From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Locarno = Kirk (Spoilers "First Duty"))
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:29:19 GMT

goodwin@orionsci (Ben Goodwin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.221926.12208@acsu.buffalo.edu> v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:

>>     And anyway, you are overlooking the point: Locarno is Kirk ^as a
>>     cadet,^  as a KID.  I sincerely doubt Kirk was hatched a fully formed
>>     Captain Horatio Hornblower.  Let's remember who cheated on the 
>>     Kobyashi Maru simulation.  

>Sorry you forgot a very big IMHO there.  I don't see the link between
>Kirk and Locarno.  Yes he cheated, and it was a brilliant stroke 
>executed by a man who couldn't except defeat.  

Key words:  "couldn't accept".  The mark of maturity is the ability to
ACCEPT things that you can't change (and the courage to change the things you
can, and...whoa, this isn't an Irish prayer group :-) ).  Kirk could not 
accept the possibility of the no-win scenario, despite the fact that it's a
fact of life, and that he TAUGHT it and espoused its concepts in later years.
That smacks of immaturity and of hypocrisy.

And as I recall, that point is driven home pret-ty forcefully in the last
half of ST2.  Kirk, by "cheating death" in his cadetship and never facing
up to its reality, found himself woefully unprepared to deal with Spock's.

>I don't think that Kirk
>was endangering anybody by cheating on the Kobyashi Maru.  

Not initially; but it probably added to his own perception of himself as
invulnerable.  THAT can lead to a lot of rash (and brash) actions, since
after all, "nothing can happen to me".  That's exactly in line with the 
"we thought we could do *anything*" philosophy that Nova Squadron had in
"The First Duty".  Exactly.

>As for Locarno's last act, I don't give him too much credit for it.  As the
>leader of the group, senior cadet, and originator of the plan (I assume),
>he was gone anyway.  Nothing he could say or do would change that.  In his
>position I would have done the exact same thing.  In fact I would have 
>lied my head off saying that I pressured the others into going along, 
>threatened to remove them from the team, and promised to short sheet 
>their beds if they didn't do the maneuver.  Why? Because I would see 
>that my situation is hopeless, realize that I am to blame, and take 
>the necessary steps to help those who I had poorly commanded 

All of which does demonstrate at least a certain element of compassion and
honor, unless of course you want to argue that you yourself are an unmiti-
gated bastard.  :-)  He's no saint, but he's no demon either.

>He was a manipulative immature person not ready for duty in StarFleet.

In some ways, so was Kirk.  The kid's YOUNG, and found himself with almost
godlike charisma.  It's Gary Mitchell syndrome, in a way.

>Hum, I'm being a little harsh, but I can't help it.  I've met people
>like him before, the perfect people who can do no wrong and think the
>world revolves around them.

So have I.  I find it interesting that you refuse to believe Kirk was, in
some ways, up there right in that crowd.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
R.I.P. Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992.  You will be missed.