I Just Rewatched ____ and Noticed ____

[HopefulRomantic]

...but Archer blew him off with some "No, I want to be the hero - I mean, *cough* I can't ask you to take that risk, you get Hoshi to safety" line...

I do not understand why Archer's tendency toward self-sacrifice in order to protect others is often (well, here, damn near always) interpreted as inflated egotism. There are instances (yo, "Observer Effect") where I don't hear people screeching about Archer doing the "I wanna be the hero" dance. His ookey compassion saved everyone in that instance.

If Archer had been the no-nonsense, impassive commander type who would have left Malcolm on the Xindi weapon in "Zero Hour," he would also have been the guy who would have dumped T'Pol on the nearest habitable planet at the end of "Impulse" so he could line his ship with trellium. Would've been quite a different show from that point on, eh?

I assume you're all rubbing your hands in anticipation of a real Archer-bashing fest now. I've heard all the arguments before, so I'm outta here. Have fun.

[Alelou]

I don't think Archer's self-sacrificing tendencies were obnoxious either. Everybody on that show was self-sacrificing. That's pretty much your basic How to Be a Heroic Figure 101.

[Asso]

...but Archer blew him off with some "No, I want to be the hero - I mean, *cough* I can't ask you to take that risk, you get Hoshi to safety" line...

I do not understand why Archer's tendency toward self-sacrifice in order to protect others is often (well, here, damn near always) interpreted as inflated egotism. There are instances (yo, "Observer Effect") where I don't hear people screeching about Archer doing the "I wanna be the hero" dance. His ookey compassion saved everyone in that instance.

.........

I assume you're all rubbing your hands in anticipation of a real Archer-bashing fest now. I've heard all the arguments before, so I'm outta here. Have fun.

Don't get steamed up, HopefulRomantic, please.
IMO, the fact is that this tendency is almost a compulsory act, from him and in the show.
"Observer Effect" aside, that's a recurrent motif.
And, honestly, in "The Abomination", Trip is acting exactly in this way, which makes him acting as a not too clever man, I believe.

[Elessar]

...but Archer blew him off with some "No, I want to be the hero - I mean, *cough* I can't ask you to take that risk, you get Hoshi to safety" line...

I do not understand why Archer's tendency toward self-sacrifice in order to protect others is often (well, here, damn near always) interpreted as inflated egotism. There are instances (yo, "Observer Effect") where I don't hear people screeching about Archer doing the "I wanna be the hero" dance. His ookey compassion saved everyone in that instance.

If Archer had been the no-nonsense, impassive commander type who would have left Malcolm on the Xindi weapon in "Zero Hour," he would also have been the guy who would have dumped T'Pol on the nearest habitable planet at the end of "Impulse" so he could line his ship with trellium. Would've been quite a different show from that point on, eh?

I assume you're all rubbing your hands in anticipation of a real Archer-bashing fest now. I've heard all the arguments before, so I'm outta here. Have fun.

I blame the writers, not Archer. It's unfortunate that *most* of the time, Star Trek has been incapable of accepting that more than one person can be a hero.

One of my favorite bright-and-shining examples to the contrary was the Voyager episodes following the story of Lon Suder, the Maquis crewman with a history of violent crime. I'm also a huge fan of Brad Dourif just for this character. Eventually, he was quite heroic, but it was developed in such a way that it was appreciable. And it wasn't Janeway. Somehow the writer of those episodes ( 2 were written by Michael Piller figures, he was pretty good - the 3rd by Mike Sussman with teleplay by Piller) got a script around TPTB that glorified someone other than the main character. Someone with REAL problems, in fact. With the huge character cast on DS9, the same thing was possible and happened pretty often. Sisko didn't have to be this larger-than-life SAVE-ALL character all the time to be a hero... but, he WAS the freakin Emissary, I guess. Basically anywhere that Rick or Brannon didn't have a strangle hold on the creative decisions, interesting writing happened.

They suffered greatly from the one-hit-wonder syndrome on Enterprise.

[Asso]

...but Archer blew him off with some "No, I want to be the hero - I mean, *cough* I can't ask you to take that risk, you get Hoshi to safety" line...

I do not understand why Archer's tendency toward self-sacrifice in order to protect others is often (well, here, damn near always) interpreted as inflated egotism. There are instances (yo, "Observer Effect") where I don't hear people screeching about Archer doing the "I wanna be the hero" dance. His ookey compassion saved everyone in that instance.

If Archer had been the no-nonsense, impassive commander type who would have left Malcolm on the Xindi weapon in "Zero Hour," he would also have been the guy who would have dumped T'Pol on the nearest habitable planet at the end of "Impulse" so he could line his ship with trellium. Would've been quite a different show from that point on, eh?

I assume you're all rubbing your hands in anticipation of a real Archer-bashing fest now. I've heard all the arguments before, so I'm outta here. Have fun.

I blame the writers, not Archer. It's unfortunate that *most* of the time, Star Trek has been incapable of accepting that more than one person can be a hero.

.....

Not only that.
Why there must be a hero?

[Dinah]

I guess I don't have a problem with Archer as hero or Super Archer as much as I take issue with Archer as a good and responsible leader. Robert E. Lee didn't lead the charge at Gettysburg, Pickett did, even though Lee may have wanted to be out there in front. Eisenhower and Bradley didn't go in with the first wave on Omaha Beach. Hap Arnold didn't insist on flying missions over Germany. Go commanders do just that -- command. They delegate the responsibility for doing the actual fighting to others because they know that things seldom go as planned. They have to be in a position to handle things strategically and tactically after the big battle. World War II might have ended differently if Ike got himself killed on D-Day and wasn't around to hold the Allied Forces together.

Archer was so worried about having to send one person off on a mission that could end in his or her death that he forgot (or never realized) that that is the burden of command. Soldiers throughout history have faced recurring nightmares inhabited by the faceless men and boys they had to send to their deaths. Instead of Archer's noble gesture, how much more dramatic would it have been to if he had to decide to send Malcolm or Trip or T'Pol on what amounted to a suicide mission. How could he choose? How could he order Trip to go after he worked so hard to keep in alive, even to the point of sanctioning Sim's creation and untimely death? A commander is a man who has to make impossible choices and then live with the consequences. With Archer's leadership philosophy he was far more suited to be a one-man operation like James Bond than the captain of a starship with 80+ people.

As for killing Archer off -- I think they had a golden opportunity and blew it completely. There was talk about the last episode canonizing Archer. If the episode had been set at the end of the Romulan War and Archer died like Nelson at Trafalgar, his legacy would be secured for all time. He would be the man Kirk might have chosen to look up to and emulate. How dramatic would it have been if T'Pol or Trip walked up to the podium at the Federation signing to give the speech Archer had written and accept the Medal of Honor in memory of their friend and captain. Soval and Shran would be there to sing his praises and carry Archer's legacy to their own people. There wouldn't have been a dry eye in the house.

[Asso]

I guess I don't have a problem with Archer as hero or Super Archer as much as I take issue with Archer as a good and responsible leader. Robert E. Lee didn't lead the charge at Gettysburg, Pickett did, even though Lee may have wanted to be out there in front. Eisenhower and Bradley didn't go in with the first wave on Omaha Beach. Hap Arnold didn't insist on flying missions over Germany. Go commanders do just that -- command. They delegate the responsibility for doing the actual fighting to others because they know that things seldom go as planned. They have to be in a position to handle things strategically and tactically after the big battle. World War II might have ended differently if Ike got himself killed on D-Day and wasn't around to hold the Allied Forces together.

Archer was so worried about having to send one person off on a mission that could end in his or her death that he forgot (or never realized) that that is the burden of command. Soldiers throughout history have faced recurring nightmares inhabited by the faceless men and boys they had to send to their deaths. Instead of Archer's noble gesture, how much more dramatic would it have been to if he had to decide to send Malcolm or Trip or T'Pol on what amounted to a suicide mission. How could he choose? How could he order Trip to go after he worked so hard to keep in alive, even to the point of sanctioning Sim's creation and untimely death? A commander is a man who has to make impossible choices and then live with the consequences. With Archer's leadership philosophy he was far more suited to be a one-man operation like James Bond than the captain of a starship with 80+ people.

As for killing Archer off -- I think they had a golden opportunity and blew it completely. There was talk about the last episode canonizing Archer. If the episode had been set at the end of the Romulan War and Archer died like Nelson at Trafalgar, his legacy would be secured for all time. He would be the man Kirk might have chosen to look up to and emulate. How dramatic would it have been if T'Pol or Trip walked up to the podium at the Federation signing to give the speech Archer had written and accept the Medal of Honor in memory of their friend and captain. Soval and Shran would be there to sing his praises and carry Archer's legacy to their own people. There wouldn't have been a dry eye in the house.

I regret I'm not capable of speaking a good English language, but if I was capable of doing this, I would have talked like you did.

[Alelou]

[Not only that.
Why there must be a hero?

Because it's Star Trek! What is Star Trek if not our heroes in space ships flying around saving the galaxy and each other? It's just annoying when it gets stupid.

I take all your points, Dinah, especially the last one, but I do think the captain of a ship of 82 might have a little more leeway than a general running a war operation. It wasn't like he didn't have a capable command crew to back him up. Yes, it would have been more dramatic for him to have to send someone else off -- except they were all volunteering anyway, so it wasn't exactly a horrific moral quandary he faced there.

[Asso]

[Not only that.
Why there must be a hero?

Because it's Star Trek! What is Star Trek if not our heroes in space ships flying around saving the galaxy and each other? It's just annoying when it gets stupid.

Probably we have a different idea of the concept of hero.
Hero is not only the one who is fighting like Hercules.
There's something else, I think.
And then, what I wanted to say is that Star Trek is a choral drama.
Everybody are heroes, in their own way.
Or, at least, thus it would have to be, in my mind.

[Dinah]

Yes, but is going himself the smart thing for a commander to do? His attempt to destroy the Xindi weapon in Zero Hour wasn't the first suicidal mission Archer felt obligated to do himself to spare others. He did the same thing at Azati Prime. He should have planned for the worst case scenarios: the weapon wasn't there or the attempt to destroy it failed. If the worst happens, and the first attempt fails, who is the best person to command in the the wake of that sort of failure -- the captain or one of his senior officers. The captain of course -- especially since it was drilled into our heads that Archer was the only one who could prevent the Xindi from destroying Earth. Even on a small ship like Enterprise, the captain should keep overall control of an operation and be prepared for possible repercussions if things go wrong.

I would have a lot more respect for Archer if he didn't have borderline suicidal tendencies, a well-developed martyr complex and an inabililty to delegate difficult tasks to others. I know that were trying to showcase Archer as the hero, and that's reasonable. He was the star of the show. It's the way TPTB went about it which doesn't sit right with me. Even sergeants are called on to send squads out to do reconnaisance, and sometimes people don't come back. Archer should be able to make those kinds of decisions.

Enterprise was at war, facing a ruthless and determined enemy, and Archer's wringing his hands over killing a couple of Xindi in an isolated listening post.

ARCHER: An hour ago I gave the command to kill three Xindi in cold blood. A month ago I had Phlox create a living being in order to use some of it's tissue, then I watched him put it to death.
TRAVIS: Sounds like you're saying this is some sort of penance.
ARCHER: I'm saying I won't order anyone else to die.

People get killed in wars; that's why they're so terrible. Three dead Xindi and Sim are not adequate reasons for a captain to place the burden of command on his subordinates. Yes, he stole the warp core, but he did everything he could to help those people get back home. That was a tough decision for him, and he made it, but then he really had no other choice. Trip realized early on that this had the potential to be a suicide mission for the whole crew. Archer had to know that that was a possibility. If he didn't have the mental make-up to make life and death decisions, he should have told Admiral Forrest so that Starfleet could have put another captain on the Enterprise bridge.

I guess that sounds a little harsh, but this has always bothered me. In wartime, twenty-something lieutenants are called on to send men out to die. "The Band of Brothers" certainly illustrates that. But Archer, the captain of Starfleet's flagship, can't bring himself to make those same tough decisions. I'm sorry, but hero or not, that's just wrong.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

^^ Very good points all, Dianh! I agree with everything.

Or they could've had some balls and killed Archer.

OMG! Daniels would have a meltdown! "What about the future!"

[pookha]

but archer has to be understood in context of kirk and tos.
not in relation to tng or real world stuff in some cases.

go look at tos episodes like where no man has gone before,
tomorrow is yesterday and especially obsession.

but just tos at times other members of the crew do play hero.
heck it is was trip in anomaly who actually captured the pirate.

malcolm who helps to save the day in andorian incident and other places.

if you wanted to show why a kirk style captain would evolve then archer some of the time makes sense,.

are there times were i think they went to far with the super archer silliness.. oh yeah especially in the vulcan arc and in shipment which has the worst super archer moments.

but i could see kirk going out on the hull like archer did in minefield and also doing what archer did in zero hour.

[JadziaKathryn]

I do not understand why Archer's tendency toward self-sacrifice in order to protect others is often (well, here, damn near always) interpreted as inflated egotism. There are instances (yo, "Observer Effect") where I don't hear people screeching about Archer doing the "I wanna be the hero" dance. His ookey compassion saved everyone in that instance.

Here's the difference between "Zero Hour" and "Observer Effect" to me: in "Observer Effect," Archer was more or less qualified as much as anyone else to be Phlox's hands (since they didn't apparently have a nurse). Now, in "Zero Hour," oughtn't a weapons specialist have been doing the job? What if Archer messed up and Earth was blown up because of a mistake Malcolm wouldn't have made, or a inability where Malcolm has ability? That would just ruin your whole day, you know?

[Elessar]

I do not understand why Archer's tendency toward self-sacrifice in order to protect others is often (well, here, damn near always) interpreted as inflated egotism. There are instances (yo, "Observer Effect") where I don't hear people screeching about Archer doing the "I wanna be the hero" dance. His ookey compassion saved everyone in that instance.

Here's the difference between "Zero Hour" and "Observer Effect" to me: in "Observer Effect," Archer was more or less qualified as much as anyone else to be Phlox's hands (since they didn't apparently have a nurse). Now, in "Zero Hour," oughtn't a weapons specialist have been doing the job? What if Archer messed up and Earth was blown up because of a mistake Malcolm wouldn't have made, or a inability where Malcolm has ability? That would just ruin your whole day, you know?

Actually, considering the weapon was an entire ship, I think the skills to disarm it would be as much along the lines of engineering as 'weapon disarmament', and I THINK that Archer's supposed to have a strong engineering background since he was a test pilot. They are supposed to anyway. But Trip wasn't there anyway, so in the end Malcolm would still have probably been the best choice given his knowledge of tactical systems.

[Asso]

I think Elessar is right.
It's obvious that Archer is the hero of the show, even if I believe personally that a such idea have itself something wrong.
But it is the skills of the writers which can make that real.
As Dinah suggests, the research of the death, in order to save everything and everybody, doesn't automatically make a man as a hero.
Honestly, this sort of policy seems to me slightly intentional, as to say: Hey, look at me! I'm the hero! A so great hero that I don't hesitate to sacrifice myself on any possible occasion!
And, for me (for me, sure) the outcome is not the outcome wished by the writers (and, frankly, not even by Bakula, I think).