Sorry, folks. At the moment, it just doesn't make sense to do a separate UCP blog. It seemed like a good idea, but the tools just aren't there to make this two blog thing work the way I'd hoped it would. Fret not, though! All the content from the UCP blog and more is available on my Main Blog. Please move your RSS subscriptions there. Thanks very much!

​Zachary Totah recently asked on the Speculative Faith blog, “Should Villains Be Redeemed?” (You’d be well served to read his post here before going further.)

I found this an interesting question, but one that is ultimately too broad. Of course redemption should be an option that is open for villains (differentiating here from the broader category of "antagonists"). But the determining factor must always be what is best for the story and makes the most sense for the characters.

​Khan, for example, must be destroyed, simply because he must represent the consuming, destructive nature of vengeance and hatred. It would also make little dramatic sense for him to, at some point, say, "You know, Jim. Can I call you Jim? Jim, I've reconsidered. You didn't mean to ruin my life. I'm really sorry for killing all those innocent people. I'd like to use my superior intellect and genetically enhanced strength for good instead of evil. Where do I sign up for Starfleet Academy?"

He's Ahab. Ahab doesn't have a change of heart - not because we're making a broad statement that certain people cannot be redeemed, but because he must represent the self-destructive nature of obsession.
 
On the other hand, I used to review films directed at kids and teens and I was always disappointed by the trope that, since we can't kill the villain, we must thoroughly humiliate them. It somehow seemed more cruel that, instead of the villains' actions tragically leading to their own demise, our heroes laughed and smiled as the villains were electrocuted, drenched in muck, tortured, and reduced to whimpering masses in public view. I thought these films often missed clear opportunities to offer redemption to their villains.
 
And perhaps that's what's missing more than anything else - the offer. Heroes are so consumed with overcoming the villains that they rarely reach out a hand to offer them a way out. If the villain accepts, then our hero is lifted even higher in our estimation and illustrates grace and compassion as leading to the truest victory. If they refuse, the audience has the moral reassurance that "at least we tried" and is reminded that redemption is available.

The rejection of an offer of redemption also serves to show that the villain is committed to his or her chosen path, regardless of the consequences. Again returning to Star Trek, this is demonstrated in the final encounter between the Enterprise and Nero in the 2009 film, and more tragically in the TOS episode "Balance of Terror," which takes the approach of suggesting that our "villain" is no more evil than we are. (This calls to mind for me Derek Webb's song "My Enemies Are Men Like Me.") Sometimes the most powerful stories remind us of the humanity of even our most hated foe.
 
Still, in mythological tradition, there is often a need for characters to be icons and archetypes, which often necessitates certain fates, so that the ideals with which those characters are aligned may be clearly shown to lead to greater good, or to destruction. So, the upshot is that a good storyteller should be aware of all these tools and of the type of story he or she wishes to tell. All of the available options are valid and all can fall flat with misapplication. In the end, the hero of every story is good narrative structure.

​
Holy Saturday
Rest. Reflect. Pray. Fast. Prepare to celebrate the Resurrection of Christ.
​
I hope this Star Trek Holy Week is a beautiful, life-giving one for you. Maybe you’ll want to invite some geeky/Trekkie friends to join you. Feel free to use the comments sections of the devotional blog posts to share your thoughts and prayers. I’m looking forward to sharing this time with you!

​More than one person has shared an article with me entitled, "Nothing says Christmas like Spock dying of radiation poisoning in a tree ornament." I shall therefore put in my two slips of latinum on the subject.

I appreciate the humor of the headline and I certainly understand the author's puzzlement at a Christmas ornament that depicts death. However, I see this as far from the least seasonally appropriate Star Trek ornament Hallmark has produced. For me, that honor goes to "Locutus of Borg," released a decade ago, because nothing says Christmas like "Resistance is Futile."

​This year's ornament, "The Needs of the Many," I honestly find to be in good--if bittersweet--taste. While its significance seems lost on the author of this article, it clearly stands as a poignant tribute to the fact that this is the year we lost Leonard Nimoy.
Star Trek has been closely associated with Christmas for many of us through Hallmark ornaments since 1991. That was the year Hallmark released its first Star Trek ornament, "Starship Enterprise," depicting the Enterprise NCC-1701 in honor of Star Trek's 25th anniversary. (For those of you keeping track, that will be 25 years ago next year. Feeling old yet?)

The following year, Hallmark released an ornament depicting the Galileo shuttlecraft and featuring a specially recorded message, voiced by Leonard Nimoy: "Shuttlecraft to Enterprise. Shuttlecraft to Enterprise. Spock here. Happy Holidays. Live long and prosper." Since then, Spock's voice has greeted many of us every Christmas.

In that context, then, and in the year of Nimoy's death, listening to the edited dialogue from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan played from this ornament brought more than a little mist to my Trekkie eyes.

However, it is interesting to note that Hallmark did not originally plan this as a eulogistic tribute to the late actor. At the time this design was approved, in fact, he was very much alive. From Hallmark's corporate website:

"Hallmark's Keepsake Ornament team starts working on each year's ornament line about two years in advance. "The Needs of the Many" ornament was planned, designed and produced months prior to the death of Leonard Nimoy. The ornament design was fully approved by our licensing partners at Star Trek and CBS, as well as by Mr. Nimoy himself, in early 2014."

Hallmark was aware, however, that this could become a potentially difficult situation.

"Out of respect for Mr. Nimoy and his family, and sensitivity to the situation, we consulted with our licensing partners at Star Trek and CBS this spring, to see if they had concerns about releasing this ornament in 2015. Our partners agreed that this ornament is a fitting tribute to Leonard Nimoy in one of his most memorable scenes."

And I absolutely agree. Honestly, outside the context of Nimoy's death, the ornament seems far less appropriate, even if the man himself approved it. That is, unless you view it from another perspective.

​While there are other elements involved, the moment depicted in this year's Hallmark ornament is the moment in Spock's character arc that most solidly earns him his well-known distinction as a Christ figure.

As we celebrate the coming of Christ, we celebrate not only his birth, but the bringing of salvation--a salvation wrought through sacrificial death. Certainly, his birth takes precedence during this season and his death and resurrection have their times of remembrance as well. So, it could be said that this is perhaps a more appropriate Easter (or at least Palm Sunday) ornament.

Still, meditating on the birth of Christ is only enriched by also meditating on his life, death and resurrection. So, for me, this stands as a uniquely beautiful moment in the history of the Hallmark Star Trek ornaments--the moment when Star Trek, Christmas, and Christ all came together in one singular piece of popular art. In that sense, then--truly--nothing says Christmas like the death of Spock.
​
Happy Christmas, everyone. Live Long and Prosper! (John 10:10)