By John Kenneth Muir
That sounds like an obvious conclusion. Of course the series is about heroes and heroism, with its great adventures in outer space and its
Take the example of modern Star Trek. Looking at recent episodes of Voyager, one might rightly ask, are there any real heroes on Star Trek anymore? Perhaps not, at least according to the above definition, because modern Trek has done the unimaginable. It has killed heroism by institutionalizing it. Consider that the protagonists of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager are all part of a bureaucracy that, essentially, legislates heroism as a way/approach to life. The stalwart Starfleet officers depicted in these spin-off series swear oaths to obey certain governmental editcs (such as the Prime Directive), and also to conduct themselves in a manner proper and appropriate for officers in a military organization. They behave in this lock-step fashion, lest they get kicked out of the service. Yet because of this adherence to the rigorous laws of Starfleet, the men and women who populate modern Trek spin-offs have lost something vitally important in both drama and myth; a certain proportion of choice and spontaneity in their behavior. Their many rules and state-sanctioned "values" dictate how they should behave during their purportedly-adventurous sojourns to other planets. And importantly, they do not choose to be heroic. It is simply expected of them; an almost a priori solution, and the ultimate in political correctness.
Or, in keeping with the definition of heroism listed above, the exploits of these modern Star Trek spin-off characters are not "bold" (because they are part of an overreaching cosmic bureaucracy dedicated to space travel and peaceful contact.) Similarly, their considerable and wonderful achievements are quite the opposite of "special." In fact, they are commonplace. So commonplace that the crews of the Enterprise, The Defiant and Voyager all behave virtually the same way in their encounters with aliens. Every ship in Starfleet boasts a noble captain and a crew dedicated to the "cause," and so TV audiences - by now - expect them to obey the Prime Directive, fight tyranny, vanquish oppression and preserve the galaxy for democracy.
Consider also that the very universe of (modern) Star Trek seems to discourage heroism as we have seen it defined. How can one possibly make "special achievements" (a requirement of the term, as we have seen), when there are holodecks, matter replicators, transporters, warp drives and the like available twenty-four hours a day to all? As dramatized by current Trek, this is quite obviously a universe of luxury and plenty, and so there is never really a sense that Starfleet officers must confront themselves or their own individual values. Why should they, when they hail from a utopian society where nothing is out of reach? Their thinking has been done for them by Starfleet, which instructs them on how to act and react in a manner befitting their posts. And since nothing is out of reach, from three-dimensional holo suite entertainments to faster-than-light travel to pleasure planets like Risa, then nothing is really "special" anymore, is it? Ask yourself this question: Who among us could not be noble, generous, kind, wonderful and perfect if we could always have access to unlimited resources such as shelter, food, entertainment, instantaneous transport and the like? Since the world of current Star Trek is just such a paradise, it is actually easy for human beings to be noble and wonderful in that context. Even in Voyager, a series concerning a lost starship out on its own in the distant Delta Quadrant, supplies are rarely an issue. For six years now, the crew has utilized the holodeck regularly, even excessively, rather than conserving energy. Is this world of rampant materialism and unending riches one where heroism can breed and thrive?
It seems clear that the universe of Space:1999 stands in stark contrast to Trek's modern approach of "institutionalized heroism." In Space:1999, the men and women of Moonbase Alpha are dramatized as living
Commander Koenig (Martin Landau) chose NOT to attack ("Ignorance is no reason to start shooting") unidentified spacecraft in "Alpha Child." He could have chosen otherwise easily. His people were threatened, his base was endangered, but be became a hero by opting - by choosing - not to fight. Likewise in "Earthbound," Koenig chose to render assistance to the alien Zantor and his crew of Kaldorians. He might have easily killed them and stolen their ship and technology (as Commissioner Simmonds actually suggests...). After all, Alpha could have utilized the Kaldorian resources, right? Facing critical shortages, Koenig might have stolen the suspended animation technology and the vessel to boot, and we might not have even blamed him at all, considering the Alphan's plight. But again, he chose to be heroic and humane in the face of danger.
Year Two's "All that Glisters" is another example of the Alphan's heroic nature. By the end of the episode, Koenig and his crew have escaped a planet of "living" rocks. They could have returned to Alpha and never looked back. They had no Starfleet rules or Federation bureaucracy to legislate that they should help a life-form in need - one that is dying from lack of water. Yet again, Koenig chose to assist, to seed the planet's atmosphere with crystals that would start rain and thus bring salvation to the silicon life-forms. On Star Trek, such behavior is expected, routine, demanded by Federation and Starfleet law. It is de rigeuer, this nothing special...and not heroic (which requires "bold" and "special" achievement.) On Space:1999, a universe of dangerous limitations and shortages, this act is nothing short of extraordinary. Ask yourself this question. Which is a more inherently optimistic belief about human nature, that in the future, a huge government will institutionalize heroism to the point that it is routine, expected and boring, or Space:1999's uplifting tenet that man is at his best - and most heroic - when times are worst?
The twin issues at stake here are freedom of choice and context. In one TV series, morals are institutionalized and the universe is one of unfettered perfection, where the goal of every human (as stated by Captain Picard in "The Neutral Zone") is "self enrichment." In the other series, there is individual, human conscience at work in the face of a dangerous, limited, resource-short universe. For the Alphans, it is a constant struggle to survive, so we can forgive them when they seem jittery around aliens in episodes such as "End of Eternity" or "The Metamorph." After all, the moon cannot blast away at warp nine, raise its shields, fire phasers, or call on Starfleet for immediate reinforcements. Some trepidation in alien contact is prudent. Even more to the point, the men and women of Moonbase Alpha ascend to the hallowed domain of heroes because, even with all their natural fears and unfortunate material shortages, they often choose to do the right thing; to help others. In their situation - lacking so much they need to survive - their behavior fits the definition of heroism. It is a bold and special achievement. In the modern Treks, this behavior is just routine. If Star Trek is to repair itself as a franchise, it must study Space:1999 and see that heroism can only thrive in an imperfect universe, a cosmos where there is struggle and poverty, and especially, the freedom of choice.
Expectations are also important when defining "heroes." No one demands that the Alphans be "heroic," in their difficult situation. In fact, in "Breakaway," Dr. Helena Russell (Barbara Bain) even says the she is seeking answers, "not heroes." That these imperiled men and women should become heroes, when they had no intention of becoming so, is doubly delightful and impressive. Again, contrast this approach with that of contemporary Trek. Its characters train for years to handle the rigors of space. They go to Starfleet Academy, they train, they are assigned to starships, and they rise through the ranks. The hazards of space seem ordinary to them. They are work-a-day joes who are prepared to deal with Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians and the like. Their life is all about job skills, not heroism. Space is a known arena for them, and the challenges have been defined. There are guidebooks to refer to and regulations to quote. The Alphans have no guide. They have no regulations. They are on their own. They don't know the difference between a Kaldorian, a Zennite, a Sidon or an Archanon. They don't know who to expect next, or where they are headed. In a universe of unknowns,, there is room for heroism to thrive.
As viewers of Space:1999. we connect with the dramatis personae of the series because they are simultaneously human and heroic. They snap at each other occasionally (in episodes such as "Voyager's Return," "The Exiles," "Black Sun,") - the way that the characters on the original Star Trek once did - but in their hyper determination to overcome, to survive when the galaxy itself seems poised to hurt them, we cannot help but see ourselves. Given the same set of circumstance, we hope that we would also cling to the best angels of our nature. We might fail (as the Alphans, perhaps, failed in "Space Brain, "The Troubled Spirit" and other episodes), but we continue to try. In this case, it is easy to disagree with Master Yoda, who said in The Empire Strikes Back (1980) that there is "no try, only do."
Quite the contrary. It is the effort, the choice to try to do right, that separates heroes from the rest of the pack. The choice to try, the choice to achieve good in a universe where such achievement is often difficult, is the bold victory of Moonbase Alpha's men and women. That is why they are heroes; that is why we are care about them. Even when they have nothing left with which to fight, they keep fighting. This legacy of heroism may be just one reason that, deep down, audiences are attracted to Space:1999. It's pioneer spirit is an example of individual and collective courage, not state-sanctioned or institutionalized goodness.
Order it from Powys Media, and while you're there, pick up a copy of John's novel, the second in the series, The Forsaken.
More Space:1999
The Mutant Pulpit
Interview with Martin Landau
Interview with Brian Johnson
Space:1999 Is Not An Expiration Date
The Destinies Space:1999 Forsaken Interview w/John K. Muir