Skip to main content

"Ben Maxwell," "Tam Elbrun," And Me

It's no secret that I'm a Trekkie. I'm proud of this. I think it is one of the most important cultural touchstones in our history. If you really know Star Trek, you may be a nerd, but you are also attuned to understanding humanity. Because that's what Star Trek is about. It probably represents the most compelling humanism since the Renaissance.

In 1987, Star Trek: The Next Generation premiered on television. We would not be all going to see Star Trek: Into Darkness without it. With apologies to what is now canonically known as 'The Original Series,' it is this series that became the guardian of Star Trek. It's among my 3 favorite TV shows ever. (And no, they are not all science-fiction.)

The characters named in the title of this post demonstrate the greatness of the Star Trek story for telling the human story in themselves. I see myself in them, and that's why I'm telling you about them.

Ben Maxwell was the captain of the USS Phoenix, a Nebula-class Federation starship equipped especially for advanced surveillance and combat. He stood accused of destroying Cardassian outposts and ships after a peace treaty with the Cardassians had been signed after a long war. After making contact with the Enterprise, Maxwell initially agrees to return to Federation space under escort to answer for the crimes. But Maxwell takes the Phoenix back to Cardassian territory and attacks more targets. More than 700 Cardassians die at his hands before Miles O'Brien, an officer who previously served with Maxwell, convinces him to stand down without a fight.

It is determined that Maxwell has suffered a breakdown caused by the previous murder of his wife and children during the war by Cardassians on the colony planet Setlik III.

We learn that Maxwell had learned to live and cope with the anger inside him. No one else could see it. He seemed normal. He seemed as he was. But obviously, he was not.

Tam Elbrun was a specialist in first contact situations with alien races. He was a Betazoid, a telepath. He was also a person with a disability. His telepathic abilities were activated at birth instead of adolescence. As a result, he was generally unable to block out the strong emotions of others. This had the effect of making him vulnerable to stress, which had required several hospitalizations.

His greatest failure as a liason was the so-called "Ghorusda Disaster," in which 47 members of the USS Adelphi were killed for violating Ghorusdan cultural taboos.

But when a living ship takes up orbit around Beta Stromgren, a distant star nearing supernova, Elbrun travels aboard the Enterprise to investigate. The Enterprise is damaged when Elbrun warns the creature--christened "Tin Man"--telepathically concerning the hostile intent of a Romulan ship. Tin Man destroys the ship. A second ship which had been pursuing the Enterprise appears, and Elbrun is sent with Commander Data to convince Tin Man to leave the vicinity.

The reclusive Elbrun realizes that friendship with Tin Man is what he has been seeking, and chooses to remain. Tin Man throws the Romulan ship and the Enterprise clear of the star, and Data is returned to the Enterprise.

We learn that "Gomtuu" had been as wounded as Elbrun when its crew had been killed by radiation. The mutual sadness and alienation felt by both was healed. We do not see both again, although it is strongly implied that Elbrun and the creature survive and continue their journey.

I very much resonate with this character's desire to "fit in," and the added challenge of having a disability. I identify with both characters in their wounds, and flawed people really stand out in this allegedly utopian universe.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un