possibly.  I guess it depends
>on what's at stake.
>
>The point is that you can't *know* until you get there, and the Kobayashi
>Maru isn't going to teach him about death any more than playing paintball
>will.
>
>

   True.   But it seems that Kirk said "There is no solution to the
Kobayashi Maru.  It's a no-win scenario.  How we deal with death is
just as important as how we deal with life".  He's trying to pass
on the lesson of the test w/o really believing it himself.  Now,
it may be that the simulation doesn't test a no-win scenario
very well, and to that, I agree.  In fact, it is hinted that Kirk
treated the thing as a game and fixed up the situation so he could
win this "game".   Others may have done the same.

--
   ______    __    __   ___  ____
  / ____ \  |  |  |__| |   \ |  |    Charles Lin
 | /    \_| |  |   __  |    \|  |    e-mail: clin@eng.umd.edu
 | |        |  |  |  | |  |\    |   
 | |     _  |  |  |__| |__| \___|    University of Maryland
 | \____/ | |  |____                 "I hate big sigs." -- Moo
  \______/  \_______|