posted
yes, I don't think it likely that someone would get that kind of command training in the standard academy course. If the Enterprise bridge crew had to be around for everyone's command tests...
Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Ok, I'm trying to get this mess sorted out, and "show my work" a bit more than the Okudas did. It seems that they drew some major faulty conclusions based on incomplete examination of the evidence. Be prepared for some re-hash.
Basic assumptions, with which some might argue:
"Where No Man Has Gone Before" takes place in 2265. Icheb mentioned in "Q2" (VGR) that Kirk's 5-year mission ended in 2270, indicating that it began in 2265. Depending on whether or not the episode's stardate indicates it as being over a year into the mission (though of this I am quite dubious) it might actually take place in early 2266, skewing the dates based on this episode.
Cadets generally enroll in the Academy at age 17, the minimum age allowed. This is a bit more aguable, since it is never cited in any episode, but it is established by the TOS writer's guide, and seems to hold true in most (if not all) cases. We know from later references that SFA is generally a four-year institution, though it's possible that certain individuals may graduate early or be held back an extra year depending on their performance.
2233
Kirk is born in Iowa. His age was given as 34 in "The Deadly Years" (TOS), set in 2267.
2242
Gary Mitchell is born. His age was given as 23 on his personnel report in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (TOS).
2250
Kirk enters Starfleet Academy. Age 17, as established by the TOS writer's guide.
Kirk meets Gary Mitchell. The Okudas failed to completely evaluate the references in WNMHGB on this issue. Kirk says he had known Mitchell for 15 years. However, Mitchell would be only 8 years old at this time, so he certainly wasn't a fellow cadet. More likely Kirk was acquainted with his family or something. In any case, the Okudas were mistaken in assuming they met when Mitchell was Kirk's student. They had already known each other 9 years previously!
One of Kirk's instructors as a midshipman is Ben Finney, and the two become close friends. Some years later, One of his instructors as a midshipman is Ben Finney, with whom he becomes close friends. Some years the two will serve together aboard the U.S.S. Republic. "Court Martial" (TOS). The Okudas seem to have missed the fact that Kirk and Finney's Republic stint (during which Kirk was an ensign) was some years after Finney was his instructor. Which means that it needn't necessarily have occurred while he was still at the Academy, though it may have, nonetheless. As Spike mentioned, "Obsession" (TOS) made two specific references; that in 2257 Kirk was a lieutenant aboard the Farragut under Captain Garrovick, and that Garrovick had been Kirk's commanding officer "from the day...[Kirk]...left the Academy." So it seems possible that Garrovick had commanded the Republic while Kirk and Finney served on her, and then took command of the Farragut, to which Kirk also transferred. However, there may be a small problem with this. Kirk was already a lieutenant when he conducted a planetary survey of Neural (see below) the same year he graduated. (See below.) Was he aboard the Republic then, or was he already aboard the Farragut? The latter seems more likely, because the Farragut was his "first deep-space assignment" according to "Obsession." So Kirk's graduation and commission to ensign, service aboard the Republic, transfer to the Farragut under the same CO, and promotion to lieutenant all occurred within one year. Or, alternatively, the Republic could indeed have been a pre-graduation assignment and Kirk was just special enough to attain rank while still a cadet. It's rather open-ended, but "Whom Gods Destroy" offers some further points that might be helpful.
Beyond this, things get vague and a bit tricky due to lack of specific dates, but by no means are they impossibly convoluted. Bear with me:
2250-2254
Kirk attends the Academy. He and Ben Finney serve aboard the Republic.
Kirk participates in a peace mission to Axanar after Garth of Izar's victory there. Kirk is awarded the Palm Leaf of Axanar. "Whom Gods Destroy" (TOS) and "Court Martial" (TOS), respectively. This assignment was before he received his commission. Could it have been aboard the Republic, and could it help explain how Kirk might attain ensign rank before graduating the Academy? This would be my theory of choice. The conflict at Axanar was apparently or great historical importance and had something to do with Vulcans (or perhaps aliens in general) and humans becoming "brothers." Kirk apparently played a prominent role in the subsequent peace mission (winning the Palm Leaf) and he just may have distinguished himself enough to have pulled off his early promotion.
2254
Kirk graduates the Academy. See notes above. Personally, I think he had already attained ensign rank at this point and had been serving on the Republic.
Promoted to lieutenant, Kirk conducts a planetary survey on Neural and befriends a hunter named Tyree. 13 years prior to "A Private Little War" (TOS). As reasoned above, he was (probably) already aboard the Farragut at this point, under the command of Captain Garrovick.
2257
Lt. Kirk is serving on the Farragut, when it is attacked by a dikironium cloud creature. 200 people, half the ship's crew, are killed, including Captain Garrovick. Kirk had been operating the ship's phasers at the time of the incident, and blamed himself for having hesitated when firing on the creature, though in fact his momentary delay had no effect on the outcome of the attack. Eleven years prior to "Obsession" (TOS).
At some point after this, Lt. Kirk left shipboard assignments and became an instructor at Starfleet Academy. I would suggest that it was soon after, and that it was direct result of his guilt over the incident.
2259
Gary Mitchell enters Starfleet Academy. One of his instructors is Kirk, whom he had already known since his adolescence. Assumes Mitchell was 17 at the time of entrance.
At some point between this and 2264-65 (depending on when Kirk took command of the Enterprise in relation to when the 5-year mission started) Kirk gets back on the command track and is promoted to Captain. According to the TOS writer's guide, he was the youngest Captain in Starfleet at the time, and his first command (during which he asks for Mitchell to serve under him, and we may presume the incident on Dimorus described in WNMHGB occurred) was a destroyer-type vessel.
Ahh, there we go. Playing historian is aggravating but fun at the same time.
As to Worf and the Hawk, there are basically four scenarios I can think of:
Scenario 1 Worf began his Starfleet career early due to his accelerated Klingon development and served on the Hawk after being commissioned as an ensign. Pros: Consistent with what we've seen of Klingon growth patterns. Cons: Inconsistent with SFA's minimum age requirement as established in TOS writer's guide and with Worf's personnel report that was created for and may or may not have been seen in "Conundrum" (TNG).
Scenario 2 Worf somehow attained ensign rank while still a cadet and served on the Hawk as part of his Academy training. Pros: Consistent with age requirement and biographical data, and is precedented to some extent by one interpretation of Kirk's record as presented above. (Though admittedly, Kirk probably didn't get his rank in his freshman year.) Cons: Improbable without the aid of very liberal dose of Suspension of DisbeliefTM.
Scenario 3 When Worf says he was "serving as an ensign aboard the U.S.S. Hawk," he is referring either to some sort of field commission or situation such as we saw with Wesley Crusher on the Enterprise-D. He wasn't yet a commissioned officer, but was referring to his position rather than actual rank. Pros: Consitent with age requirement and biographical data, and is perhaps precedented by Nog's field commission to ensign or Wesley's "acting ensign" role. Cons: Nothing particularly big except it takes some creative thinking to come up with circumstances that might justify it. (The Cardassian Wars were ongoing at this point, perhaps the Hawk was a cadet ship that got caught in combat and Worf saved they day? Just one possibility.) I think my money is on this one. It's more likely than #2.
Scenario 4 Worf was simply drunk, and either misquoted his age or exaggerated his rank as part of his "mostly true" story. Pros: Seems like a possibility given the situation as described by Futurama Guy, but I'm sure it would have to be his rank that he embellished. I can't really see Worf being touchy about his age and trying to make himself look younger... Cons: Can anyone say cop-out!?
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
couple of points, here:
-> Starfleet would of course have to edit its minimum age requirement for other species growth requirements. (Imagine why there would be no Ocampa in SF...) If the standard collegiate learning age for Klingons is in their early teens, that's when they'd have to admit him.
-> a rarely mentioned tidbit is that Peter Preston was supposed to be a 15 or 16 year old cadet in original drafts of TWOK, reinforcing the horatio hornblower influences on that flm...
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote: IIRC, though they did refer to him as a midshipman, Preston's uniform indicated he was an NCO.
Actually he wasn't even that. His rank pin was that of an Able Seaman, the naval equivalent of Private*. An NCO is a non-commissioned officer--a petty officer or up (or a corporal on up, in army parlance).
Marian
*or possibly PFC, depending on which navy we're talking about.
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:It seems that they drew some major faulty conclusions based on incomplete examination of the evidence.
This, IMHO, aptly describes a great deal of their work. Although my personal pet peeve is all the unnecessary pre-1700 Constitution registries. I'm sticking with my slighty-tweaked FJ-based list, thank you.
Ahem, [/soapbox]. Sorry.
quote:Basic assumptions, with which some might argue:(*rest snipped for brevity*)
Good, solid speculation, which I will swipe for my one chronological purposes. I especially like the idea that Kirk did something spectacular related to Axenar while still a cadet. It unravels more than one tangle.
There are two issues I would take with it, one minor and one major.
The minor one is that I prefer a 2264-69 dating for the five-year mission. ("Voyager" is guilty of so many consistancy errors that I have no problem ignoring "evidence" from it.) This is, however, my own interpretation; use or ignore as you like.
The major one is that, whatever a prop might have said, the actual protrayal of Gary Mitchell is not of someone just a couple years out of the academy, or someone who had a subordinate, mentor/student relationship with Kirk. Rather, they were of an age, and close friends.
In the novel Strangers From The Sky (IMHO, the best Star Trek novel ever written), Mitchel is a year or two older than Kirk, who had only recently surpassed him in rank in his meteoric rise to captain. I love this book, precisely because Bonnano's characters and their relationships ring so true, and could never accept something so incompatible with her portrayal.
In short, while I think you have an excellent speculation about Kirk's career, I must respectfully disagree with respect to Gary Mitchell.
Oh, and:
quote:According to the TOS writer's guide, he was the youngest Captain in Starfleet at the time, and his first command (during which he asks for Mitchell to serve under him, and we may presume the incident on Dimorus described in WNMHGB occurred) was a destroyer-type vessel.
Vonda McIntyre's novel Enterprise gives this ship a name, the USS Lydia Sutherland. Mitchel was Commander Kirk's XO. The ship is also mentioned briefly in McIntyre's novelization of Star Trek IV. I had no idea, before reading your post, that McIntyre's speculation had any basis in fact.
posted
I thought most peoples bios that we know of have their academy years between the ages of 18-22 for the four year program?
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Monkey: Your fourth scenario isn't really a cop-out. How can you cop out of an explanation when one isn't required in the first place? The lines were cut. The "explanation" is: Worf never made any claims to being an ensign at age 17 in the first place.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: Actually he wasn't even that. His rank pin was that of an Able Seaman, the naval equivalent of Private*. An NCO is a non-commissioned officer--a petty officer or up (or a corporal on up, in army parlance).
Yes, thanks for clarifying.
quote:Although my personal pet peeve is all the unnecessary pre-1700 Constitution registries.
I'd be inclined to agree, but the credit for that goes to Greg Jein for devising the scheme and Bjo Trimble for officializing it it in her Concordance. Though the Okudas are guilty of perpetuating it.
quote:Good, solid speculation...There are two issues I would take with it, one minor and one major.
Thanks. There's no pleasing everyone...
quote:The minor one is that I prefer a 2264-69 dating for the five-year mission. ("Voyager" is guilty of so many consistancy errors that I have no problem ignoring "evidence" from it.) This is, however, my own interpretation; use or ignore as you like.
I don't prejudice myself against data points because they come from any particular series. It was stated clearly and explicitly in an aired episode that Kirk's 5-year mission ended in 2270. This is not inconsistent with any reference in any other episode of any other series. Furthermore, it acknowledges the existence of the animated seasons. Why on Earth would anyone want to discredit it?
quote:The major one is that, whatever a prop might have said, the actual protrayal of Gary Mitchell is not of someone just a couple years out of the academy, or someone who had a subordinate, mentor/student relationship with Kirk. Rather, they were of an age, and close friends.
Mitchell's file was displayed prominently in the episode specifically for the audience to read, and there is nothing canonical which contradicts it. Moreover, I question your subjective interpretations of the actors' performances. Clearly the two men were the closest of friends, and this stemmed from their long acquaintance and their sharing of many adventures together, both professionally and personally. But witness these lines from the episode itself:
MITCHELL: I remember you back at the academy...a stack of books with legs. The first thing I ever heard from upperclassmen was "Watch out for Lieutenant Kirk. In his class, you either think or sink."
KIRK: I wasn't that bad was I?
This clearly indicates that Kirk was Mitchell's instructor from his initial arrival at the Academy, and that he was already a lieutenant at the time. There really isn't any arguing with it.
quote:In the novel Strangers From The Sky (IMHO, the best Star Trek novel ever written), Mitchel is a year or two older than Kirk, who had only recently surpassed him in rank in his meteoric rise to captain. I love this book, precisely because Bonnano's characters and their relationships ring so true, and could never accept something so incompatible with her portrayal.
Unfortunately, I could never accept the words of a non-canonical novel---even the best one ever written---over onscreen fact.
quote:Vonda McIntyre's novel Enterprise gives this ship a name, the USS Lydia Sutherland. Mitchel was Commander Kirk's XO. The ship is also mentioned briefly in McIntyre's novelization of Star Trek IV. I had no idea, before reading your post, that McIntyre's speculation had any basis in fact.
Always glad to bring something new to light. Hope I haven't seemed overly confrontational in this post.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Monkey: Your fourth scenario isn't really a cop-out. How can you cop out of an explanation when one isn't required in the first place? The lines were cut. The "explanation" is: Worf never made any claims to being an ensign at age 17 in the first place.
Tsk tsk, Timmy. Where's the fun (or the shiplist entry) in that?
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
While I agree that Kirk must be Mitchell's senior in terms of Starfleet training, I must emphatically deny the onscreen reference to Mitchell's physical age. *NO WAY* this man was 23 during the episode. (Never mind the impossibility of achieving Lt.Cmdr rank at that age...)
The reference to an age of 23 Earth years is as insane as calling Dehner "21 years old". The only way to allow for these records (which get the heights of the characters wrong, too) is IMHO to say that these aren't Earth years at all. Either these are the years of their respective birth planets, or then "AGE" stands for "Average Growth Exponent" or something like that...
I'm happy to go with the concept that Mitchell is a bit older than Kirk. He would simply have entered the Academy at a slightly later age than Kirk.
"Tsk tsk, Timmy. Where's the fun (or the shiplist entry) in that?"
Well, considering that you just said "I could never accept the words of a non-canonical novel---even the best one ever written---over onscreen fact", you suddenly seen very eager to accept other non-canon info. I mean, what can be more non-canon than something that they made a concious decision to explicitly not include on the show?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But only a cursory examination of those diplayed records shows them to be wrong. The heights are wrong. There is no way Dehner is 21. Look at the stardates of their birth: I know that the TOS system isn't the most consistent when it comes to this, but those stardates seem to indicate that both characters are less than two months old!
With regards to Preston: Surely a spoken line should be considered more important than a rank pin? Otherwise Tuvok is a Lt Commander at the beginning of Voyager, and Valeris is...whatever the hell she was. (This obviously discounts the rank-nightmare instance of O'Brien.)
quote:This clearly indicates that Kirk was Mitchell's instructor from his initial arrival at the Academy, and that he was already a lieutenant at the time. There really isn't any arguing with it.
Or it could indicate that "Lieutenant Kirk" was a nickname...ie, that he was so cocky and full of himself that he acted like an already commissioned officer when he was still just a cadet.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:With regards to Preston: Surely a spoken line should be considered more important than a rank pin?
It wasn't just Preston. Other enlisted trainees also wore rank insignia. I've read on several pages that there are Cadet Officers and Cadet NCOs, so maybe Preston was a Cadet Able'sman.
I don't think that dialogue should take precedence over rank pins, displays or whatever. Sometimes the dialogue is incorrect and sometimes the pins/displays are. We should decide which fact is more important from case to case.
BTW: I think the Axanar Peace Mission wasn't that important at all. Kirk's comment sounds more like he was defending politicans than referring specifically to the Axanar Mission.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged