In a Far Country

Jack London meet Captain Kirk.

Coincidence shouldn’t be as surprising as we think it is.  Lately, I have been both reading books and watching Star Trek (The Original Series) with Clara.  Most of the time, the book I am reading and the episode of Star Trek we are watching have nothing in common.  That isn’t surprising.  Every now and then, though, the two things have the same theme.  Now that shouldn’t surprise me, but it does.  After all, if you read books all the time and then do other things all the time, obviously sometimes there will be some correlation between what was read and what was watched or done.  It would be odd if that didn’t happen.  So, why is the human brain so conditioned to find such a coincidence surprising?

Last week’s short story author was Jack London.  “An Odyssey of the North” is as the title suggests, London’s attempt to write a loose imitation of a Homeric Journey set in the Klondike.  The Klondike was a bleak place, by the way.  Very bleak.  In this tale, the Odysseus stand-in ends up deliberately causing the death of the Suitor stand-in.  The Odysseus stand-in tells the tale to Prince and the Malemute Kid.  We get this exchange at the end:

            “But Kid,” protested Prince, “this is murder!”

“Hush!” commanded Malemute Kid.  “There be things greater than our wisdom, beyond or justice.  The right and the wrong of this we cannot say, and it is not for us to judge.”

Now Prince was right, it was murder.  The Malemute Kid is asserting that out there in the Klondike, far removed from Civilization, perhaps another Law applies, a Law in which it might not have been murder.  (I’d call it a Natural Law, but the term “Natural Law” is so mired in endless controversy about what it means and whether it exists, that the distraction of sorting through all that would destroy any hope that this here rumination will end up going anywhere at all.  (The Reader scoffs, “This blog never goes anywhere.”  (The Reader is right, of course; truth be told, I just don’t feel like writing all about Natural Law right now, so henceforth, the term will be avoided.)))  Is this right?  Is there a place Beyond Civilization in which the Laws of Civilization simply do not apply?  A question which induced minor wonder.

Then, last night we are watching Star Trek.  (Episode: “Arena.”)  There is a brutal attack on an Earth outpost by an unknown species.  Kirk sets off to destroy the ship which played the Mongol Horde to the sweet innocents of the outpost.  Spock wonders if perhaps they should, you know, talk to this new Species, whomever they might be.  Kirk asserts that out there on the Frontier a different Law applies—while in a Civilized area, Spock would be right, out there on the Frontier of Space, the Laws of Civilization do not apply.  Death to the Enemy!  Is Kirk right?  Being Star Trek, of course not.  A superior race intervenes, showing Kirk and the rest of the crew that they need to be Civilized even on the frontier.  It was all a misunderstanding, after all.  Cue the Diplomats.

Now obviously Gene Roddenberry likes that answer.  But, the juxtaposition of the London story and the idea of the frontiers of space got me wondering.  Is frontier justice (“hang first, ask questions later”) immoral?  Clearly it would be wrong in a civilized world.  But in an uncivilized world? 

Suppose you found yourself in an uncivilized world.  Nuclear bombs obliterate civilization or some such thing.  You have a small community of people with whom you are struggling to create a functioning society.  A stranger comes into town with Evil Intent.  Can you kill the stranger?  [That example, by the way is straight from Stewart's Earth Abides  a book which did not impress me when I read it a few years back, but which has lingered in the recesses of my mind for so long that I have realized it was much better than I thought.]  [I originally wrote that the episode came from Frank’s Alas, Babylon, which just demonstrates how fickle memory can be; I cannot remember anything about Frank's book other than not being impressed.]

I think so.  Creating Civilization is a good thing.  But, in the absence of Civilization, surely the Good are not obliged to suffer at the hands of the Evil.  If the Good are to have any hope of building a Civilization, then the Evil, those whose Evil is not directed at me personally but threaten the society as a whole, must be put down.  But, and this is where I get stuck:  at what point in the development of a civilization does the acceptability of Frontier Justice end?  How much civilization is necessary before it is no longer acceptable to Kill the Enemy? 

Not a cheery topic for thought, to be sure, but then there is nothing cheery about Jack London’s short stories.  So, here is a song which I do believe comes from a place Beyond Civilization.