Is Khan a Villain?

[roo_ster]

From the second JJ Abrams Star Trek. 

http://superversivesf.com/2015/09/12/is-khan-a-villain/

As with other Hollywood films that seek to construct an intriguing antagonist, but then lack the courage to follow through, there is no need to construe Khan’s motives as evil. He is an unpleasant person, but being nice or accommodating is not the same as being moral. Whilst Khan’s actions are violent and ill-judged, and the character may be poorly and inconsistently written, the audience can identify a moral logic to everything he does… if they want to.

I have tried to construe Khan as a character who has his own moral logic, even though it is not one I share. This moral logic is different to Kirk’s, or mine, but not straightforwardly opposed to either. It is circumstances, not character, that lead Kirk and Khan to be enemies. Is this moral absolutism, or moral relativism? I would argue it is both, at the same time, thanks to the miracles that can only be performed from the god-like position of the storyteller. Kirk is always right – even when he is wrong. Kirk was wrong to obey Marcus’ orders. He was wrong to hit an unarmed man who had surrendered. And it can be argued Kirk was wrong to use violence against Khan a second time, after Khan had saved Kirk and they had subdued their common enemy, Marcus. Hence, a kind of moral absolutism surrounds Kirk. He is right, even when he is wrong, because we are supposed to forgive his emotions and ignorance. However, this absolutism is invested in a specific, mistake-prone and lucky individual, not a moral system. Because Kirk is a moral absolute, his enemies must be moral absolutes too. However, no leeway is granted for their anger, or for the gaps in their knowledge.

This kind of absolutism, centered on an imperfect individual, is the worst kind of relativism in disguise. Anybody can make a mistake. Unlike Spock, a real person knows that no amount of logic can substitute for a lack of pertinent knowledge. We might think we are doing the morally right thing, and then learn more information that leads us to conclude we should behave differently. But in this Star Trek film, no matter how ignorant Kirk is, he is always luckily moral. This suggests Kirk has little moral compass, and is nothing more than a puppet for a godlike figure who works through him – which may be an actual god, or just a contemptuous storyteller. The ‘facts’ always fortuitously realign to suit Kirk’s intuitive perceptions. That seems to me equivalent to the worst kind of moral relativism, where each individual can insist they have always made consistent moral decisions because they can choose to believe whatever happens to justify their actions.

Khan is a moral force. He is destructive, and willful, but he acts with a purpose in mind. Khan did far more to stop war than Kirk did. If Khan had not rebelled against Marcus, then Kirk and others may have loyally followed Marcus into war. In contrast to Khan, Kirk rarely understands what will be the consequences of his actions. I submit that this makes Kirk a poor hero, and Khan far less than a villain.

JJ Abrams' legacy seem to be to make the protagonist unlikeable (Kirk, She-Walker) and to sloppily write the antagonist (Khan, Darth Emo).

Quite a bit more at the linky.

[Perd Hapley]

They're action-adventure escapism. Perhaps you take too serious.

[TommyGunn]

   I suggest http://superversivesf.com/2015/09/12/is-khan-a-villain/  is a bunch of over-analized claptrap.
In the original series Khan was represented as a genetically created "superman," whose physical strength, endurance and IQ were superior to that of normal humans.  IIRC* it was Spock who suggested that while certain "positive" qualities of humanity were increased by the genetic manipulation, so were certain negative characteristics --- like ego, for instance.
Despite the supposed superiority of these "superbeings," the apparant results of the "Eugenics Wars" on earth were as catastrophic to their empire(s) as Hitler's megalomania was to Germany and much of europe.
Why else would Kirk's first contact with them be after ignorantly reviving them after finding them in suspended animation in the U.S.S. Botany Bay, a ship used to escape from earth as a last resort?  Hey, atleast Khan didn't bury himself in a concrete bunker with Marla the historian.....
Examining Khan's actions in taking over the enterprise show him little different, or more advanced, than a pirate, or any other aggresive, murderous villian suffering from sociopathy.
In the sequel movie The Wrath of Khan Spock notes Khan's fighting patterns in pitting the Reliant against the Enterprise betrayed "two-dimensional thinking," a lacking one might think a genetically created superman with superior intellect would have overcome.  Possibly though, Khan had little experience in submarine warfare, which would seem the nearest 20th century equivelent to (excuse the expression and crossiver reference) "star wars" stuff of the movie (sans X wing fighters ha ha).
Since JJ Abrahms movie basically had the same Khan as the TV series, I would assume he is the same there as in the TV series, the biggest difference being that since the timeline had been altered he was simply introduced through a different set of circumstances, and proved equally as nasty save with a British accent instead of a Northern Indian Sikh accent .  
I am not sure how Khan's character was "poorly and inconsistently written."  In both "Space Seed" and the Abrahms movie Khan presented himself as, basically a polite, intelligent, inquisitive person at first blush, only to reveal his true intent later, though in Space Seed he does offer a forshadow of what is to come when he remarks to William Shatner's Kirk how disappointed he was to see so little advancement in humanity since he took the long sleep.
Both Khans' behaviours seem relatively well written and consistant, just differing in a  manner associated with differing circumstances.

So far as Kirk's "moral relativism" is concerned, in the movie it is apparently a "writer's construct" ....the TV series offers a great deal more to chew on if one doesn't limit oneself to the "Space Seed" episode, which does not itself portray any significant moral quandaries.


Just my two cents ....  












*-- To be honest I don't recall right now if this happened in the TV episode or in James Blish's excellent novelization of said episode.

[roo_ster]

They're action-adventure escapism. Perhaps you take too serious.

Very possible.  At least I am not dressing up in a costume to attend a ST convention with thousands of hygiene-impaired folk.

===============

TG:

STOS & STII:WOK Khan was clearly a villain.  And well-written.

The JJ Abrams Star Treks are a reboot.  That stuff with Kirk finding Khan & Co adrift never happened in this Star Trek universe.  JJ Abram's Khan acts more rationally than does JJA's Kirk, IMO.  He is also more sympathetic as a character and I ended up rooting for him first time I saw the movie.

But, then, I also rooted for the head of security in Avatar.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

*-- To be honest I don't recall right now if this happened in the TV episode or in James Blish's excellent novelization of said episode.

I'll have to find that book.

JJ could not *expletive deleted*it an original thought. His ST reboots are as crappy as his SW feces.

If I had the job to reboot the ST universe, and had to have Kahn in it, the story would be simple. Take up no more than 5 minutes of the movie. Spock Prime would as Kirk if he went to the coordinates given to him, unloaded the entire weapons load of the Enterprise blowing up the Botany Bay. Scan debris, and use shuttle craft weapons to blow up the debris. Kirk would answer yes, Spock Prime would nod and say, live long and prosper. Enterprise would start a 5 year mission and the movie would begin

[MechAg94]

I didn't understand the entire idea of building a powerful combat ship being a bad thing.  That and they invented some sort of beaming tech that transported them to another star system which has all sorts of unintended implications.  Confusing story line. 

[TommyGunn]

Oooops.   edited by author....and a wierd internet glitch.

[Ron]

For all you Trekkies here is a 3 part series looking at STNG from a different perspective. I'm not a trekkie but still found the articles interesting in a social commentary kind of way.

“Chain of Command” (6.10-11) is widely and justly considered one of the greatest episodes of Star Trek TNG. While it lacks the awful grandeur of “The Best of Both Worlds,” it is filled with political significance. Chain of Command is notable for displaying the limitations of the liberal, Federation values exemplified by Captain Picard and his crew; indeed, the events of the episode completely undermine the principles upon which the Star Trek utopia is founded.

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/01/25/undermining-progressive-utopianism-in-star-trek-the-next-generation/

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/01/star-trek-chain-of-command-part-1-review/

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/08/star-trek-chain-of-command-part-2-review/

[TommyGunn]

................
TG:

STOS & STII:WOK Khan was clearly a villain.  And well-written.

The JJ Abrams Star Treks are a reboot.  That stuff with Kirk finding Khan & Co adrift never happened in this Star Trek universe.  JJ Abram's Khan acts more rationally than does JJA's Kirk, IMO.  He is also more sympathetic as a character and I ended up rooting for him first time I saw the movie.

But, then, I also rooted for the head of security in Avatar.

I found the two Abrams movies entertaining in a way (I can see where a nonTrekker might enjoy them) but as for myself I was disappointed; the first reuses a well-worn meme of timetravel, and in an act of utter criminal stupidity and assininity, zaps Vulcan, home of one of my favorite alien species.  That deeply offended me....yea I know, it's only a hollywood production....and sometimes the good guys have to get a "kick in the teeth," but, geeeeesh.
Abram's Khan was probably more rational than Kirk's but only because of the differing timeline he had to put up a false-face longer than in the original series.
Cumberbatch did a "credible" version of Khan but a British accent .....really?    Where was the turban, the Sikh Kirpan?  It's unfair to blame Cumberbatch but he was simply not quite right for the role.
He LOOKED English, not Northern Indian.    Ricardo Montalban was a Mexican American actor but had a background of playing other ethnicities.  When I visualize Khan Noonien Singh I see Ricardo Montalban's version. 

[mtnbkr]

Chris

[roo_ster]

Chris

So be that way.

The rest of us will be over here with our hypo-allegenic foam pillows waxing nerdly about Star Trek and other nerdalia.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

I didn't understand the entire idea of building a powerful combat ship being a bad thing.  That and they invented some sort of beaming tech that transported them to another star system which has all sorts of unintended implications.  Confusing story line. 

But now with a transporter that can beam your arse to another planet, why are they still building star ships?

[mtnbkr]

But now with a transporter that can beam your arse to another planet, why are they still building star ships?

Because not all trips terminate on firm ground?

Chris

[MechAg94]

Because not all trips terminate on firm ground?

Chris

So.....wooden star ships that float?

I was thinking more about building really big bombs and setting up another cold war.  Which could have been done in the old Star Trek since they bastardized the whole stealth idea completely.  If your ship is undetectable, you can go right in and blast the home planet.  Or build some stealth bombs, set them on the outskirts of the solar system on a course to hit the planet.  Lots and lots of ideas and tactics that were never even considered.  They had "illegal" subspace weapons that can seemingly destroy all kinds of stuff yet there don't appear to be any desperate terrorists or rebels willing to use them.  Not to mention potentially unstable warp cores all over the place.  

I guess I read too much military scifi.   

[Ben]

So.....wooden star ships that float?

I was thinking more about building really big bombs and setting up another cold war.  Which could have been done in the old Star Trek since they bastardized the whole stealth idea completely.  If your ship is undetectable, you can go right in and blast the home planet.  

Well, given that you have to uncloak to fire weapons in the ST universe, ships would probably have to be more of the Kamikaze variety. Stealth missiles and drones would work, since they could remain cloaked until they impacted and detonated.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Well, given that you have to uncloak to fire weapons in the ST universe, ships would probably have to be more of the Kamikaze variety. Stealth missiles and drones would work, since they could remain cloaked until they impacted and detonated.

ST Undiscovered Country had a ship that could throw down a can of whoopass, while cloaked.


And with a transporter that can beam across space, just transport a Genesis device right in the middle of the enemy planets Capitol. 

[Ben]

ST Undiscovered Country had a ship that could throw down a can of whoopass, while cloaked.

I forgot about that.

[MechAg94]

ST Undiscovered Country had a ship that could throw down a can of whoopass, while cloaked.

And for some reason they were completely unable to program their computers to fire on it automatically as soon as it spit out a torpedo.  Overall, Star Trek has a distinct lack of automatic stuff or point defense for that matter.  The new movies at least showed them trying to shoot incoming torpedoes. 

Also, there was no explanation of why they didn't already have guided torpedoes that could home on anything they could detect.  Or why exhaust gases weren't already used to detect cloaked ships.  Seems like a pretty big vulnerability.  I guess engineers didn't write the stuff.  

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

And for some reason they were completely unable to program their computers to fire on it automatically as soon as it spit out a torpedo.  Overall, Star Trek has a distinct lack of automatic stuff or point defense for that matter.  The new movies at least showed them trying to shoot incoming torpedoes. 

Also, there was no explanation of why they didn't already have guided torpedoes that could home on anything they could detect.  Or why exhaust gases weren't already used to detect cloaked ships.  Seems like a pretty big vulnerability.  I guess engineers didn't write the stuff.  

It gave Uhura something important to say.

[seeker_two]

Because not all trips terminate on firm ground?

Chris

And, how would you beam Spock out of the volcano if you didn't have a starship sitting on the ocean floor? It's not like you could maintain a geosynchronous orbit above the volcano at an altitude high enough to remain our of sight of the primitive natives or anything.....