leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (02/10/86)
Followup to "His was the most human..."
by Mark R. Leeper
There has been quite a lot of discussion on the net about an article I
posted claiming that calling Spock's soul "human" was insensitive. The
article was intended to be light in tone, but it was also intended to
illustrate a gripe I have had with the series. STAR TREK sets up a number
of circumstances in which logical (Vulcan) and emotional (human) approaches
to problem-solving are compared. That is potentially a very interesting
comparison to make. The problem is that the script-writer inevitably
contrives to have Spock's logical side lose. In STAR TREK III McCoy even
comments on all those arguments that Spock lost. Now since argument should
be an exercise in logic, anyone who uses pure logic on his/her side should
not lose an argument. The best you can hope for against a (hypothetical)
perfect logician is not to lose against him/her.
So how did Spock lose arguments? In one episode Spock was in charge of
a lost shuttlecraft party. The ENTERPRISE was giving up looking. Spock
took all the remaining energy and put it into an emergency burst from the
engines. The ENTERPRISE picked up the signal and the party was rescued.
Later Spock loses an argument over the incident because, as Kirk claims, the
emergency call against all odds was a human and emotional thing to do. The
scriptwriter would have us believe the logical course of action would be to
lie down and die and to pass up even a faint hope of rescue. I would have
thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to do, but the script
has Spock accept it as an emotional action. With arguments as contrived as
that, it's no wonder that the side in favor of logic loses. It is
unrealistic that Spock would accept such a feeble argument, let alone lose
to it. I have been watching some old episodes, and time and again when the
humans claim the human way is superior, the arguments are just as contrived.
I heard an author (Diane Duane) reading an excerpt from a draft "Star
Trek" novel. Spock was playing chess, was put in check, and with his logic
could see no way out. McCoy takes over for him and with an emotional attack
turns the tide of the game. Hurrah! Another triumph for emotionalism over
logic. One minor problem: McCoy's counterattack did not take Spock out of
check. And for good reason. Chess is a game of logic. If there was a way
to get out of check, a logical approach would find it and Spock should have
seen it. The scene is calculated to show the human approach superior and to
feed to egos of the reader, but it makes no sense that way.
The thing is, this question of emotionalism versus rationalism is not
just an academic issue. We live in a world in which large numbers of people
really do retreat from rationalism. People turn to astrology, to mysticism,
to cults in increasing numbers. A small part of the cause is that science
fiction films present an anti-rationalist/pro-emotionalist viewpoint. STAR
TREK says emotion is better than logic; STAR WARS says, "Trust your feelings
[not your computer]." WARGAMES says, don't trust your national defenses to
a computer. Speaking of trusting your feelings, I am told that one of the
New York black-outs occurred because the computer governing the power system
told an operator to shut down the power to one borough and the operator
refused to do it. That borough lost power anyway and the others followed it
like dominoes. A whole city was blacked out rather than just one borough
because an operator trusted his feelings more than his computer.
Actually Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal
as far as I am concerned. He has both emotions and logic but under most
circumstances he is able to control the emotions and act as the logic
dictates. It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems
coming to terms with Spock in being human. Spock seems to be comfortable
with his origins when there isn't someone else trying to rub his nose in
them.
I would still contend that if you have someone half white, half
American Indian, it would be in extremely bad taste to say in his eulogy
that he had the should of a white man. And for the same reason, I think
Kirk's eulogy for Spock was extremely ill-considered. Luckily, he may get
another chance.
Between Usenet and e-mail I got several responses, ranging from two or
three people who entirely agreed with me (you know who you are and thanks)
to people who disagreed politely (mostly for whom the above has been
written). The most fun I got from a response was from the one flame.
(Actually I expected flames from people who might have mistakenly thought I
was attacking Christianity. Luckily none of those, though maybe people are
more sensitive about STAR TREK than religion!) This flame asked me, who do
I think I am to criticize STAR TREK. (Sorry, sir. Who do I have to be?
Can I get a license for it someplace?) The flamer also tells me that if I
don't like STAR TREK I don't have to watch it. Actually I like some parts,
I don't like others. But to respond to the flamer, imagine me standing up,
an angry grimace on my face, and yelling at the flamer, "Who do you think
you are to criticize my review? If you don't want to read my stuff you
don't have to." So there.
Mark R. Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeperrjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) (02/13/86)
Various rebuttals to "... his was the most human." by Roger J. Noe Mark Leeper recently wanted to know where he could get a license for criticizing Star Trek. It is in fact carefully regulated. Licenses can be obtained by sending subspace requests to Starfleet Headquarters, San Francisco, California, North America, Sol III. Now on with the important stuff . . . > In STAR TREK III McCoy even comments on all those arguments that Spock > lost. Now since argument should be an exercise in logic . . . [Spock] > should not lose an argument. He never did. That's McCoy's opinion, that Spock lost arguments. Regarding Spock's decisions at the end of "The Galileo Seven": > I would have thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to > do, but the script has Spock accept it as an emotional action. Not at all. Spock says it was logical to take an illogical action. About Diane Duane and the screwed-up chess scene with McCoy and Spock: If Spock says he cannot find a way out of check, then any conclusion Duane writes which has McCoy winning the game is STUPID. This only proves that Diane Duane is a particularly bad writer, especially when it comes to Star Trek. > STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic; On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different, neither is superior. Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC. > Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal . . . > It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems . . . > Spock seems comfortable with his origins when there isn't someone else > trying to rub his nose in them. I agree 95 per cent. Spock wasn't comfortable until the end of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". The half-white, half-AmerIndian analogy only applies if the person had tried to suppress his white half for years and only recently came to terms with the fact that his white half is valuable; he is not a whole person as long as he suppresses half of himself. That's what ALL of the first Star Trek movie is about. > Spock denied being human (he does so in ST3). Context, please? > [the eulogy] was a comment that . . . Spock, if he were alive, would > have denied . . . I disagree strongly. He would have said, "Why, thank you, Captain." > It would have been much better to say he represented the best that was > human and the best that was Vulcan. Absolutely. -- "Listen, in order to maintain airspeed velocity a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second. Right?" Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/13/86)
In article <624@riccb.UUCP> rjnoe@riccb.UUCP (Roger J. Noe) writes: > >> I would have thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to >> do, but the script has Spock accept it as an emotional action. > >Not at all. Spock says it was logical to take an illogical action. > Say what? Are you serious? That was the point - it was NOT an illogical act, but Spock accepted that it was (well, the script writers accepted that it was). > >> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic; > >On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different, neither is superior. >Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC. > Yes, but at the end of ST:TMP, Kirk makes some inane comment about why mankind is so great - "the capcaity to leap beyond logic." I submit that it is this capacity that causes problems, and when it solves them, it is either pure luck or evidence of script writers. > >The half-white, half-AmerIndian analogy only applies if the person had >tried to suppress his white half for years and only recently came to >terms with the fact that his white half is valuable; he is not a whole >person as long as he suppresses half of himself. That's what ALL of >the first Star Trek movie is about. > I disagree - I think the only excuse for that remark is that there really are no vulcans to be offended. If there were such a beast, and if genetics allowed them to inter-breed (iron-based systems with copper-based), I would assume that either of these remarks would offend the halfbreed: He was the ultimate human. He was the ultimate vulcan. >> [the eulogy] was a comment that . . . Spock, if he were alive, would >> have denied . . . > >I disagree strongly. He would have said, "Why, thank you, Captain." > I think he would have ripped Jim a new asshole and then started to cry, yelling "Am not! Am not! Am not! Whatever you say I am you are only more so!" >> It would have been much better to say he represented the best that was >> human and the best that was Vulcan. > >Absolutely. Absolutely. > Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe --MKR
chen@gitpyr.UUCP (Ray Chen) (02/14/86)
I've been seeing a lot about this chess game between McCoy and Spock. Mark, do you remember what novel/draft this came from? The reason for this inquiry is that the scene you've described sounds very similar to a scene in "My Enemy, My Ally" by Dianne Duane (her latest, published Star Trek novel). There, *Kirk* and Spock were playing a new variant on chess, "4-D" chess. When it looked like Kirk had had it and was about to resign, McCoy asked if he could take over, did so, made some changes, (don't ask to me explain exactly what but it was believable) and promptly beat Spock. Before you go jumping about how McCoy shouldn't have been able to beat Spock if Kirk couldn't, remember that the game was a *new* variant with a very complex wrinkle that neither Spock nor Kirk had ever played before. I'm thinking what Mark may have heard was Dianne Duane reading a draft section of "My Enemy, My Ally" that was changed before it got published. I don't remember when "My Enemy, My Ally" was published and I don't have it handy (it's in Maryland, unfortunately). Mark, you remember when you heard the draft read? Ray Chen gatech!gitpyr!chen P.S. -- Also, even if what Mark heard was a draft of a new novel, I don't really think it's fair to judge Dianne on something that wasn't published yet. She seems to have an "airy" or semi-romantic writing style. So while I don't think she'll ever write a darker story like "City on the Edge of Forever", or "Balance of Terror", I do think she does a good job of writing interesting stories that stay ring true. Much more so than many authors I've seen out there. (At the risk of offending people, need I mention the "Vulcan Academy Murders" or far worse, "The Trellisane Confrontation" ?? Ugh.)
chen@gitpyr.UUCP (Ray Chen) (02/14/86)
I goofed. Silly me. (Especially when I have Star Trek comic #24 in my room.) Ray Chen gatech!gitpyr!chen
stivers@oswego.UUCP (Jim Stivers ) (02/18/86)
In article <1661@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: > > Followup to "His was the most human..." > by Mark R. Leeper Point 1: > So how did Spock lose arguments? In one episode Spock was in charge of >a lost shuttlecraft party. The ENTERPRISE was giving up looking. Spock >took all the remaining energy and put it into an emergency burst from the >engines. The ENTERPRISE picked up the signal and the party was rescued. >Later Spock loses an argument over the incident because, as Kirk claims, the >emergency call against all odds was a human and emotional thing to do. The >scriptwriter would have us believe the logical course of action would be to >lie down and die and to pass up even a faint hope of rescue. I would have >thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to do, but the script >has Spock accept it as an emotional action. With arguments as contrived as >that, it's no wonder that the side in favor of logic loses. It is >unrealistic that Spock would accept such a feeble argument, let alone lose >to it. I have been watching some old episodes, and time and again when the >humans claim the human way is superior, the arguments are just as contrived. Point 2: > I heard an author (Diane Duane) reading an excerpt from a draft "Star >Trek" novel. Spock was playing chess, was put in check, and with his logic >could see no way out. McCoy takes over for him and with an emotional attack >turns the tide of the game. Hurrah! Another triumph for emotionalism over >logic. One minor problem: McCoy's counterattack did not take Spock out of >check. Although this is my first reply on the network I've been reading the articles for some time now and I have a few comments on some of the points that Mr. Leeper was tring to make in this article. As for point one that I have abstracted from the article, I AGREE with you that Spock did do the most logical option available to him , Scotty even agrees that it was probably the best possible move. As for the part about Spock accepting it as an emotional situation, I feel that it was too late in the program to really start a big debate on the issue. Time, I feel, got to Spock NOT the writers themselves. On his point two, if Bones did not take Spock out of check he loses therefore HOW could he turn the game around ?????? Granted if there was a possible move Spock would have found it BUT the computer could NOT beat him because he programmed the computer HIMSELF. He says so in an episode, I forget the name of it, where Jim Kirk is on trial for ejecting a pod too soon, but I digress. I just wnated to make the point clear to all that Spock should not lose unless he makes a mistake(a HUMAN characteristic) and that the game was lost before Bones took over for him so any argument about LOGIC vs EMOTIONALISM is absurd. Other opinions ?????
lotto@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Ben Lotto) (02/21/86)
I shot Kirk today. And Spock. And McCoy. I left all the extras alive. -Ben
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (02/24/86)
>> In STAR TREK III McCoy even comments on all those arguments that Spock >> lost. Now since argument should be an exercise in logic . . . [Spock] >> should not lose an argument. > >He never did. That's McCoy's opinion, that Spock lost arguments. I think it was also the opinion of the director. Why else would Spock have a puzzled expression on his face and Kirk and McCoy have smiles of apparent victory? >Regarding Spock's decisions at the end of "The Galileo Seven": > >> I would have thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to >> do, but the script has Spock accept it as an emotional action. > >Not at all. Spock says it was logical to take an illogical action. But it wasn't an illogical action. It is a contradiction in terms to be logical to take an illogical action. In this case the logical action is to take whatever action is possible. The emotional response would be to either do the same or to give in to pessimism and not try. I would rather have the logical entity making the decisions, not an emotional one. > >About Diane Duane and the screwed-up chess scene with McCoy and Spock: >If Spock says he cannot find a way out of check, then any conclusion >Duane writes which has McCoy winning the game is STUPID. This only >proves that Diane Duane is a particularly bad writer, especially when >it comes to Star Trek. Someone must have pointed this out to her. I am told that by the time the book came to print, it was Kirk who had given up on the game, not Spock. I have not seen the book but this is a much more satisfying way of doing the scene. > >> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic; > >On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different, neither is superior. >Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC. Maybe that is what they are saying, since I think everyone involved thinks Spock is pretty useful to have aboard. I am not sure in what situations the emotional mind is actually better than the logical one. An unfeeling piece of logical machinery, assuming it is properly programmed for the situations it will face, and assuming that programming has the proper sets of priorities, should match or beat the emotional approach every time. > >> Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal . . . >> It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems . . . >> Spock seems comfortable with his origins when there isn't someone else >> trying to rub his nose in them. > >I agree 95 per cent. Spock wasn't comfortable until the end of >"Star Trek: The Motion Picture". Yes, but that story was contrived to say that Spock saw something better in the mixed approach. It was making the false statement that creativity and pure logic are mutually exclusive. As a mathematician I know that is balderdash. There is nothing illogical about curiosity or creativity. In pure mathematics logic, creativity and curiosity come together very well. > >The half-white, half-AmerIndian analogy only applies if the person had >tried to suppress his white half for years and only recently came to >terms with the fact that his white half is valuable; he is not a whole >person as long as he suppresses half of himself. That's what ALL of >the first Star Trek movie is about. I don't follow why you say the analogy isn't applying. Spock's soul wasn't human. If anything it was better than human. > >> Spock denied being human (he does so in ST3). > >Context, please? Sorry it was ST2. I was listening to it as I was writing. I haven't had a chance to go back and find the line again. > >> [the eulogy] was a comment that . . . Spock, if he were alive, would >> have denied . . . > >I disagree strongly. He would have said, "Why, thank you, Captain." He did point out that he wasn't human in ST2 so I disagree with you. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (02/27/86)
In article <1406@gitpyr.UUCP> chen@gitpyr.UUCP writes: >The reason for this inquiry is that the scene you've described sounds >very similar to a scene in "My Enemy, My Ally" by Dianne Duane >(her latest, published Star Trek novel). There, *Kirk* and Spock were >playing a new variant on chess, "4-D" chess. When it looked like Kirk >had had it and was about to resign, McCoy asked if he could take over, >did so, made some changes, (don't ask to me explain exactly what but it >was believable) and promptly beat Spock. > >Before you go jumping about how McCoy shouldn't have been able >to beat Spock if Kirk couldn't, remember that the game was a >*new* variant with a very complex wrinkle that neither Spock >nor Kirk had ever played before. The reason it was believable was in the nature of the game. Unlike standard chess where all positions are visible this was more like "battleship" or poker in that the "position" of many of the opponents pieces were UNKNOWN. Thus a major portion of the game was in trying to outguess an apponents stratigy. McCoy explained that he used information gleened from Spock's (confidential) psychological medical records and exploited a weekness in Spock's personality. This was entirely consistent with previous stories in which Kirk has pointed out that, in a game like poker, logic isn't enough. It is also consistent with McCoy's constant poking at Spock's psychology. Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}!oliveb!jerry
m128a3aw@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Sean "Yoda" Rouse) (02/27/86)
In article <1687@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: >>> In STAR TREK III McCoy even comments on all those arguments that Spock >>> lost. Now since argument should be an exercise in logic . . . [Spock] >>> should not lose an argument. >> >>He never did. That's McCoy's opinion, that Spock lost arguments. > >I think it was also the opinion of the director. Why else would Spock >have a puzzled expression on his face and Kirk and McCoy have smiles of >apparent victory? > I always looked upon the line as humorous and meant as a joke. McCoy and Spock always argued, but I can't recall either of them winning one, something always came up that interupted the arguement. >>About Diane Duane and the screwed-up chess scene with McCoy and Spock: >>If Spock says he cannot find a way out of check, then any conclusion >>Duane writes which has McCoy winning the game is STUPID. This only >>proves that Diane Duane is a particularly bad writer, especially when >>it comes to Star Trek. > >Someone must have pointed this out to her. I am told that by the time >the book came to print, it was Kirk who had given up on the game, not >Spock. I have not seen the book but this is a much more satisfying way >of doing the scene. How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages". If that's not exactly right, which wouldn't surprise me, I'm sure the poster will fix it. Anyway, Kirk beat him, so why couldn't McCoy beat him? >> >>> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic; >> >>On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different, neither is superior. >>Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC. > >Maybe that is what they are saying, since I think everyone involved >thinks Spock is pretty useful to have aboard. I am not sure in what >situations the emotional mind is actually better than the logical one. >An unfeeling piece of logical machinery, assuming it is properly >programmed for the situations it will face, and assuming that >programming has the proper sets of priorities, should match or beat the >emotional approach every time. > An example when logic doesn't win: The Cobermite Maneuver, Spock likens the battle of wits between the Enterprise and the First Federation to a game of chess, in which they've lost. But Kirk says, "Not chess, poker", and then uses the Cobermite bluff to get out of that situation. >>> Spock denied being human (he does so in ST3). >> >>Context, please? > >Sorry it was ST2. I was listening to it as I was writing. I haven't >had a chance to go back and find the line again. It takes place when Spock goes to save the Enterprise. McCoy says, "No human can survive the radiation thats in there!". To which Spock replies, "As you are most fond of saying Doctor, I am not human." (Remember all the times McCoy says, "You green-blooded, inhuman....") >> >>> [the eulogy] was a comment that . . . Spock, if he were alive, would >>> have denied . . . >> >>I disagree strongly. He would have said, "Why, thank you, Captain." > >He did point out that he wasn't human in ST2 so I disagree with you. Still, it was meant as compliment. I thought it was proper. Kirk wasn't saying that Spock was a human being, folks. When he said, "of all of the souls I have ever met, his was the most human.", he meant that Spock had shown the ideals of humanity more than anyone else. Let's look at some of the "human" things Spock has done... He endangered his career to save Captain Pike, with whom he had served on the Enterprise. He saved a few Enterprise crewmen in different episodes at the risk of his own life (Ens. Garavick, Stiles, etc) He sacrificed his life to save everyone on board the Enterprise. There are others, but I just can't think of them, I'm sure other people can add to this list, but even those two are human, especially the first one. Do you think that Spock would've thought of taking someone else to Tarsis 4? I don't. There is logic in what Spock did, but if Spock was human, he would have done the same. To me, that's what Kirk meant by saying "his was most human". Just think about that for a while. -Sean "Yoda" Rouse =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ARPA: cc-30@cory.berkeley.edu UUCP: ucbvax!cory!cc-30 "Television...destroys the mind, corrupts the soul." --Remington Steele -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (02/27/86)
In article <683@oliveb.UUCP> jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes: > >The reason it was believable was in the nature of the game. Unlike >standard chess where all positions are visible this was more like >"battleship" or poker in that the "position" of many of the opponents >pieces were UNKNOWN. Thus a major portion of the game was in trying to >outguess an apponents stratigy. > >McCoy explained that he used information gleened from Spock's >(confidential) psychological medical records and exploited a weekness in >Spock's personality. > >This was entirely consistent with previous stories in which Kirk has >pointed out that, in a game like poker, logic isn't enough. It is also >consistent with McCoy's constant poking at Spock's psychology. Sorry for cross-posting to net.games, but I want to clear up a fairly common misconception. In *all* games satisfying certain minimal criteria (finiteness etc.), whether or not they contain hidden information, there is an "optimal" strategy. This includes battleship and poker, the examples given above. Obviously this strategy cannot be sufficient to win any individual game, but it is optimal in the sense that no strategy is statistically superior in a long run of games. And in particular, since all decisions in the optimal strategy are made randomly, no knowledge of the opponent's psychology can be helpful against a player who plays the optimal strategy. A note: the example of battleship is particularly interesting to me as I have spent some time trying to work out optimal strategy for simplified versions of this game. If there is any interest in discussing this on the net, or if anyone has interesting insights into this problem please let me know. (Maybe we need a net.games.theory? :-)) -- David desJardins P.S. Please direct followup articles to only the applicable newsgroups.
knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) (03/01/86)
> In article <1406@gitpyr.UUCP> chen@gitpyr.UUCP writes: > >The reason for this inquiry is that the scene you've described sounds > >very similar to a scene in "My Enemy, My Ally" by Dianne Duane > >(her latest, published Star Trek novel). There, *Kirk* and Spock were > >playing a new variant on chess, "4-D" chess. When it looked like Kirk > >had had it and was about to resign, McCoy asked if he could take over, > >did so, made some changes, (don't ask to me explain exactly what but it > >was believable) and promptly beat Spock. > > > >Before you go jumping about how McCoy shouldn't have been able > >to beat Spock if Kirk couldn't, remember that the game was a > >*new* variant with a very complex wrinkle that neither Spock > >nor Kirk had ever played before. > > The reason it was believable was in the nature of the game. Unlike > standard chess where all positions are visible this was more like > "battleship" or poker in that the "position" of many of the opponents > pieces were UNKNOWN. Thus a major portion of the game was in trying to > outguess an apponents stratigy. > > McCoy explained that he used information gleened from Spock's > (confidential) psychological medical records and exploited a weekness in > Spock's personality. > > This was entirely consistent with previous stories in which Kirk has > pointed out that, in a game like poker, logic isn't enough. It is also > consistent with McCoy's constant poking at Spock's psychology. > Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC It is also ironic that what McCoy did was very LOGICAL, based on the medical records. I'd rather you had said that Spock couldn't beat Kirk because he couldn't think enuf like a human to outguess Kirk's strategies -- whereas another emotional, intuitive, etc. human (like Bones) could. In fact, Spock might lose often since he simply couldn't imagine all the stupid, crazy random things a human might do. Somehwere I recall an SF story where some people beat a big computer/robot/Vger/whatever for that reason at something really important -- wish I could recall the details. mike k
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (03/06/86)
>>>About Diane Duane and the screwed-up chess scene with McCoy and Spock: >>>If Spock says he cannot find a way out of check, then any conclusion >>>Duane writes which has McCoy winning the game is STUPID. This only >>>proves that Diane Duane is a particularly bad writer, especially when >>>it comes to Star Trek. >> >>Someone must have pointed this out to her. I am told that by the time >>the book came to print, it was Kirk who had given up on the game, not >>Spock. I have not seen the book but this is a much more satisfying way >>of doing the scene. > >How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something >like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages". >If that's not exactly right, which wouldn't surprise me, I'm sure the poster >will fix it. Anyway, Kirk beat him, so why couldn't McCoy beat him? You are comparing apples and oranges. In a whole game, someone who plays illogically might on rare occasions be unpredictable enough to have a minor advantage. If it was more often than rare occasions and if the advantage was significant, that would be a logical way to play, probably using some randomizing element to create the unpredictability. However in the Duane draft game the situation was that Spock could not get his side out of check and when McCoy took over he could. If a logical mind cannot find a way out of check, it is unlikely that an illogical mind would. Nothing but logic will get you out of check. Emotional approaches only come in if there are two or more ways out of check and you have to choose between them. >There is logic in what Spock did, but if Spock was human, he >would have done the same. To me, that's what Kirk meant by saying >"his was most human". Just think about that for a while. How about thinking about this for a while. We are all agreed that Kirk meant the statment to be a compliment. How it was intended is not the issue. What we are talking about is more the taste that Kirk used in choosing this "compliment." If the series actually has the point of view that humans are superior to Vulcans then it fits perfectly into that context, but the whole context if questionable. I just don't like having my science fiction say to me "Ain't it great that we are human and not like that Vulcan." I don't see that it is so much better to be human if at all. If the series is taking a more objective point of view, it is just the Kirk eulogy that is in bad taste. If possible I would like to stop beating this dead horse. :-) Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper