becoming kirk

have you ever asked what character in film or tv someone identifies with? my sister grew up deeply identifying with laura ingles wilder, the main character from “little house on the prairie”. i could barely tolerate the show, but she loved it. after traveling the world with her family in tow (the modern equivalent of crossing a continent in a covered wagon) she and her clan settled into a farm house. is this a coincidence or was it her personality identifying with her future.

i identified with a show of my own, one my sister could barely tolerate. as a software engineer who grew up in the 70s and 80s it is probably not a surprise that the show was “star trek” (pseudo-militaristic scientists living in a race-neutral utopia driven by learning and discovery; where everyone seemed to be a programmer). the thing i loved about the show was watching kirk think outside the box and challenge his team to succeed in situations that seemed impossible.

i never saw myself as kirk, i felt more connected to spock the logical and reserved second in command who executed kirk’s plans without more than a raised eyebrow to hint that he may not have understood the orders but that he trusted following them. that view of myself has dropped away over the years.

the coldness of spock was an effective counterpoint to the emotion of kirk. spock planned and was able to deal with high levels of complexity, but kirk was highly reactive and thought outside the box. he formed plans “on the fly” that pushed the envelope to the point that he was reminded, “captian, i can’t change the laws of physics” to which would answer, “do the best you can”. kirk’s plans would succeed and the team moved onto the next crisis driven episode.

kirk was a anti-hero when compared to the standard father figure of the pre-nuclear age. he was alone, except for those with his crew he had no stable relationships; he would make and later move beyond episodic connections. as we learn more about kirk it is strongly hinted that he was on his “five year mission to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life forms and to boldly go where no man has gone before” because of an internal need to search for something previously lost.

what truly caused that loss was never entirely clear. there were hints that putting career first was a driver, but watching kirk closely gives one the impression that he was simply a person doing what they were meant to do. could someone who can take on those challenges or who knew when to follow rules and when to break them, really have decided to settle down on a farm in idaho.

in the movie “generations” kirk meets picard (kirk of the next generation) in the nexus; a place that allows you to reclaim the thing you miss the most. nexus of course means bond or the interconnection of a group, which is a none to subtle hint that most people miss lost connections. the nexus for picard was a family he never had. for kirk it was a relationship he did not keep. but kirk leaves the nexus because he knows that it is not real. reality is living not pretending to enjoy a life that is false.

the draw of ‘the nexus' is strong, it can be all consuming. the feeling of lose or regret may be part of the human condition. but kirk teaches us that a life spent living, fighting for what is right, protecting the prime directive and thinking outside the box that others coerce you to stay within, can be more than simply acceptable. for some it can very clearly be the life they are meant to lead. even if you need to challenge the laws of physics, or to change the rules of the game:

sometimes you just need to, “do the best you can”.