“The City on the Edge of Forever”

As much as I love TOS, I have to say that I find "The City on the Edge of Forever" to be its most overrated episode. Keep in mind, I say it's overrated, not bad(there are some who seem to think the two are synonymous). I loved the episodes Kirk/Spock scenes, DeForest Kelley's drug-crazed McCoy, and the way Shatner delivers the episode's final line("Let's get the hell out of here!").
However, the one thing about the episode that's always bothered me is that Kirk and Spock, once they find out that Kirk can't have his cake and Edith, too, simply didn't take Edith back to the future with them, thereby saving the world from Nazi rule and saving Kirk a lot of heartache.
After all, Kirk would later do this with Gillian Taylor in Star Trek IV as would Doc Brown with Mary Steenburgen in Back to the Future Part III.
I've heard some give the excuse that the Guardian wouldn't have permitted such action, but no where in the episode does it state that the Guardian would forbid this. Just one line of dialogue saying why Kirk couldn't take Edith back with him would've been enough to satisfy me.

I love this episode, although it is not my favourite by any means. Although Jake (above) has a point me thinks he delves a little too deeply into the reasoning behind the decision to allow Edith to die. The whole reason Star Trek is so successful is because we can suspend belief and reasoning whilst watching. I suggest a chill pill to anyone who can find the time to get too concerned about the plot of TOS episodes.

Hey, I appreciate the need for tragedy in storytelling(humanity's fate depends on the death of one who champions it, in this case). I'm just saying there could've been a way to make that aspect more dramatically satisfying. I'm all for suspension of disbelief, but the line should be drawn somewhere(although I understand that where such a line should be drawn depends on the individual viewer).

I loved this episode except the ending. Take another look at the sequence of events closely; both McCoy and Spock yell, "Jim" and McCoy grabs Kirk to hold him back from saving Joan Collins. I thought the whole premise was that McCoy had saved Joan Collins- so shouldn't Kirk be holding McCoy back and not the other way around?

Frank, watch again: Kirk stops McCoy from saving her, that's why McCoy says, "Jim, I could have saved her!"

Jake et al... In his research Spock finds that Edith had died as a result of some kind of a car crash... If she were to simply disappear into the future (regardless of the Guardian's approval) it might cause more of a stir among her "devotees" in the mission - and ultimately bring about the very thing Kirk et al were trying to prevent... A growing pacifist movement (possibly started instead by someone of her "followers").

Arena was one of my faves as a kid also... chuckle chuckle.

Dave,
Wouldn't Edith dying also potentially cause a stir to begin a pacifist movement among any followers she may have had?

Agreed. It's not like Martin Luther King's death prevented others from fighting for civil rights.

Well now, the first season of TOS. With episodes like "the city on the edge of forever". "galileo seven", "space seed", "balance of terror" (i would give this episode 3 1/2 stars, i think jammer you underestimate it),"the menagerie","the devil in the dark", "tommorow is yesterday","the enemy within" it is,perhaps, one of the best seasons of science fiction ever made on tv. It was classic, pure, cerebral science fiction. I love it and i can't find anything similar to it on tv.

Interesting reading. I think Balance of Terror is much better than that.

And without getting into the logic of "we can't alter anything that happened in the past" that the episode is based on, City without Edith's death would take almost all of the punch out of the show. The scene of her death and the "let's get the hell out of here" are 2 of the pinnacle moments of the series.

It has always intrigued me to think that there is a Guardian of Forever out there somewhere, just waiting for someone to come along.

Jake and Grretchen - While I agree Edith's death might have eventually grown a pacifist movement with one of her followers - her disappearance definitely would... While her followers would have been saddened by her tragic death by truck - they may have waited years to begin building their own following - therefore NOT forestalling US entry into the war NOR delaying development of the Bomb - BOTH of which seemed imminent at the moment of McCoy's, Kirk's and Spock's foray into the past. Posit: If Dr King had died of the flu - would the Civil Rights movement have LEAPT ahead the way it did? The total unfairness, and complete unjustness of his and Bobby Kennedy's and many other deaths of the time are just what spurred those fighting for Justice to keep up and augment their efforts. While Keeler's death is tragic - the sense of injustice would not be there for her followers - it was simply a tragic happening. Lastly - The HISTORY Spock read - said nothing about any of her followers stepping into her shoes; taking up her mantle and continuing her fight... BUT - who's to say that if she disappeared - conceivably in an unjust manner - one of those "bums" in the soup kitchen wouldn't take up her cause and create the exact disturbance in time that Kirk and Spock were trying to prevent???

City is a fantastic episode, and the best of the series. A lifetime trekker, this is the episode I use to introduce people who have never watched the show to Star Trek.

One thing that always bugged me. In the film "Generations", Kirk enters the Nexus, and according to the movie and novelization, the nexus takes the individual to a time and place they most desire, where they were the happiest. I feel the movie would have packed more of a punch, had Picard entered the nexus to find Kirk living with his "soul mate" Edith Keeler, rather than someone named Antonia that we had never heard of.Having to leave her again...that would have added some weight to Kirk's decision to leave the nexus.
-Mike

I still don't see how history as Kirk knew it would have changed if he took Edith back to the future with him BEFORE she could start that pacifist movement. How can the manner of how someone dies determine whether or not he/she proved inspirational enough to inspire followers?
I guess "Yesterday's Enterprise" just did a slightly better job at showing how time can be difficult.

I think that at the point of Edith's death there were no followers or pacifist movement -- this was years before WWII broke out or the USA wanted to enter. The time frame was about 1930. The point was that Edith would not live to start the movement. So the problem was solved by her death.

To which I ask again:
Why couldn't there at least have been one line of dialogue saying why Kirk couldn't take Edith back with him?
I certainly would've asked such a question if such an option hadn't been already addressed.

Whether she dies or goes to the future BEFORE she starts this movement, the US's involvement in WWII would've still occurred & history as Kirk knows it would've been unaltered. I would think the more humane thing to do was to see if history could be the way it was without the need to kill off a kind soul.

All this talk about taking Edith to the future, although scientifically interesting, misses the whole point about why "City" is so popular. In the middle of an excellent science fiction series, with all its suspended disbelief, we have here a story that is essentially and intensely human, love, internal conflict, emotion. Most viewers, including me, are instinctively drawn to its friendship, drama, and ..... tragedy. To me, the final 5 minutes, starting when Kirk and Edith emerge onto the street, until Kirk says "Let's get the hell out of here", is as gripping as any 5 minutes of "literature" or movie scene anywhere. When you consider everything that is at stake in these crucial seconds: eternity, friendship, self-sacrifice, but most of all, LOVE, I still get choked up every time I see it. This may be wild hyperbole, but I think Shakespeare would have been impressed. It may take a sentimental fool to take the end of a TV show to these "heights", but I'm happy and proud to be so sentimental. And judging from "City"'s enduring popularity, many others are too.

(sorry for multiple posts)

Although I enjoyed "City on the Edge" from an emotional point of view, there are things about the ending I find positively disturbing. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but basically what this episode is saying is that:

- The influence of a single pacifist woman could have prevented the United States from entering the War.
AND
- If the U.S. hadn't entered the war and BOMBED HIROSHIMA, the Nazis would have CONQUERED THE WORLD!

This has to be the most pro-war episode of any Star Trek series (except Enterprise) ever filmed.

Despite "City"s big nit about not taking Edith to the future, the acting & emotion in the episode do make it worthwhile.

Wasn't the Guardian in charge of time travel in that episode? I remember Kirk, Spock and McCoy only come forward when things are right. Didn't think they could bring anyone along without the Guardian's approval anyway. I mean, could they have let her die, then come back and slingshotted around the sun and all that? Sure, but that's just the usual can of worms easy time travel brings up on Trek, like why not go back in time after every mission to save lives/fix mistakes, etc.

I know I am three years late but I will take a stab at answering Jake's first question about "City on the Edge of Forever". Even if Kirk wanted to return to his time with Edith by his side, how was the Captain going to tell the Guardian this? It is clear from the story that the Guardian doesn't control who comes and goes from the protal, the Guardian only shows the images of the past. The more interesting questions are why did the Creators of the Guardian give the Guardian the ablility to transport people in the past? And did the Creators not think someone could transport to the moment the Guardian was built and stop the creation of the Guardian?

Mike,
I don't see how Kirk could have trouble taking Edith back with him. For that matter, how were he, Spock, & Bones supposed to go back to their time. Was there an 'invisible portal' where they materialized in 1930? (a la "All Our Yesterdays")

SO glad to read this. It articulates for me why I love Star Trek and can forgive its many inconsistencies. For me, besides great characters and relationships between them, the idea behind it was to prove a point about the human condition. Even though it is sci-fi and Class M planets are a dime a dozen, we shouldn't forget that it was primarily a morality tale (as mentioned on the ST wiki) The starship/future theme was actually just a premise to avoid stepping on anyone's toes.

Your reviews are very well written and spot on. I read every single one and agreed with all except City on the Edge of Forever being the best.

Nitpick anachronism: Edith talks about seeing a Clark Gable movie in 1930. Gable's first picture was "The Painted Desert", in 1931. But hey, maybe McCoy changed that too.

I would agree with most of the reviews by Jammer on the first season of Star Trek TOS.

However, I totally agree with Jayson, Sci Fi Nerd and others about Balance of Terror. That was a great show that has held up well with time. And the criticism of the cheap set design of the Romulan ship and the helmets worn by the crew was really weak. Star Trek was running on a shoe string budget and I think it was very well done considering what they had to work with.

And I think too much has been made here of The City on the Edge of Forever. The Guardian even tells Kirk and Spock that when they repair what was changed by Doctor McCoy in the past then they will be returned to the future. And not before. Kirk could not bring Edith to the future. That was never a choice for Kirk. If Kirk wanted to save Edith and live in the past with her, then that would have been an option for him.

However, Flask’s criticism of Edith mentioning Clark Gable is right on. Even though Clark Gable did make a few early silent films in 1925. Gable was an extra in those films and not the big name star he later became. Much is made in the ST episode of Edith being surprised that McCoy and Kirk both had never heard of Clark Gable, the fact is in 1930 most of the general public had never heard of him either.

In addition, I would have given Miri three stars. That was always one of my favorite episodes of the first year. I agree it has flaws, but it still holds my interest even after all this time.

All in all the reviews are spot on and I have enjoyed reading them over and over again.

@Mike Meares

I just love how people like you bend over backwards insisting that Kirk taking Edith to the future with him just wasn't an option, even though NOTHING in the episode indicates that it wasn't. It's just like those people making excuses for why Janeway just didn't set a timer on the Caretaker and going home.

@ tony

I guess we just have a difference of opinion on this issue tony. Because I think it is very clear from the episode, "The City On The Edge Of Forever," that the Guardian WOULD NOT return Kirk, Spock ( and McCoy )UNTIL they prevented McCoy from changing all of history the way he did. Before McCoy arrived in the past, Edith died in a car accident. So Kirk HAD to make sure that McCoy did not prevent that from happening.

Tony you are absolutely correct in that in the episode this fact is not stated "word for word" by any indivial.

However, I must point out that when Captain Kirk asked the Guardian if he and Spock were successful in stopping McCoy from changing history what would happen? The Guardian clearly says, "Then you will be returned. It will be as though none of you had gone."

Also, the portal for the Guardian is in the PRESENT time. There is no portal in earth's past. So now the question becomes how could Edith, or anyone in the past for that matter, travel to the future without a portal? I don't think it is possible.

If I am bending over backwards to prove that the 'City' story DOES make sense to me, then all I can say is forgive me for living. I think it is one of the finest Si-Fi Stories ever written.

I am not familiar with the Voyager series, so I can't speak on that matter.

I'll forgive you for living this time, but don't do it again!

As one of Trek's exceedingly few conservative leaning fans, I have always felt a little satisfaction in the fact the the series greatest episode had the conceit that a protest movement destroys history!!

But it also makes me wonder how liberal Gene Roddenberry actually was? Socially, he is obviously quite liberal, but these days, who is going to argue against equal prtoections, etc.. but as for war and what not, I always wonder if he sold himself more than what was actually there?

Wonderful reviews, I am up till 2am reading them on my mobile phone. Just to add to the "why didnt Kirk bring Edith back?" When Kirk and Spock went through the portal, they had no way of knowing who or what happened to distort time...but once in the 1930s I dont think there was a way to ask the Guardian if it would be Ok to bring her back to the future. But without contact...how did the Guardian know when to bring Kirk, Spock and McCoy back? They could have been brought back immediately, but waited till they were all back in Starfleet uniforms!

One obvious historical problem about City is that the US entered the war after being attacked by Japan and having Germany declare war on them. The US did have various pacifist and isolationist movements in the pre-war years, but it is hard to see how any of them (including Keeler's) could have delayed US entry into the war - the war started for the US at a time chosen by Japan and Germany.

Of course, you could always argue that the Star Trek timeline branched off from ours sometime before 1941.

@Lewis

I suppose one could argue that Keeler's movement had some effect on the US government which resulted in no 1941 oil embargo on Japan (or something of the sort.) Presumably, the Japanese would not have been in such a rush to attack the US under those differing conditions.

@Cappo,

Good idea. That certainly seems plausible. The Germans never really made much progress in developing atomic weapons during the war. The Keeler-influenced US policy towards Japan might have convinced the Japanese to attack the Soviet Union instead of the US first. In that case, the Russians might have been knocked out of the war, and the Germans then would be free to put more effort into preparing for war with the US, perhaps with a better-resourced and more effective atomic weapons program. Apparently the Japanese had a small research program going. Maybe!

There was a stronger anti-war movement than we remember. Especially during the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Hollywood with its Communist leanings was very anti-war. That changed as soon as the Nazis broke the pact and attacked the USSR, and now all we remember is Bugs Bunny making fun of Hitler. The victors write the history books.

FDR wanted into the war much earlier, but there was considerable public resistance. There's evidence that our blockade and other activities in the Pacific were intended to provoke an attack by the Japanese. Some conspiracy theorists think FDR was even forewarned of the attack on Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen to ensure public support for retaliation. Even if that's not true, it's clear from communications of the time that FDR wanted the USA to get into the war, and despite his strong popularity was unable to get public support for it until Pearl Harbor. (Back then presidents had to get Congress to declare war before attacking other countries, because we still had that pesky Constitution thing.)

I actually posted on this thread almost 5 years ago!
Anyway, great to see that this fantastic episode has so many fans. It is truly one of the finest hours of Trek, long with TNG's "The Inner Light" and DS9's "The Visitor". All three pack an emotional punch.

Now for those of you who would like to read more in depth into this story, I heartily recommend the ST novel "Provenance of Shadows" by David R. George III. In this wonderful story, the author explores the alternate timeline where Kirk and Spock do not stop McCoy, and he saves Edith, leading to a heartbreaking tale of the doctor's lonely life trapped in Earth's past, trying to find a way to contact his friends while not tampering even more with the timeline. The story captured my imagination with it's tale of what might have happened had the US not entered the war until it was too late. You really feel for what McCoy has lost. I cannot say enough about what has become one of my favorite Star Trek novels. Read it today!

As Someone who going through his first viewing of TOS, I feel kind of disappointed thus far. I initially started my Trek adventure by watching the first four seasons of TNG (of which i immensely enjoyed), then decided to switch to TOS to see how the original fared to the supposedly inferior TNG.

I must admit I don't get what all the fuss is about, although this is a pretty good episode and there are several episodes from TOS that are really good as well, there is just too much of a fantasy/magical nature to most the TOS episodes that rubs me the wrong way and causes me to loose interest in a lot of the episodes. Not that TNG is the pinnacle for "hard" science fiction, it does however provide much better explanations for certain phenomena in the universe, such as time travel, with better science/physics (can anyone on here explain what the hell happened at the end of "tomorrow is yesterday?"). also I know its unfair to say because of TNG being newer having the better special effects but TNG just feels more real and provides an immersive quality unmatched by any TOS episode i'v seen thus far.

I don't think this episode(city on the edge of forever) can be considered the best trek episode ever if only because thw beginning of this episode was really slow and boring with the talking-timewarp-computer-portal-thing. I feel "yesterday's enterprise" is the superior time travel episode. It had me engaged the whole ride, with also a vastly superior ending.

One more complaint, i realy dislike TOS 50 minute episode format. it's weird me saying this i know, but i feel as if a lot of these episodes should be edited down a bit. I mean the really good episodes don't need it because they have great stories with exceptional pacing, but most of them feel like their dragging a lot and repeatedly banging that particular episode's ideas with rock to the point of powder.

I haven't had a chance to read all of the comments so I don't know if this has been mentioned.

When I first watched this episode I thought that Kirk would find a way to save Edith & prevent a change in the timeline too. He is Kirk after all. So I was surprised (and sad) when she dies at the end.

Thinking about it though, there have been many "love" interests for Kirk yet above all his true love is the Enterprise. How can you have a mere woman messing with that?

Ray, I agree with your comments completely. Regarding this episode "City" I personally didn't buy into the love story between Kirk and Edith. Kirk seemed to be infatuated, and Edith kissed him back, but otherwise she seemed more interested in her work than in Kirk. I also agree the pacing on the episode is poor - it drags a lot at the beginning, and with 4 minutes left I was wondering "how in the world can they wrap this up in 4 minutes?". While I appreciate Kirk's sentiment "Let's get the hell out of here", the Guardian remained in place after the episode. What's to prevent a future explorer from finding it, and going into the past and therefore destroying the present? Isn't this the ultimate doomsday weapon? Shouldn't the Enterprise have come back on a future mission to destroy it?

I must agree with Chris and Ray. What is the big deal about "city" anyway?

I don't know if this is the best episode of TOS - first, I haven't seen them all yet and second, while I like time travel plots (like Tomorrow is Yesterday), I don't like time travel plots that are all set in the more primitive time and surroundings. As a Kirk-fan, I think this was so far one of his strongest episodes, and I liked the Kirk/Spock scenes. The episode also made me cry just a little bit - so far The Menagerie was the only other one where *that* happened. Good one. One to revisit sometime :-)

PS, it definitely has one of my favorite ever quotes.... Edith about Spock:

"You? - At his side, as if you've always been there, and always will."

:-D

I know this conversation is ancient history, but you guys are idiots. The guardian controls their return trip through time. They were returned once they corrected the past. There was no way for Kirk to bring her with him because he could not return until she died.

Solid 4 banger yup.

Was just telling someone to watch this episodes although I think discovering it on your own makes it better. Saw this episode by chance in the 80's and was hooked ever since...basically waiting for any future re-run. I got lucky in the 90's. It was that kind of episode for me. Finally saw it again on Netflix recently. And yes, Edith Keeler must die.

If I ever introduce anyone to Trek (such as any kids I will have in the future), this is the ep I will start them on first. *This* is my all time favorite TOS ep of all time.

One often overlooked scene which is by far one of the funniest in all of TOS, and my personal favorite scene, was when Kirk tried to explain Spock's ears away to a cop by saying "My friend here is obviously Chinese...he got his ears caught in a mechanical...rice picker". Classic, that scene.

As far as people asking why Kirk couldn't bring Keeler back with him, or why that bum vaporizing himself with McCoy's phaser didn't alter history on its own, I'll just quote a certain someone from DS9: "It's best not to dwell on such minutiae."

Count me in as another huge "City on the Edge of Forever" fan.

I don't think this is a good introductory episode to "Star Trek" unless the person is already a big sci-fi fan or "Trek" and just happened to have missed this series.

The show is too complicated for someone not drawn to sci-fi to begin with. Time travel screws with people who love this kind of thing.

I think "Balance of Terror" or "Galileo Seven" or "The Doomesday Machine" would work better as an introductory episode -- something very good but more straightforward. I think someone needs a few Treks under his or her belt before fully appreciating "City."

If one considers art forms as significant then City on the Edge of Forever is the only episode of TOS that has the structure of a classic Greek play. If you recall, Ancient Greek theater held no surprises in the events in the play. Everyone knew the myths that the events of the play portrayed. The point of Greek Plays was to see how each playwright handled the information and presented it. Thus in the Ancient Greek play the conclusion is already written and cannot be changed. How it is treated and portrayed is the point. As Shakespeare said, "The play's the thing."

Well, much has been said about this episode already. I loved it, personally. Such great acting on all parts (I found DeForest Kelley's rendering of a mad McCoy breaking down in front of that hobo to be particularly moving). And good work on Joan Collins' part too (though part of me wondered what a clearly English emigree was doing across the pond in the US. Oh well, I guess they don't have to explain that).

I also have always found it hard to buy the central premise of the episode - that somehow the death of a pacifist could prevent America from joining WWII, and that would somehow give the Nazis time to construct an Atom Bomb. Pearl Harbour aside, I don't get the impression that the Nazis were even *close* to constructing a functional atomic bomb by 1941, or even 1944. That said, even if they were close (indeed, even they had been testing atomic weapons, which some eye witnesses claim had happened), did they really have the capability to bomb the heck out of ALL their enemies? Britain maybe, but how about Russia and the U.S.? That might have pushed the U.S. to enter the war then, and the Russians to develop that A-Bomb A.S.A.P. In any case, Japan can't really be taken out of the picture. Even if Pearl Harbour hadn't happened (though I don't know how it would not have), they might have done something to trigger kick-back offensives on the U.S.'s part, or Russia's.

Anyhoo, good episode. 4 stars for sure.

Oops I meant "that somehow the survival of a pacifist could prevent America from joining WWII...". Her death, of course, supposedly stops that chain of events from happening.

Who makes up these totally cockeyed episode reputations? The single most overrated episode, other than DS9 The Visitor, in ST history. A loopy time loop episode. What a waste of the gorgeous Joan Collins! Why couldn't they write a companion piece to Space Seed with Joan a female super human giving Khan Noonien Singh a run for his money, instead of having the ineffectual Madlyn Rue as the quivering weakling female melting at his male chauvinist charms? ST not full of stereotypes? Look again closely!

As one of the most memorable TOS episodes, there is a lot of back history not yet mentioned here:
- The writer of this episode, Harlan Ellison had to submit multiple versions of his story as it's original intend involved drug abuse (turned into the Cordrazine arc), 100's of crewmen running amuck and a large multi-scene planet.
- Robert Justman the associate producer from the 1st pilot on, states they put Harlan in an office on the Desilu lot, locked the door and occasional stood on his desk to get a finished version for review.
- Finally, they took the last re-write of Harlan's story and "Star-Trekked" it to address making the a story fit the budget and time allowed on screen and the characters personalities. Both Gene Roddeneberry and Gene Coon did that part.
- The only episode to win a Hugo award. When Harlan was called up to accept it, he was very angry that the Star Trek writers "butchered" his original story and he let everyone in the room know it. (This was the same Sci-Fi writer to spearhead getting support from his fellow writers to get Star Trek renewed for the 2nd season).
- The last line spoken in the episode, "Let's get the hell out of here" was not written that way. They tried it several ways but it just did not feel right. They brought in an NBC official to finally allow that line to be filmed. It was the 1st time "hell" was spoken as a verb on TV.
- De Forest Kelly (McCoy) thought his reaction in getting injected to with Cordrazine was over the top. However on re-watching the episode 25 years later, thought it was very weak and did not really show the shock he wanted to portray.

Not sure if anyone has brought this up. I loved the City episode, but if McCoy changed history and the Federation and Enterprise didn't exist, then how is it possible for Kirk & crew to be standing on that planet with the Guardian? The moment McCoy jumped through the Guardian, Kirk's crew should have disappeared. Am I missing something?

@Jon
IIRC, it was implied, if not stated outright, that the Guardian was protecting them from the paradox. Just as Ent-E was protected by the "temporal wake" in First Contact long enough to see the Borg's tampering with history, and Defiant was protected by its plot shields in "Past Tense."

My favorite episode, and for all the reasons previously mentioned. My only divergence is that, to me, the most powerful line was not, "Let's get the hell out of here," although I acknowledge that like the TOS "first inter-racial kiss" to actually say the word "hell" in a broadcast back in the 1960's was, if not a first, definitely one of them. But no, I find there were two more powerful snips of dialogue. The first was this counterpoint: "Spock, I think I'm in love with Edith Keeler." "Jim, Edith Keeler MUST die." That hit me like a ton of bricks. The other was at the end as Kirk's fist is shaking uncontrollably as Spock intones to McCoy, "He knows, Doctor. He knows." Good comments, everyone, I love reading them all. Thanks, Jammer.

After finally trying to give TOS a chance after seeing it on here and there when my dad would turn it on (and always finding it pretty laughable to be honest) I thought maybe now that I am a big Star Trek fan (love TNG and DS9, like all the classic movies except ST1, hell even thought ST5 was underrated, Generations was decent and First Contact was good, Insurrecrion was like a mediocre two parter of TNG, and Nemisis was a disgrace to all Star Trek, select episodes of Voyager are great but aside from tat only 50% or less are worth watching, some Enterprise is good in the 3rd and especially 4th season) I thought that now I'd give it a serious try and watch some of the highly recommended TOS episodes all the way through...

... and I pretty much stand by my original *opinion*. I emphasize that word because I'm not trying to bash those who like TOS, but as a passionate Sci Fi/Space opera fan I just can't enjoy it, to my unpleasant surprise. I agree with my dad's assessment of it when we used to watch it here and there when nothing else was on: it seems like much of it was put together by and acted by a high school drama team. I don't really get it; the actors COULD act, as proven by Star Trek II-VI, but they don't in this show. Kirk is excruciatingly glib most of the time; any amateur actor could play that part where all you have to do is act "unflapable" and keep a neutral facial expression. I think the problem is that this is what we get, like in TNG seasons 1-2, when Rodenberry is allowed too much control. I give him great props for his imagination of the Star Trek setting, but not as a script or story writer or as a producer. His tryranical/misguided input in TNG seasons 1 and 2 almost ruined the show, and gave the show the feel of a bad 80's B movie (like how TOS seems like a bad 60's B movie) and put the writers in a straight jacket. It wasn't until Michael Piler was hired and allowed to overrule Gene that TNG took off (along with other changes made when the studio realized Rodenberry was killing the show). Then poof; Season 3 is one of TNG's best once the coup against Rodenberry was successful (I know he still had some input but from interviews it's been made clear that Piler and Berman could override his protests). Same with the classic ST films; he had little real control and was more of a consultant who was often pisses off when his advice was ignored).

That is the main reason I can think of, other than the general characteristic of 60's TV
offending my sensibilities. But, before you call me a philistine, I like many classic films that are as old or older than TOS. I am fine watching low budget productions; I love Babylon 5. And, in liking Babylon 5 that shows that I can tolerate a little cheese in my space opera (though it was one of the downsides of B5), just not to the extent of TOS. I also like Farscape so I can handle "weirdness" and I really liked Firefly.... but I find TOS almost unwatchable. I have read in an article by a science fiction critic that TOS' strength was its "messages", but aside from that it is nowhere near the quality of the later Treks in terms of story, scripting, acting, or (of course) production. He also said that from his observation those who grew up on TNG often just can't accept TOS. I guess that is me. Again, the classic films showed us that with good scripting and direction Shatner can act, but he doesn't here. This may be partially due to Rodenberry's stated desire (in an argument about a show idea that had Picard learning that his true fear was being tied to a desk and deprived of adventure, he yelled "Picard isn't afraid of anything! Picard is John Wayne! If he was made an admiral he would just be an admiral...".... stated desire to have his captain be like, well, John Wayne in his classic westerns and what not; ie. A boring two dimensional character that would only intrigue the lowest common denominator of male action fans. With no one to veto Rodenberry here in TOS, we got the unflappably (boring) and glib Captain Kirk.

As for this specific episode, my finding it mediocre at best is why for now I agree with Chris and others above on their comments of TOS. I've read about Harlan Ellison's original and I hardly think it is better (having Enterprise crew members selling and doing drugs? I'm sorry dude but you're writing for the wrong Scifi franchise if that's what you want). Also for those who were debating its allegory to wars in real life, I've read that creators of this episode when asked if they were trying to comment on the Vietnam War said "Of course we were." So take that for what it is (it doesn't help raise my opinion of the people involved in making it I'll tell you that much). Also like others I found the stuff about Rosevelt being so easily swayed due to interaction with one pacifist complete rubbish. I have a BA in history/poli sci (double major) and am a big WWII history buff and I have to say if Ellison or Rodenberry had done their homework they would have made some other scenario for this episode. Roosevelt was a wise man who was looking at the big picture from before WWII began; he knew he had to respect the popular sentiment of isolationism to a degree but behind the scenes he tried to work around it and cooperated with British intelligence efforts to sway US popular opinion away from isolationism to favor aiding Britain. He got furious with "yellow" Ambassador Joe Kennedy's defeatist attitudes while serving in England and effectually he was replaced. I could go on and on but point being Rosevelt was secretly in favor of intervention from the start and eventually events forced the public to accept it (*ahem Pear Harbor anyone?), and there was nothing some upstart pacifist could have done to sway him after Pear Harbor (or before really). I only emphasize this to show how even the story in this supposedly excellent TOS episode feels like it was clumsily hashed together by amateurs who weren't all that intelligent or well informed. The cheese factor was also too much ("I AM THE GUARDIAN OF FOREVER..." Give me a break that sounds like something my 8 year old cousin would say while pretending with his friends). I can kind of forgive that due to the general cheesy state of TV and TV Scifi in that era but it adds up with everything else. Note: I admit that that is only my general impression of TV Scifi in that era but have not done much research so I could be wrong; in which case TOS's flaws would be even less forgivable.

Finally in line with what I said at the start despite my sometimes harsh tone I mean no disrespect to fans of TOS; my comments were my reaction to watching it and the viewing experience along with background info on the show, and we're not intended to bash those who do like it. I know "what you grow up with" watching on TV can have great effect on one's norms and sensibilities so I can totally understand how those who grew up watching TOS at a young age may have an ineffable fondness for the show that people like me can not share in. I can relate somewhat in how TNG has a certain magic for me that makes me more tolerant of even its less popular episodes (except in season one and the bad ones in season two). To each his own, I suppose.

This is considered one of the best if not the best of TOS. And in my opinion rightly so. Time travel episodes can be a bit confusing but this one is pretty straight forward. McCoy, while under the influence of a drug overdose, travels back through time and accidentally destroys the timeline. Kirk and Spock must travel back and attempt to make things right. In doing so Kirk meets a remarkable woman that he falls in love with. Only to discover that in order for time to be made right she must die. Drama ensues.

This episode was satisfying to me on several levels. As a student of history I find it intriguing to speculate that if America had delayed entry into the war it might have allowed Nazi Germany to develop the bomb and conquer the world. I can certainly understand Brian's objection that a single person could hardly be able to do this. But as an answer to that I will simply remind him that a person's actions can act as a vector. And a vector has both magnitude and direction. A little push at the correct moment, when allowed to act over time, can have a huge future impact. Hitler had the V2 and was working on a "New York" rocket. If America had not acted in time he may well have developed the first atomic inter-continental ballistic missile and used it to take the world. You have to wonder if America may have capitulated if several of our East coast cities got destroyed by fission bombs. 20 kilotons in the middle of Manhattan would have made quite a mess. And the shock of it being done with just one bomb may have been enough to make America roll over. All one has to do is to look at how the war really ended to realize what atomic weapons could do to the will of a nation.

Another interesting thing about this story is that it shows that McCoy was responsible for two deaths, not just one. The writer is pointing out that some lives have a huge impact on history. And some have none. The death of the bum changed nothing. But if Edith Keeler had not died all of history changes. And not for the better.
It also shows that the best of intentions can lead to disaster. Edith had the right intent. But at the wrong time.

As a little thought experiment ask your self if you had a time machine and could go back and kill Hitler before the start of WWII would you. I suspect most people would say "Yes" because Hitler killed millions and, with the hindsight of history, it seems the right thing to do. But killing Hitler may have lead to a worse world that the one we have now. For all we know one of the innocent children that Hitler killed, if allowed to grow up might have become a greater monster than Hitler. If that innocent child had not died he might have precipitated WWIII and our planet could even now be a lifeless radioactive ball. So all actions can have unintended consequences. And the most moral act can lead to disaster. Illustrating this was also the intent of the author, I think.

And also for Brian I can certainly sympathize if you don't really like TOS.But my guess is you are quite a bit younger than I. Star Trek was in some ways a product of its time. I was 7 in 66 and Star Trek was magic. As a child I saw the alien worlds and the space ship...and little else. As I aged I begin to see the morals in some of the stories and as I became older still I began to put Star Trek in some context. It was ground breaking in many ways. It had the first competent black woman on tv. And I suspect Sulu might have been the first sympathetically portrayed Japanese character on tv. Remember it was only 21 years after WWII.
And yes, Brian the sets are pretty cheesy by modern standards. And the acting and writing was not always great. But at the time Star Trek debuted almost all we had on tv was Westerns and cop shows. Twilight Zone was the closest to really good sci-fi. Star Trek was something new and truly groundbreaking. And for me Star Trek was like your first love. Sure, in years to come you found better. But you never forget your first love. Star trek was mine.

Brian I hope you don't feel I was criticizing your viewpoint or worse pontificating to you. I can certainly understand a history major's objection to this episode. Perhaps I should say at worse all drama requires a suspension of disbelief as I'm sure you well know. And I do acknowledge that some of the later Trek is quite good and perhaps makes TOS look a bit amateurish by comparison. But TOS was the first. And it kindled in me a love of the genre that continues to this day. For that reason it will always remain the "best" for me.

Greg I am not at all offended and appreciate your thoughtful comments. You are right, if you watched the original series air back in the '60's I am much younger than you. I am 28 so I first saw TNG as it aired in my distant childhood memories, when it seemed intimidating and magical. I saw and liked the occasional episode in later years but I first watched TNG all the way through in college when it first came available to stream on Netflix, and loved it. I know what you mean Greg about a first love; TNG is mine, and I know that my experience watching it today is affected by those childhood memories and feelings that gave Star Trek its magic feel. Everyone is entitled to that, and that is why I was careful to say that I was only expressing my opinions, and did not intend to insult anyone who did like TOS. Greg I can understand your and others' love of TOS better now when I compare it to my own feelings for TNG.

Greg, a good analyse, we are of the same age and seems to have similar feelings. Each serie responds to it's won time and concept. There are qualities within them all. With modern eyes having experienced the improved storytelling TOS is sometimes very ridiculous but relating it to its own you realise how new thinking it was.

With today's eyes TOS is still sexsistic, in those day very modern. One may wonder which approach Gene Roddenberry would have had to the world like it looks today.

This is also one of my favourites, containing very much of the best of Star Trek.

I love this episode: I would give it four stars as well. But it's interesting that in this episode and then in the "whales movie", a new timeline is not created. But in the JJ Abrams reboot that is exactly what happens. Now, a lot of people would probably complain but this is an example of Abrams messing things up ; but I actually think a new timeline makes more sense.

Also, instead of just getting the hell out of there, shouldn't they have posted guards to keep others from wandering into the portal?

I can only agree with Greg that one's enjoyment of TOS may hinge greatly on whether, at one point, TOS was the *only* Trek in existence for you. There was only one Captain, one First Officer, one Doctor, Transporter Chief/Engineer, etc. It's the only look we had into a sustained, continuing, Sci-Fi universe on television.

It's critical to put TOS in it's time and place, both technologically, artistically, socially and within the 'sci-fi' genre. This is a show being made at the same time as Adam West's Batman. Most Sci-Fi consumed by the public was kids stuff, or involved over-the-top 'ray gun and rubber suit' shenanigans. The Hippie movement and it's purportedly 'enlightened' approach to social/civil issues was still the thing of young adults. Television was in the iron grip of the 'Establishment' industry suits, with their Establishment ideas of what 'the TV viewing audience' wanted to see...or more importantly was capable of appreciating. Sci-Fi was not high on their list of serious considerations.

Star Trek, at least Seasons 1 & 2, at least tried to bring us something akin to serious sci-fi storytelling. Again, if you remember a time when all there was, was Capt. Kirk, Bones, Spock, Klingons were irredemably evil, and women in short skirts is what passed for Feminism...Star Trek strayed into some relatively uncharted waters both thematically and socially. You can tell many of those involved behind the scenes must have been some of the few, scattered 'underground' genre fans, growing up on classic Golden Age sci-fi of the 30's, 40's and into the 50's. To try and put topics that only the pulp magazines would normally address onto national TV was gutsy. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes 'the Suits' and Ray Guns won out.

As a youth the bumpy, sometimes noble, sometimes comic or juvenile adventures of the Enterprise offered a steady diet of a wonderful future world to sink my imagination in to. Even as a 'young' 43 year old -- meaning I came to TOS through syndication in the late 70s and early 80's -- I cannot remember seeing anything else like it regularly on TV. Not until 1987 of course.

So TOS, it's crew, it's monsters of the week, matte backgrounds and wonky science, is still very my 'my' Trek. I did eventually adopt TNG as it's upstart sibling, once it got over it's teething issues. (I still remember the wonder and chills I got hearing their new-and-improved Transporter sound effects. So modern sounding!). The stories could be bolder, more clearly drawn, more aware of modern audience education, age range, and so forth (although Rodenberry's 'philosophy' of future world perfection, clearly drawn morality tales, etc was still present, and was still both a boon and a curse at times).

But like so many others, Bones, Spock and Kirk remain the 'holy trinity' of Trekdom or whatever you want to call it. And whatever misadventures they got up to back in the 60's are always going to be all right with me. So yes, chalk a lot of my love up to nostalgia. So be it.

Oh, and City on the Edge of Forever was a pretty darn amazing episode. It had good characterization, dialogue, and a real hum dinger of a climax on what's usually a 'happy ending' style show. If any episode of TOS deserves 4 stars it's this one.

It's one of those episodes where it's really fruitless to bother with the nuts and bolts of how the Guardian works, time paradoxes and so forth. The thrill is all down to the human dilemmas presented. The Guardian itself is as much a force of nature as a constructed piece of technology can get. It's an idea. A presence lurking everywhere in both past, present and future. One of the greatest Monsters of the Week Trek ever came up with, in it's own way.

I love how they leave the planet, but the Guardian is still there, waiting. In a very oblique way they leave this powerful entity/machine the same way Picard and Co. would leave Kevin on the planet of 'The Survirors'. Sometimes there's simply no other choice but to just 'get the hell out of there', and leave 'new life and new civilizations' very much alone.

@mik73 - Well said. My first Star Trek experience was TNG S3 (I later found 1&2 in reruns a few years after the fact and probably only enjoyed most of them because I loved the crew and having new adventures was nice).

I watched Star Trek weekly for 15 years, ending with Enterprise S1. I didn't really come back for S2, I didn't hate it at all, but it just wasn't doing anything for me and my time was limited. I've since gone back and rewatched much of it, but not all. Mostly just because I miss having Trek around.

I own TNG/DS9 on DVDs and as a 34 year old those 15+ years mean that Star Trek has pretty much been a staple of my weekly rituals for half my life. The first time I really watched TOS was on a 4th of July marathon. I wasn't really impressed. Kirk/Spock/Bones just really couldn't compare to the TNG guys for me. I DID enjoy the movies (well 2-4 and 6 anyway).

As an older teen I tried some of TOS again with more knowledge of the history/more forgiveness of the time period. Most of it is better than TNG S1/S2 to be honest. And I'd say there's a good 20 episodes that rank up there with Trek's best if you can look past the 60s worldview and the clunky production values. In some ways the look at what the 60s thought the future would be like is fascinating as Spock would say all on it's own.

I can really see how the average person growing up with things like Game of Thrones and whatnot might not even give it a chance though. And that's sad. Because this episode is as good as anything TNG ever made. Really. And there's really NOTHING on TV that's as revolutionary as having our WW2 enemy, our cold war enemy, and black woman all on the bridge together in 1966. Seriously, that's crazy.

mik73 Very good comment and summation on TOS. It must be put in the context of the time in which it was created.

Hard to comment on what is presumably the most hallowed episode of Star Trek. So much has already been said, so there isn't a whole lot to add. Personally, my opinion of it is much like my opinion of Firefly: overrated, but still very, very good.

Obviously the climax (the death of Edith) is the crux of the episode, intending to hit with about as much weight as possible. It succeeds in that, without a doubt. And yet, there were two flaws in the episode leading up to the climax which, well, I don't want to say it HURT the emotional impact of the climax (since it didn't), but perhaps makes it harder to rate the overall episode as perfect.

The first is, unfortunately, Shatner's acting. Now, admittedly I've seen the episode several times before, but several moments in the episode seemed to be hurt by the stereotypical Shatner Speech. You know, stilted delivery, emphasizing the wrong syllables, etc. Given the seriousness of the episode, it jerked me out of the immersiveness each time, as it was almost a parody of him. It's unfortunate that he didn't give his best effort throughout the entirety of the episode, because his acting was perfect in the end. Everything, from his elation to finding Bones, to the realization of what was happening, to his reaction afterwards, to his empty line at the end after going back to the future, was perfect. Maybe he played the rest of the episode too light-hearted (there were several jokes earlier at Spock's expense, for example) to highlight the mood swing at the end, but if so it didn't work. We need to be invested in Kirk's emotions in the episode, which means we need to, at all times, see Kirk and not Shatner. Perhaps it's not the episode's fault that Shatnertalk became a parody over time, but it still knocked me out of the loop.

More importantly, though, is the fact that Edith was less of a person and more of a caricature. When she was serving soup or taking care of Bones or interacting with Kirk, she was fine. But what's with making her the perfect prophet of the Roddenberry future? By making her so on-target about what the future holds, she comes off feeling artificial, and you can see the voice of the writers speaking through her. And again, this is important, because the whole point of the episode is to, like Kirk, get an emotional attachment to her so we can be a part of Kirk's sacrifice. But when she gave her speech in the soup kitchen, and a few of her other moments, she just comes off as a prop. And no one has an emotional attachment to a prop.

You can say that it was necessary for her to be a prophet of the future, whether it be in order to make Kirk fall in love with her, or to show off the irony that she had to die to (eventually) bring about the future she believed in. But I don't think it had to be that blatant. Her kind-heartedness and eternal optimism would have been good enough to get Kirk to fall in love with her without throwing me out of the episode by how artificial she sounded.

Fortunately, when it mattered, when we needed to see the emotional weight, the episode played it well.

Gotta agree with you there Skeptical, despite all the nit picking I personally loved this episode, and I haven't been a huge fan of TOS until this. The whole thing just worked, from the wonderful interplay between the characters of Spock and Kirk, and the magnetic performance of Joan Collins . The entire episode is so simple and "human' with wonderful tones of romance, humour and a slow building of tragedy that is resolved in a totally unexpected yet somehow humanly tragic way that says something about the absurdity and senselessness of mortality.

One of the few Eps of TOS that still stands up watching today and will continue to do so. Haven't seen them all yet but am not surprised that other fans rate this as one of the high water marks of TOS and you can honestly say that this episode is a very strong piece of TV considering it was made in 1967

Not much I can add to everything that's been said or discussed about "City" -- I do believe on its merits it is one of the very best Trek episodes and one of my favorites (though not my absolute favorite).
What's great about the episode is that it transcends sci-fi and I believe non-Trek fans can appreciate it. The developing romance between Keeler and Kirk works really well, and I think Kirk delivers one of his best performances especially the last 5 mins. when Keeler dies, he grieves and his classic line at the end "Let's get the hell out of here." It's a poignant ending and not the sometimes predictable TOS ending.
I should also mention that I think it is inconsistent to suggest Kirk bring Keeler back to the future - I think it should be pretty clear that that can't happen and that the Guardian is controling the situations of the time travelers but not those who are already in the past.
The episode really had everything - the humor between Kirk/Spock and the police officer is terrific, the Kirk/Spock interaction when determining Keeler must die and also McCoy's performance as a crazy man encountering the hobo (prior to him passing out).
I enjoyed reading all the reviews here - really agree with @PZ in particular.
I can see how this episode is regarded as the best Trek episode - have seen it ranked as such on a number of lists. It does have a certain charm that a lot of episodes simply don't. It helps to have a supporting actress like Joan Collins.
No question 4/4 stars for me - an episode that is clearly standing the test of time.

Definitely the most overrated episode on ST. Possibly among the worst episodes of the series too. There are so many problems with this episode, I don't know where to begin. The obvious ridiculousness of the pure coincidence that McCoy would affect history, which of course has a total US perspective (as if everything on Earth which ever happened took place there). And that Kirk and Spock would coincidentally go back to the same geographical place as McCoy, which again of course would be the US. This is somewhat saved by the fact that Kirk himself recognizes this stupid coincidence when he says "why not outer Boise." The big problem with all of this is that the characters personalities do nothing - everything is pure chance. The accidental injection, the accidental coincidence of the moment in time, the accidental death of Edith. The Guardian itself. What is it? Why is it showing Earth history? Very weak plot device. The only agency is Kirk's womanizing and the fact that he would fall in love with this woman in space of a few days/weeks is also ridiculous. The dialogue is stupid. The Guardian says I am both and neither then proceeds to tell Kirk that it was made with certain limitations. Kirk spontaneously declares that all humanity has ceased to exist on the basis of the fact that the Enterprise doesn't answer a hail. Maybe history was only change slightly. Uhura stupidly says "Captain Im frightened." How childish. "We'll steal from the rich and give to the poor later." What? The fact that both Kirk and Spock (1st and 2nd in command) disappear through the Guardian is insane. Surely at least one of them should have stayed and tried to find a way out by building something. Scotty just stands there dumbfounded. Absolutely no attempt at characterization whatsoever. And the finally supposedly climactic scene is a crappy car crash where the great symbolic action is Kirk NOT doing something. How pathetic. Would have been better if he had to kill or kill someone or fight or build something. How much better we became with time travel by the time of Back to the Future. Seriously compare this cheesy soap opera romance with the excitement of Back to the Future and having to think/build one's way out of the scenario? Think about it. All Kirk and Spock had to do was grab McCoy and stop him grabbing Edith (who stupidly waltzes across the street like a child, also unbelievable). About the only interesting thing in this episode is the fact that it was one of the first attempts at dealing with time travel which back in the 1960s was a big deal (the only other thing was Orwell's crappy attempt at social commentary). Beyond that COTEOF is really quite poorly written, dull and overly reliant on coincidence rather than character, tension and action. And the ridiculous way McCoy takes out that transporter guard - so he basically has his own version of the Vulcan nerve pinch? Jesus why did he never use that again? There I said it and feel better now.

In her bizarre scifi speech to the homeless men at the outset I half expected her to turn to the camera and say the opening Star Trek prologue "and we will boldly go..." just ludicrous. Why does she behave more like an alien than Spock.

To your credit, Dave, I did read through 2/3 of your comment, up to the point of, "...where the great symbolic action is Kirk NOT doing something. How pathetic."

It was at that point I stopped reading. I'd finally realized, and similar to Louis CK's observations about the value of the opinions of those under 20, that you are only a child. Because only a child who hasn't actually lived a life yet would think that "NOT doing something" in the choices adults sometimes must make is "pathetic."

Only a child could think that.

However, true to the spirit of Star Trek (although not to trolling, sorry, son), I still do wish you well dealing with your Aspergers. I know enough about life to predict that I won't have to be there to witness when the inexorable progression of time teaches you just how wrong both your opinions and approach to people are today.

It's inevitable. So, good luck, youngster! And yes, I mean it.

{ Definitely the most overrated episode on ST. }

Well, at least the script utilized paragraphs.

I'm a fan of Star Trek.

First, I want to say that I also agree with PZ. Those last few minutes are incredibly powerful to me. I appreciated and it would have been inappropriate to have the usual epilogue ending on the bridge with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. One thing about this episode is that I think it makes a difference whether you first saw it with no knowledge of the episode or its reputation. I first saw it in the early syndicated reruns sometime in the early 70s. Star Trek was on five days a week in the early evening and I had gotten used to watching it each day. So when this episode came on, I had no special idea of what was coming. I remember the emotional impact of that ending as it hit me that first time I saw it to this day. It had me in tears and it was haunting me for the rest of that night. I would expect that the emotional impact wouldn't have been as great if I had known something about the episode or its reputation before seeing it. I saw The Inner Light when it was originally aired, again with no special knowledge of what was coming before I saw it. The impact of that ending was also very great for me and I remember thinking as that episode was ending that there was The Next Generation's City on the Edge of Forever. Many of the criticisms that are in the comments above from over the past few years I can understand the point of, but the key for me is the emotional impact of those last few minutes of the episode.

That episode and the doomsday machine episode were two of the best in my opinion. Each one is like a movie. Of course balance of terror in what are little girls made of are third and fourth.

Roddenberry was able to put together the finest cast and guest stars in to get the absolute most out of his actors in that first season.

Could Kirk have returned to retrieve Edith Keeler? When would think if there was any possibility of that he would have done so. And why not go back in time to retrieve Spock's girlfriend left in the icy wasteland of 5000 years ago while he's at it? Perhaps by bringing them forward in time they would damage the future in some unknown way. Maybe they wouldn't prevent some cosmic catastrophe from happening because they were busy with their lovers instead. We can only speculate.

I heard a friend's fiancée hated this episode and forbade him from watching any more Star Trek after it. Reflecting on why, it occurred to me that "City" is a classic example of "bros before [ladies]," as it requires the hero to let the woman he loves die in order to save the world -- quite the reverse of most film romances where the hero sacrifices everything for his lady love. Unless you're dealing with a particularly rationalistic and nerdy partner who shares your love of Trek, "City" is not a good date night choice!

But that's part of its brilliance: Like much of first season TOS, "City" turns the conventions of TV and movie storytelling on their heads: Threatening aliens turn out to be misunderstood, good and evil are not always clear-cut, and our heroes are not always in the right -- and they admit it (see McCoy in "Arena") when they've made a mistake. And "City on the Edge of Forever" gives us the idea that sometimes we must sacrifice what we care about the most for the good of the universe. Pretty shocking and riveting stuff here, even today, and the story wouldn't have been nearly as memorable had the episode sought a magical Sci-FI compromise ending.

So yes, I think "City" deserves its reputation as one of the best Treks of all time, even if it's unpleasant for some girlfriends/wives to watch the hero fall in love and then let the woman of his dreams die rather than change history for her -- the latter being the more conventional resolution to romcom plots even today. It's not just the time travel gimmick trapping the crew in non-existence here, or the cool Guardian of Forever, but the great chemistry of Shatner with Joan Collins as well as the regulars (McCoy is particularly uncomfortable and deranged in his drug-addled state; Spock is gently logical; the others like Uhura and Scotty are all on-point in brief bits) really sell this episode as one of the best. Harlan Ellison's story and dialogue, even polished by the production team, are especially great in showing our heroes navigate the Great Depression in 1930s NYC. I give it 4 stars.

I always loved Spock's electric gizmo for playing back
his tricorder (couldn't he have hit the slow play
Button) but the Jacobs ladder was a bit much.
Come on -- this isn't Frankenstein.

@Bill

I really enjoy reading the comments section of this brilliant website, and it's refreshing to read people's opinions that differ so much from my own, as was the case with Dave C's comment. I was sad to read your vile comment though.

Although I did enjoy the irony of you accusing Dave of having the mind of a child and having Asperger's Syndrome due to his opinion being 'wrong' in a paragraph that is in it's self probably the most childish comment on the entire thread.

I don't think that any of what you said was true to the spirit of Star Trek, and I would urge Dave C not to take advice from you about how his approach to people should be.

@Wakeman

Dave's silliness was most likely trolling, particularly as we are all aware that such creatures target discussions where people like us are passionate, and so take an extreme opposite position--an all too common testing of adulthood for the minds of developing 12-year old boys (or grown men who still act that age).

But you thought Dave's was just another opinion, eh? I'd recommend that you both read Robert Bolton's "People Skills" which, although written in the 1970's, still finds reality among its principles today. Perhaps moreso in this era of anonymous posting. The reality is that I accurately identified one or both of Dave's habits in posting NOTHING REDEEMING (repeat that to yourself until it sinks in, in case you don't grasp "trolling") in this episode.

Nothing redeeming in this episode. Nothing. Uh huh.

Sorry, Wakeman, but as McCoy might exclaim, "A blind man could see it with a cane!"

I'd typically say we'll have to agree to disagree, but I won't waste more of my time. I will do you a favor by saying straight up I won't be replying to you again. I've known people like Dave (and enablers like you) for decades. I also know there's a way out of his particular madness (and yours), so my comments will stand on their face without further defense--to be judged, or not, by Jammer.

You've a lot to learn. But then we all do. Good luck in your journey, Dave. ;)

Bill

@Bill

It's probably a good thing that you aren't going to respond further about this. I think agreeing to disagree on something is a worthwhile outcome. A better one than prolonged bickering I think.

I just want to tell you that I read the book that you suggested. It's really good. I would say that it might well help me somewhat in the future. Thank you for the recommendation. I managed to pick up a copy from Abe Books for less than £3 which is great!

I think it is an important book on the subject of behavioural interactions and more people should read it because I think that it could help most people out in every day life. It has some really useful insights in the topic of emotional communication amongst many other facets of the psyche.

I am certainly not learned of it's wisdom yet, and Dr. Bolton knows his stuff, that's for sure. I will probably go back to the start and study it in more detail, because I missed the part that says - When you have a disagreement, talk to people with the attitude that 'you've been alive for quite a while, so that automatically means that you know better than them'; make snide, underhand comments about their mental state; and/or acuse them of having a developmental disorder.

I'm glad that you agree that you also have a lot to learn.
You, too, should re-read your recommendation, Richard.

The obvious has not been mentioned. When Kirk, Spok and Macoy returned to the present, everything was as before. Their uniforms, equipment and memories. They had no recollection of what happened in the past. Spok first looked shocked when he returned to the present. Then he saw Macoy return which caused him to use logic by stating “We were successful”. Had they not been successful the three would not have returned.

All Kirk and Spok remembered was jumping to try and land in the1930’s to stop Macoy and landing back where they started. In this way, in the words of the Guardian, “Time has regained its shape. Everything is as it was before”. This would include the memories held by Kirk, Spok and Macoy.

My favorite TOS episode (with Amok Time being second). The moment that just gets me every time comes right after Kirk has stopped McCoy from trying to save Edith. McCoy unbelievingly and harshly demands of Kirk "Do you know what you just did?". And Spock responds "He knows, doctor...he knows"...as Kirk stands there trembling with pain and grief. One of the most moving moments in Trek.

The developing relationship between Kirk and Edith was beautifully done. When Edith first encountered Kirk and Spock she could easily have dismissed them as common thieves. But she seemed to instinctively recognize that they were much more than that, and to understand their closeness, even though there were things about them that puzzled her,

There is one thing I wonder about. The whole premise behind Kirk's dilemma is the idea that Edith's pacifist movement would delay the entrance of the United States into WWII, allowing Germany to win and conquer the world. But the entrance of the U. S. into the war was directly triggered by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the original declaration of war was against Japan. The alliance that Japan had with Germany and Italy then quickly brought them in against the U.S. Given the devastating direct attack by Japan, I doubt that any pacifist movement could have kept the U. S. from responding and being drawn into the war both in the Pacific and in Europe. The premise has to be accepted for the story to work, but it does seem questionable in light of the actual history.

So I finally watched this after somehow missing it during my original TOS watching years ago. While watching I had to keep reminding myself that this is the prototype time-travel episode before they came up with plausible ways to avoid ridiculous contrivances (currents in time? Calculating the time to enter the portal to within a week's precision?). Of course it's not unique to this episode. The whole theory of convergent evolution used to explain identical human aliens comes to mind.

Then the premise. One woman's pacifist movement delays (not prevents) US entering the war and saving the day. There is so much wrong here. Pearl Harbor was already mentioned, but no one said anything about the little detail that the war was basically already won when the US opened the second front. Any delay would mean the war was over. At least the war between Germany/Italy and the allies. Any action Japan might have undertaken unilaterally is a wildcard, but it certainly wouldn't be Hitler's nuclear bombs attacking the US. And Japan alone would not under any circumstances outright win a war with the US. I mean Enterprise's horrible Nazi episode provided a more plausible reason for Germans to win, doing something in Russia (assassinating Lenin in Enterprise's case).

But I guess none of it matters if the drama made up for it and... I wasn't impressed. It just didn't move me for whatever reason.

It was Spock who figured out what was going to happen in the future when he built a computer to interface with his Tricorder. He just knew that McCoy changed something, but what? He then deduced that McCoy and Edith was the nexus in time, and that Edith either had to live or die. It wasn't until the end that he figured out she had to die. The alien computer wasn't going to tell them what McCoy changed, and I doubt it would had allowed them to bring her back to the future. They couldn't come back until she died.

The way Kirk and the crew so easily fell in love with aliens, I'm surprised they stayed together for the five year mission to explore strange new worlds and civilizations. The thing I loved about Kirk was how he had sex with a blue or green alien, then told them goodby as he went to the next planet, and new women to bed. Otherwise he would have an entire deck full of women aboard ship that he couldn't live without. Of course having a green slave girl and Edith wouldn't be such a bad thing.

An overrated episode, if this is the best TOS episode then I am all for TNG and VOY any day. There are at least 10 VOY episodes way better than this boring nonsense...

@Debra Petersen

"The developing relationship between Kirk and Edith was beautifully done. When Edith first encountered Kirk and Spock she could easily have dismissed them as common thieves. But she seemed to instinctively recognize that they were much more than that, and to understand their closeness, even though there were things about them that puzzled her."

One of my favorite scenes in this episode is where Edith, asked by Spock where she would estimate they belonged, said to Kirk something like, "And you -- you belong to a different place. I don't know where or how . . . I'll figure it out eventually." As she says this, Kirk has a half-smile and a look on his face, and then we see Edith with the same half-smile and look on her face. This was when I first understood the concept of "chemistry" between performers (even though the actors were not necessarily looking at each other or were even in the same room at the time). The deep intellectual and emotional connection between Kirk and Edith -- Shatner and Collins really sold it.

Forgive me if this has been said already (I have not read every single post) but the chief objection to Kirk's taking Edith forward to the future is that it would have completely destroyed her mind. Even if Kirk had been able to explain the consequences of her action, she could never fully envision it. She would then be stranded in a totally alien universe, never again to see her parents, siblings, friends, etc. It would have freaked her out, and been unspeakably cruel.

One of my favorites. I've read through a lot of these posts. I never thought about a return with Edith. The Guardian's conditions were quite clear.

The one big flaw that I don't have an answer for is how Spock was able to tie into the ships computers with his tri-corder and pneumonic memory circuit to learn of future events. The Enterprise was centuries from being created.

A good one. Held my interest and was well done overall.

@LouBotts: maybe I've misunderstood you here, but I don't think Spock was ever tying into the ships computers. He had recorded everything showing on the gateway, and was sifting through his recording.

ALL THE COMMENTS ABOUT WHY KIRK DIDN'T TAKE EDITH BACK WITH HIM: First, they couldn't be sure things would happen the same way if she didn't die as just as she was meant to. Second, Edith is an autonomous individual. Kirk can't just take her back as if she were a pretty rock he found. I doubt very much she'd Jane wanted to go back with him.

Nicely done and while I don't think it's the best of the franchise, it's certainly the best ep of TOS so far.

Good performances, especially from Kelley. Joan Collins is great in it also.

SPOCK: Interesting. Where would you estimate we belong, Miss Keeler?
EDITH: You? At his side, as if you've always been there and always will. And you? You belong in another place. I don't know where or how. I'll figure it out eventually.
SPOCK: I'll finish with the furnace.
EDITH: Captain. Even when he doesn't say it, he does.
Great episode.

You guys should really read Harlan Ellison's original script for the episode. Worth all the praise it gets.
In my opinion, Harlan Ellison is the best science fiction author in terms of being an author. Whatever your thoughts on the man, his prose is dynamic, his dialogue smacks you in the jaw, his brain ticks like no one elses, and he wraps it all up in a well crafted story every time.

My favorite "Original" Trek and very, very high up on my all-time, all Treks list.

I'll always think of Edith Keeler as Kirk's greatest love. Here's an aspect I haven't seen any comments on:

Joan Collins and William Shatner were two over-the-top, hammy actors. But they both toned it way down for this, and it was pure magic.

I usually roll my eyes at Kirk's "loves," but I totally buy in to why Kirk fell so hard, so fast for Edith Keeler, thanks for Joan Collins' on-spot performance.

My favorite part in an episode that was excellent from first to last minute was indeed that last minute back on the Guardian planet. I'm so glad they didn't do the usual yucking it up on the bridge at Spock's expense.

The ending leaves you with such as strong sense of Kirk's loss.

Having seen TNG, DS9 and VOY and always heard references to "City on the Edge.." as being the all-time best Trek episode, I have to confess I'm severely disappointed. It's not bad, the acting is on point and the Guardian is really cool, I also like that Uhura was part of the away team. However, overall the story is predictable and the setting not very exciting. The fact that it justifies America's complete annihilation of two Japanese cities also leaves a bad after taste.

Off the top of my head I can count at least 5 if not 10 episodes from season 1 alone, that are better than this. Perhaps I'm too allergic to time travel episodes, because this simply didn't do it for me.

II / IV

@Sleeper Agent

With respect, I think you're missing out on the big picture of this one. There's two huge unintuitive, or anti-heroic, conflicts in the episode. The first is that saving the sweet intelligent woman does not save the day. The second is that peace is not the correct path towards freedom. Kirk is left with making two horrible decisions that he clearly doesn't wish to make and his struggle with that conflict is what makes the episode good. It takes the idea that "if only we could've prevented these bad things in the past things would've been better" and flips it on its head. The ending is also bittersweet, as Kirk leaves the planet feeling disgusted despite doing the most logical thing he could.

@Chrome

"The second is that peace is not the correct path towards freedom. "

Sure I get it, I just don't find the representation of the idea intellectually stimulating nor convincing. But then I also find the idea rather lackluster from a philosophical point of view.

Nowhere in the story, does one get the feeling that Kirk has a choice, because in the end, he is "forced" to do a sacrifice that has already been made. There's no real alternative to consider. Also the amount of time Kirk spends with Edith is too short for them to form a deep emotional bond with each other.

In short: I don't like time travel episodes, I don't care too much about the shallow premise and I don't find the relationship convincing; and the sacrifice the least bit surprising. Plus I'm not too fond of the aesthetics.

Therefore my II ouf of IV remains. Scratch your head if you want, I'm doing the same to all the top ratings out there.

“Nowhere in the story, does one get the feeling that Kirk has a choice, because in the end, he is "forced" to do a sacrifice that has already been made. There's no real alternative to consider.“

Kirk saves Edith from death once and Spock has to slap him on the wrist for it. Kirk is conflicted. Feel free to not like the episode, but your prior comment saying this “glorified the atom bomb” is way off. It’s a historical fact all major nations in WW2 were racing towards completion of the atom bomb, including Japan. It would be a greater travesty to ignore this.

"It’s a historical fact all major nations in WW2 were racing towards completion of the atom bomb, including Japan. It would be a greater travesty to ignore this."

None of the major powers had a serious program that was close to completion by the end of WW2. Of course the Americans assumed others were on the path, especially Germany, but post war it was determined that said programs were basically mothballed.

They weren't mothballed, they just lacked uranium supply and time. That's besides the point though. Japan was working on the atom bomb well into 1945. Go look it up.

From what I remember in college, I'm pretty sure Chrome is right on this but keep in mind this episode is dealing with an altered past. In this new past, the U.S. was not making efforts to take down the uranium-carrying submarines or getting the major brain drain of scientists. If you follow the events in the manner CotEoF details, a stronger Germany would indeed be in a much better situation to develop the atom bomb without American interference, regardless of what progress they made in the "correct" past.

I confess only cursory knowledge of this but from the Wiki page:

"The Japanese program to develop nuclear weapons was conducted during World War II. Like the German nuclear weapons program, it suffered from an array of problems, and was ultimately unable to progress beyond the laboratory stage before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender in August 1945."

Maybe it wasn't "mothballed" but ultimately there was no serious "race" as no one but the USA had made serious progress on building an actual bomb.

I never said that all countries were neck-and-neck and I think you’re getting hung up on that. The point is no one’s hands were clean in WW2. The fact that the atom bomb projects existed in Japan shows they would’ve used one too if they had it.

As Patrick D points out, there’s no telling what could’ve happened if the U.S. didn’t enter the war until years later. One might argue it would be weird for Pearl Harbor to happen and the U.S. to not mount some sort of military counter, regardless of some peace movement, but I suppose that’s just a conceit of the plot. It’s really pretty interesting that TOS has a focus on military force used for the right reasons.

@Chrome

I didn't say glorify, I said justify. There's a huge difference, and my point still stands; the main premise of the story is that a peace movement must not be allowed to happen, so that America can get involved in WW2 etc..

One can argue endlessly about Americas role in WW2, but no one can deny the absolute atrocity of detonating a nuclear bomb over a civilian city, not once, but twice.

P.S. There's no way to know if Kirk actually saved Edith from death the first time. Either he didn't, and the choice of saving her was more a feeling than anything else, or he did, which implies she would've died in an accident sooner or later anyway.

They barely talked about the atom bomb. It could’ve been any big event in WW2 and the story wouldn’t change. Your argument is deeply flawed.

It is, if you misunderstand it.

If you actually read through all my comments on this episode, my arguments are quite clear. However, I regret that there's nothing I can do to keep someone from falsely interpret them into being specifically about, for example, the H-Bomb.

Have a good one, Chrome =]

“Have a good one, Chrome =]”

How nice! :-)

--- Deleted Scene ---

McCoy: Jim!
Kirk: Bones!
(Curious, Edith starts to walk across the street unaware of car bearing down on her. Kirk starts to move towards her ...)
Spock: No Jim!!!
(Kirk stops and hold McCoy back....)
Car: Screeeeecccchhhh!
Edith: Angggmmgphhh!!!
McCoy: I could have saved her. Do you know what you just did?!!!
Spock: He knows Doctor. He knows .... oh, it looks like she's still alive....
Kirk: Really? Well shit. (pulls out phaser ...)

---------

@Jake said, "Kirk can't have his cake and Edith, too.” ROTFLMFAO! Oh God, I love this site.

@Brian, fascinating write up. TOS ain’t everyone’s cup of Earl Grey. Don’t sweat it bro :)

@Eric, I’ve seen this episode so many times I can’t count, and it still gets me every time. The emotional setup for the end is just so perfect. First that insane high at finding McCoy. Then that insane shock when Edith dies, even more shocking because Kirk let it happen. I agree, anything more would just get in the way.

The Guardian of Forever is back in Trek!

Just wishing William Shatner happy 90th birthday today -- I believe he has said this was is favorite episode and I definitely think it was one of his best performances. An outstanding actor and the man behind Captain Kirk, who has to be up there among the most well-known fictional characters ever created.

I've always rated this 4 stars, but have now downgraded to 3.5 stars.

Why? Well if you rate it "of its time" then it's certainly 4 stars for the mid-60s. However, I believe that it would have made a better movie than a single TOS episode. There are several reasons for this. One. It would have given the romance between Kirk and Keeler time to grow; on that score I think Joan Collins is miscast - better to have someone who was less glamorous but exuded the warmth, optimism, and visionary insights that Kirk would have fallen for anyway, perhaps after initial indifference. Joan Collins running a hostel for down-at-heel bums? I just don't see it. Two. A lot of reviewers above have suggested that Kirk could have rescued Keeler by removing her from that time, instead of letting her die there. Spock could have taken time in a movie to explain why not: "Take her back where, Jim? There's nowhere for her to go, nor us until the proper timeline is restored, and that will only happen if she dies."

A movie could have taken more chances also. I cite "12 Angry Men", "To Kill A Mockingbird", "Look Who's Coming To Dinner?", among many examples of films that could not have been done on TV in their era. And unencumbered by sponsorship, audience ratings, and more stringent budgets, they could have let the story flow with a less compressed plot, and possibly put more dramatic twists in. To give one example: suppose McCoy's actions had not changed history but had created a new timeline at the moment he dived into the portal? In that event, The Enterprise wouldn't have winked out of existence (did anyone else feel deeply uncomfortable at that thought?) but carried on in its own timeline - from their perspective, the away team would have disappeared without explanation. We could then have had scenes where Scotty is desperately trying to work out what had happened / what to do about it. As for Keeler, her death would have merged the timelines again.

Anyhoo. Two more thoughts.
One, I thought the acting was both good and bad. DeForest Kelley overdid the hysterical "ASSASSINS!" outbursts initially but came really good when the drug began to wear off. Shatner gave his usual... hammy quota of... inappropriate pauses... but at other times he downplayed it very effectively.

Two. I just thought: COTEOF was made in 1966/67 - 55 years ago, yet the historical era it was set in was a mere 35 years before it was produced! Not only that, but at one point Keeler says to Kirk that mankind "...could reach for the moon, why not?". Yet COTEOF was made before "One small step for a man..." had even occurred!! So it's not only a classic TOS episode, it's now historical in its own right.

Not perfect, no, but a brilliant story even if Harlan Ellison's original idea was butchered. 3.5 stars

FWIW, 12 Angry Men was a tv film (1954) before it was a theatrical release.

@William

Point taken, though I stand by the fact that cinema could get away with far more than TV could, until comparatively recently.

"City" deserves all the praise it gets. There are many great reasons why it has made critics' lists for best Trek franchise episodes and best hours of television over the decades.

I rewatched the episode last night with my wife and 7-year-old son. My son had seen Trouble with Tribbles before, but was unimpressed. This episode had him riveted throughout. Yes, McCoy was genuinely scary after he accidentally OD'd. Yes, the drama around whether Edith Keeler would live or die was riveting.

I'm more of a Next Gen fan. Next Gen was on first-run during my impressionable teenage years; I suspect Jammer and I are pretty close to each other in age, maybe a year or two apart. But I had seen TOS in syndicated reruns, and I had seen TWOK thru TVH before TNG debuted. I loved TOS, too, and this episode was a big reason why.

As for Harlan Ellison and his scripts? Well, he was a very talented, award-winning writer. But Star Trek was still in its first season, finding its footing, always within a whisker of cancellation. I've read Ellison's scripts and edits for the episode, along with all his "woe is me, Roddenberry screwed me over" bitter commentary. I think the changes made to Ellison's script made it better. I think those changes made this episode the classic that it is. And I'm pretty sure it was Dorothy Fontana who made those changes.

I remember reading a story, I think in Esquire, about Frank Sinatra shooting pool somewhere around his 50th birthday, and Harlan Ellison was there. Somewhere, words were exchanged, Ol' Blue Eyes got pissed off, and his friends had to stop him from stomping a mudhole in Ellison. Not that Sinatra was any kind of angel himself, but Ellison was a jerk in his own right. I kinda wish Frank's friends hadn't stopped him.

If this isn’t your favorite episode in the original series, it has to be in your top 5. This was thoroughly entertaining from start to finish. That McCoy accidentally overdosed and nearly destroyed time as we knew it was beyond brilliant. That Kirk and Spock had to not only go back and not only fix time but figure out just what in the hell happened in the first place was a great story. The message that peace is important but the timing needs to be even more important put this one over the top. That the Nazis were successful because of some randomly bizarre incident really shows how the invention of a time machine could be the undoing of everything we know was brilliant. A++ for this episode, they really outdid themselves. My favorite of all time. That Edith Keeler must die and they had to watch her die brings tears to my eyes every time.

To throw my two cents into the now decade old debate on this page about why Kirk couldn't take Edith back, think of it from Kirk's perspective. What is he supposed to do, take Edith's hand and click his heels 3 times to get back to the future? All Kirk knows is that Spock, McCoy and himself won't return to their time unless he is successful in restoring history. You think Kirk is going to gamble history and his crew to try and barter with the Guardian to see if Edith can come back? If the Guardian says no (AKA nothing happens and they're stuck there) they're screwed. There's no going back a second time and throwing Edith in front of the car. There's not even a guarantee that killing Edith after the fact a different way wouldn't have unintended consequences. One shot, that's all Kirk has, and there's only one guaranteed way to succeed in Kirk's mind. For Kirk to save history and get back to his time, Edith Keeler must die. End of story.

Referring to the second half of Greg’s review of Sept. 2015: Me too.
I was age 12-15 when Star Trek first aired. I remember standing outside looking up at a starry night sky and envisioning the enterprise up there, wishing they would beam me up to join that wonderful crew. At a time when Selectric typewriters were the newest technology in my world, the ideas in TOS about the future development of technology and humanity were mind boggling, totally new, and oh so optimistic. The stories deeply touched the emotions of a young girl who loved science, romance, and musing about the human condition. Nothing will ever replace it.

... it was my Guardian of time travel into the future, and truly a series “on the edge of forever”.

I would like to add that while there are numerous excellent comments in this blog about the story content, this episode deserves some mention of its beautiful production quality. Definitely a step up from many earlier episodes. The sets both on the planet with the guardian as well as in 1935 Earth were great. The lighting in all the scenes was exceptionally beautiful. Many wonderful directing nuances, like when Kirk looks up at the stars noting they were totally alone, and the scene ends with us looking at the stars too, and the darkness of that night sky. Or when Uhura says “Good luck, sir... Happiness at least” and her makeup and the lighting look ethereal. The sets for the alleyway and fire escape and 25th St. Mission (basement, kitchen, back room and dining room with the old piano on the stage) were deeper and more realistic looking. The makeup, especially McCoy’s insanity look, Edith Kieler looked like a real intelligent, caring woman and her beauty (despite the annoying softening film Trek always used for women was SO much more natural and realistic than the tin foil ladies of other episodes. The script was exceptionally well constructed. Conversations were natural and believable. And lastly, the music was perfect throughout. This episode was a real artistic achievement.

Expanding on the cinematography: The planet which had the Guardian looked and sounded like another dimension, with the whistling wind sound and the darkness punctuated by pulsating light only from the Guardian itself. This reflected an eerie glow on the actors. It really felt like waves of time displacement.

@Lorene

I appreciate your observations. Star Trek did really get a ton of things right (obviously) with an episode that, more than any other, is considered by many to be its GOAT.

I don't think TOS gets enough credit for what it achieved with its sets, like as you say, with the planet the Guardian was on. It really does convey that sense of loneliness, eerie, etc. with everything working together -- lighting, music etc.

I do think some of these TOS sets ("Spectre of the Gun", "Metamorphosis" etc.) really create the desired atmosphere and the direction is key here. It helps to have the perfect soundtracks too.

Something else that comes to mind for TOS is some of the shots to show the depth of the scene -- like at the start of "The Menagerie, Part I" or in "Court Martial" where they show the star base. Hard to put into words but it really conveys a sense of vintage grandeur. There is also a brief shot in "The Man Trap" where they show more of the set (the ancient ruins in the distance) -- pretty cool.

From the first time I saw this episode through subsequent viewings, I thought Kirk's saying to Scotty, Uhura, and the Red Shirts, "When you think you’ve waited long enough . . . . Each of you will have to try it. Even if you fail, at least you’ll be alive in some past world somewhere," meant, "When you get to the point where you’re like, 'Well, shit, I guess they’re not coming back, and the Enterprise still isn’t up there,' you should all go live in the past somewhere." Only recently did I start to think that by "Each of you will have to try it," Kirk meant, "If Spock and I aren’t successful, each of you should go back and try to prevent McCoy from changing the timeline." Although how they would do that without the videos that were on Spock's tricorder — "I was recording images at the time McCoy leaped into the portal" — I have no idea.

@Rahul

"There is also a brief shot in 'The Man Trap' where they show more of the set (the ancient ruins in the distance) -- pretty cool."

Apparently one of the (many) things that pissed off Harlan Ellison was that his script specified "runes" on what was left of the ancient city, but the set people thought he meant "ruins" and built the set accordingly.

Possibly related: Matt Jefferies (art director and production designer) was out sick while the set was being constructed; when he returned and saw the "donut," he exclaimed, "What the hell is this?"

@Mark

"And yes, Edith Keeler must die."

My brother and I were kids when we first saw this, and when Spock said to Kirk (paraphrasing), "Suppose we discover that in order to set things right, Edith Keeler must die," my brother exclaimed, "Then we’ll have to Keeler!"

This episode is quite intereting considering that recently, in the movie Eternal a so-called god apologized for giving human the technology of atomic bomb and letting it blow up Japan. BTW I'm not a Japanese though my nick name may look like so.

Mayberry sure looked a lot different in the 1930s. I guess this was about the time that Floyd first opened his barber shop. It's too bad they all didn't arrive 30 years later though. I doubt Barney would have given them as much trouble after stealing those clothes. Maybe Spock could have even gotten the electronics parts he needed at Emmett's Fix-It Shop. Perhaps the focal point would have been Helen Krump; McCoy went back and stopped Andy from pushing her in front of that car.

City on the Edge is the standard by which all other Star Trek, and that includes the follow-ons is measured. The acting is top rate, even by minor players like the bum in the soup kitchen. "you'll be sorry"(eye roll), Kirk tells him to 'shut up'. It's the vernacular here that matters. The whole episode is filled with these nuggets. McCoy does his crazy man exceptionally well. Lighting(sepia tint), sound effects, music, direction, timing, "Stone knives and bear skins". Who came up with great lines like this? Collins did an amazing job for a piece of work that may have been a throw-away in her entire career. Excellent. Thematically, we are treated to two just awful outcomes. Personal scale, the loss of the ship and all her crew, with these crew members stranded, in forever. Mega-scale the potential for a world run by Nazis, and believe me, in 1967, this was a horrific future to contemplate. Everything about this episode was top rated. Spock's ever present under-stated personality: "He knows doctor,,, he knows". the personal and professional struggle between Spock and his second in command. Continuity in an hour show is one of the difficult things to get right, and the continuity here between KIrk/Spock, and McCoy/Keeler is just about right. We KNOW they are going to connect in the end, but it's the anticipation, and the expectations that draw is in and keep us in. Tragedy is hard, maybe harder than comedy(Trouble with Tribbles). They got it just right, and we are left with longing, remorse, and yet - satisfaction that the world is spinning in greased grooves once again, and the loss of Keeler was a horrible offering for the value of the wondrous future.

Last night three of us did a double feature of The Inner Light followed by City on the Edge of Forever...it was pretty effective. I was completely choked up.

In City, we noticed a missed opportunity with the 'broken milk bottle dude' in the alley. He fries himself out of existence with McCoy's discarded phaser. This caused no disruption to the limeline. Does anyone know why it doesn't follow the butterfly effect?

"In City, we noticed a missed opportunity with the 'broken milk bottle dude' in the alley. He fries himself out of existence with McCoy's discarded phaser. This caused no disruption to the limeline. Does anyone know why it doesn't follow the butterfly effect?"

Cause hobos don't matter.

This incident would later be featured in a motion picture entitled Hobo with a Phasor.

@Peter G.
"Hobo with a Phasor"
Ah a short by Tarentino!

But if the hobo hadn't died would the movie have been made? :)

@Jason R.
"Cause hobos don't matter."

Some do....W.H. Davies

This is my favorite TOS episode. And memorable: It was the first time I heard the word "hell" spoken on TV. Shocking for 1967!
https://77facts.com/the-first-time-the-word-hell-was-spoken-on-tv-was-in-an-original-star-trek-episode-entitled-city-on-the-edge-of-forever-the-exact-qoute-was-lets-get-the-hell-out-of-here-spok/

There are some galactic implications and big ideas here, but the episode wisely keeps its taut focus on Captain Kirk. More than ever before, we are given a glimpse into this man’s heart and mind. Kirk has always struck me as a capable, adaptable, decisive leader but it’s fun to see how he allows himself to let his captain’s guard down and draw out the rest of his personality when he’s having to deal with “the locals.” We saw a bit of this in “Miri” when he tried to calm Miri down, and we also saw some good examples in “Tomorrow Is Yesterday” and “The Return of the Archons.” He knows that it’s important to play the affable, agreeable gentleman in certain cases in order to maintain his cover or put other people at ease if they find themselves out of their element and within Kirk’s orbit because of the science-fiction happenstance of the week. And this time, he even lets himself fall in love.

Joan Collins is good here, and has decent chemistry with William Shatner. She’s probably better known for all those epic catfights her character in “Dynasty” had to deal with, but we get a very pleasant, warm and low-key performance in this case that really sells how Edith Keeler and Captain Kirk, worlds and centuries apart, can come to fall for each other.

There are nice moments with Spock as well, showing how adept he is at balancing his need to solve the mystery with his duties of helping Keeler maintain her own mission. In short, it’s nice to see him gamely serving soup behind the counter during the Great Depression. He also gets some good dialogue with Kirk, as Kirk starts to realize the implications of allowing the woman he loves to die when he could otherwise stop it.

The nonsense with Raging McCoy was a little much, its scenes drawn out and little more than padding for time (Did you care about a bum who vaporized himself? I didn't), but at least it was interesting to see glimpses the good country doctor so completely out of his mind (like his turn in “The Return of Archons,” Kelley proves here that he’s particularly effective in full lunatic mode).

Some of this all just seems needlessly pretentious -- the all-knowing Guardian of Forever, McCoy’s accidental needle-stick leading to full-on dementia in short order (and couldn’t they have just shot him?), and yes, the idea of one woman affecting the outcome of World War II of all things, just reeks of some of the worst conceits of full-on kooky science fiction--but thankfully, the most important story here is Kirk’s. The big scene of Edith’s fatal accident was a bit perfunctory, but Kirk’s bitter last line before beaming back to the ship said everything: “Let’s get the hell out of here.”

The specific way that Keeler will change history if she doesn’t die (she leads a pacifist movement that causes a critical delay in the United States’ entry into World War II, and so the Axis powers win) made me roll my eyes considerably. However, it does fit with one of the most commonly repeated lessons peppered throughout these Star Trek episodes: Peace is the goal, but war is still often necessary.


Best Line --
Keeler: “If you’re a bum, if you can’t break off with the booze, or whatever it is that makes you a bad risk, then get out.”


My Grade: B-

@ PCP,

I think one risks being a bit over-specific to read the episode is implying that Keeler is so important that she alone makes or breaks history. Yes, technically the chronology works out that way, but if you think of it as the butterfly effect you can write off the particulars and simply note that changing something small can mess up history. But more important than the fact of who it is making a big change if she lives, is the fact that if *Kirk* settles down with a lovely woman history will be wrecked. I don't think it can be discounted that it's specifically Kirk doing so that messes up history.

Seen in that light, we might be able to see it as being "if those two carry on as they were" being the dangerous situation. I put it this way because I think this is one of the major instances illustrating a point that gets made in a stronger way in the motion pictures, that Kirk has a responsibility that precludes him settling down or having real relationships. And we can see an interesting parallel in The Guardian of Forever. After all, it's not called The Guardian of Nice Things. To guard "forever" means to have things set in motion correctly even if that means sacrifices are made. And to the extent that the Guardian can see the repercussions of things going the wrong way, Kirk also needs to take on that role and allow bad things to happen if that means "forever" is protected. In this case it's the timeline, but more broadly it's his ship, his people, the Federation, etc.

What we seem to learn here is that catastrophe will occur if Kirk gets too close to someone who would take him away from his duty. This is his destiny, he is needed for certain purposes and can't spend himself in any old way. That's a tough pill to swallow. I don't know what SNW is making of Captain Pike, but I got the idea in The Cage that he was having a crisis of morale in this vein, that he just wanted the burden away from him.

@ Peter G--"What we seem to learn here is that catastrophe will occur if Kirk gets too close to someone who would take him away from his duty. This is his destiny, he is needed for certain purposes and can't spend himself in any old way. That's a tough pill to swallow."

I like that insight. The Universe won't let Kirk settle down for a nice quiet life.

You mentioned that this is addressed in the movies--I look forward to seeing them when they come up on my list; so far I've only seen the later J.J. Abrams-produced movies, a couple of the movies that were based on The Next Generation (when they were first in the theaters, so it's been a while), and I have a few sparse memories of Star Trek II and IV from my childhood.

I just thought about something else regarding this episode, that I didn't address before -- Unless I missed something, not only was Kirk forced to allow Keeler to die, but he and McCoy actually caused her death, right?! She was wandering across the street because she was curious about the commotion between Kirk and Unhinged McCoy. That's when the truck hit her. They had to go back in time in the first place so that she would die.

While I wasn't won over by the episode entirely, I do think it has a thoughtful story and I'm aware of its legacy--Trey Parker and Matt Stone even named one of their own South Park episodes after it!

Can someone confirm isn't it clear KIRK COULD NOT JAVE BROUGHT EDIE TO RHE FUTURE due to VUOLATING the timeline??

Kirk could not have brought Keeler to the future. She doesn't belong in Kirks time anymore than McCoy belonged in hers, she had to die in her time.

Well, that was the first time I've watched this one in years. I had always thought of it as somewhat overrated, but recognized it encapsulated the Trek spirit in a fashion like no other. This time around I felt the impact of Keeler's death much more than I had before, and part of it is how well the script thrusts the final details at us so quickly. Within one scene we know what Kirk must do, suddenly hear of McCoy, see him, and the event happens immediately. Worst of all, the dirty time loop rears its ugly head again (making it a total coincidence that I mentioned such a thing in another post earlier tonight) showing us that Keeler not only had to die, but that Kirk, Spock and McCoy were always the reason. The great peaceful future not only had to wait another 330 years, but its greatest representative on Earth had to die an early death to make it possible. This point somewhat resembles the general history we've been given about the future, which is that humanity must suffer greatly before it can come together in harmony. The one couldn't happen without the other, and we see it in the flesh with Edith. Kirk is perhaps the human race experience the pangs of sorry at what it must endure to achieve peace.

Another interesting aspect of the episode is the mix of nostalgia and pity at the conditions of the Great Depression. Rather than portraying it as merely being a horror, there's a sort of rough but humble humanity being portrayed, one which even in filth can imagine a great future. It shows the writing skills of Ellison, but perhaps the general bar TOS set, at not only developing a sci-fi adventure story but achieving all of this texture within it, including some comedic moments. Even the contrast of Spock referring to 1930's technology as "stone knives and bearskins" with the Guardian telling Spock his knowledge of science was "primitive", is a detail that was unnecessary but eye-opening. Even just that little addition to the story gives us a glimpse of how far ahead some other people might be compared to the Enterprise crew, as they are compared to the hobo to whom McCoy asks what planet he's on. This kind of story isn't merely sci-fi, it's about sci-fi, and in ways that are more than just "what if", but include "but at what cost". Maybe that's why it won a Hugo award.

That being said I did have to take some pains to explain to my wife why it did win such an award, since I have to admit that certainly on a first viewing it's not as blatantly impressive and even epic as some other episodes. I personally prefer many others, but my awareness of City in the abstract is perhaps even more important than its direct impact. It does seem to be emblematic of something beyond merely what appears on the screen. Hilariously, my wife actually noted that "the one with the crazy harpsichordist was better", and I don't even disagree. I do have a taste for the theatrical, and for that you can't beat a Trelane or a Khan.

Agree very much with Lorene's comments.

As Proud Capitalist Pig says, that one paradox in the climactic scene has bothered me for some time. Edith died in a car accident of some kind, McCoy went back and saved her, but in the timeline we see recreated she only wanders across the road because she is distracted by the joyful reunion of K/S/M.

As far as the hobo goes, the Guardian made it clear that when the timeline was restored everything would be as if they had never gone back in time, which I take to mean the hobo goes on living having never met McCoy.

And forgot to say but of course Edith can't come forward in time. There's no mechanism to bring her. The Guardian specifically states that they have to restore the timeline to get back to their own history and if they do so it will be as if they have never gone back in the first place. It isn't time travel as shown in the 3rd season episode where there is a physical portal that they can go through either direction. In CotEoF they went back, restored the timeline and were ejected from the Guardian's portal with the net effect that they had never been back in time - except they have their memories because the Guardian has a kind of field around it which acts as a bubble and isolates them from the way time passes elsewhere - hence they don't disappear when the Enterprise does - or at least that's how I've always viewed it.

@Ms Spock
Yes, that’s how I understood it, too... to get back, they had to restore the timeline, and to restore the timeline, Edith had to die. There was no way to bring her to the future.

@Peter G.
I wouldn’t call it overrated, but I see what you mean. Although the episode certainly deserves all the praise it gets, it’s not perfect… I always found the opening scene somewhat flawed and the humour of the rice-picker story escaped me, although I admit that it was brilliantly delivered: Kirk knows exactly that nobody is going to believe a single word of it, but he goes on anyway. But for me it always feels like the flaws as well as the good points are somehow eclipsed by one of the most brutal endings I’ve ever seen or read. I agree that this is partly because everything happens so quickly; as viewers, we can barely follow the events and even less realize or deal with them; when the episode is over, we just sit there, devastated and speechless and thunderstruck.
For me, the most horrible thing is to hear the Guardian say: „Everything is as it was before.” It is, but at what price. To restore the timeline, Edith had to die – not only to avoid that her peace movement delays the United States' entry into the Second World War, but also, as you say, to allow the future achievements she dreams of (like peace and space travel) to become reality. Her death still remains an incredible tragedy, but she didn’t die for nothing. I think this knowledge may be the one thing that gives Kirk the strength to do what he must do, even if it breaks his heart. For him, nothing will ever be the same again. It’s written all over his face.

Simply the best episode. They should have implemented general order number 7 on this planet like Talos 4 or blasted that gizmo to smithereens.

Great episode, but the Yanks almost single-handedly won WW2 in Asia, not Europe. The Soviets had already began steamrolling the Nazis and driving them westward undeniably so after the turning point in 1943. The Brits and Yanks did not properly fight Nazis in Europe until *1944*. And the Allies' support for the USSR in that fight was clear before then, before the Dec 1941 declarations of war by and against the US.

Still, the propaganda of the US winning WW2 is half right.

The way some Brits portray Churchill as winning on both fronts is laughable in the extreme, however.

I will forgive the episode its historical inaccuracy because Kirk doesn't recite the Declaration of Independence and the story is a great twist on the Trolley Problem.

Voyager grappled with similar issues of killing to save others" with Tuvix, but Janeway did nothing wrong (she should have gone further), and I felt no moral queasiness. This episode, however, did stoke moral queasiness, which I want in my sci-fi.

Let's not forget that Nat. China and Com. China killed a lot more Japanese soldiers than the US.

Of course, they couldnt bring back Edith Keeler with them. She would have founded a pacifist movement that would have prevented the Federation from fighting Romulans in defense of Klingons, resulting in a Federation-devastating war with the latter.

The single best episode of any series of Star Trek, ever. This is it folks, number 1. That is saying something. And out of all of Kirk's girlfriends, I like Edith Keeler far and away better than any of them.

A little plot hole maybe already pointed out. Guardian says at end "all is as it was". Yet in pre-McCoy timeline, Edith died in a car accident presumably involving other people -- some Joe Brooklyn drunk driving, say. In our story, however, post-Enterprise crew travel to Brooklyn, Edith dies distractedly following a McCoy-chasing Kirk across the road. That wasn't how "it was" originally.
Alternative title for episode: No Sleep 'TIl Brooklyn.

"Captain...even when he doesn't say it, he does."
"Let Me Help" "...he'll recommend those three words, even over 'I love you""

The lines in this show are timeless.

I went back and read all of these comments - in Time - with a focus on comments post 2020. My guess that the comments would make an evolutionary leap post 2020 was correct. Positive and closer to the truth of this episode.

It's not about the mundane nor a stagnant reality that we can only see in our limited "now" vision. It is a moment encapsulated in a present that takes in all our human past and visions what is possible for humans in the future. It's beautiful and tragic and heroic.

We live in such Times. Right Now. This Present Moment. So much potential. So much danger. Individual empowerment that leads us to each other or leads us apart? Holding to a stagnant past or forging a new and real future.

This show isn't for the 60s. It's for the 20s - the 30s. Takes place in 1930s but is for the 2030s. Really incredible what Gene tapped into.

Is it a great episode? That's just a matter of opinion. But all these comments here show that it has certainly touched our Culture.

Maybe, just maybe, we will spend money on Life - not Death. And maybe sooner rather than later - Buying a Stairway to Heaven. A start - in the right direction - while we still use Money - use it productively - together - not apart.

I understand the criticisms above about “City..”, I mean, that ending, what the hell? There wasn’t a single car chase, no guns were fired, no one punched anybody else, or drove an automobile over a cliff, or dove over furniture to avoid flying bullets. Where was the freeze-framed high five accompanied by canned laughter? Where was the saccarin, tidy resolution? How come no one was bleeding? Or exploding? Jeez…
Worst of all, it required me to think. What kind of nonsense is that? Having to acknowledge the deep complexity of the world around me and consider the idea that sometimes there are no good choices, only what must be done, or even more frustratingly what must *not* be done, what a dirty trick, making my brain do stuff! How dare they introduce a feeling of pathos and tragedy into art, exploring the full range of the human condition is not what expressive mediums are for, don’t try to lure me into feeling things! Inexcusable! I don’t want to dwell on the magnitude of Kirk’s sacrifice when I could be watching stuff blow up in HD CGI!
And that Edith Keeler, don’t get me started. The way she went on about a brighter, spacefaring future in which humanity finally sets aside its baser nature and begins fulfilling its true potential, geez, it’s like she’s one of those “sci-fi” nerds or something. She’s all optimistic and full of personality and stuff, pffft, that’s not cool. It’s like she represented the best in all of us, a sort of human incarnation of the whole Star Trek ethos, a reminder that a single person can make all the difference, no matter how obscure their place in the grand scheme of things. How lame, amirite? How would Kirk ever fall in love with someone like that? I mean, she didn’t even know kung-fu or how to assemble a sniper rifle. It’s like her character made sense given the time and place she was from and this made her seem like a real person you can relate to and feel for, making her death all the more impactful. Stooopid.
And why didn’t Kirk just take Edith with him to the future? I mean, I know it’s stated directly in the text of the episode that he can’t and thus it’s actually not an option, but still, I mean, like, come on!

Ok, I’ve hit my facetiousness quota for the year, I’ll stop, I just couldn’t resist. But in all seriousness, I’d like to point out one of the things that for me makes the ending of COTEOF so profoundly well done. When Kirk, Spock, and McCoy finally cross paths there’s a moment of genuine elation that is played to perfection. The actors actually look like they’re stoked to see each other, and they hug in that sloppy kind of uncoordinated way people do when their emotions momentarily take over. Even Spock gets wrapped up in it for the briefest of seconds. And, of course, Edith notices too, which is why she begins to cross the street. So in essence, the pure joy of their reunion is the very catalyst of Edith’s death. Part of Kirk’s agony must be the dawning realization of this paradox: without their presence Edith might never have died, so in effect Kirk and co killed her, not simply by allowing her to get run over in an accident, but by intruding into her life to begin with. It was Kirk’s love that killed Edith. And the emotional whiplash of going from that joyous reunion to brutal grief is just so powerful.

I also don’t have a big issue with the history-altering power of Edith’s peace movement. If she managed to instill a more isolationist/pacifist tenor to US politics it’s conceivable that the oil embargo imposed on Japan is never implemented, thus Pearl Harbor most likely doesn’t happen, the US and Japan don’t go to war, Japan is then free to move into USSR territory in Asia, particularly in the wake of operation Barbarossa, facing a war on two fronts the USSR collapses, Germany is able to consolidate its gains and direct better resources to weapons development such as nuclear armaments, the forces of darkness dominate the world, the curtain falls.

Anyway, great, great episode. Certainly one of the best.

I think Joan Collins was miscast as Edith Keeler.

I meant to elaborate further on my statement yesterday and did not. I apologize for that. I am one of the viewers who saw Star Trek TOS when it originally aired. I have seen The City on the Edge of Forever many times. While I think it is a good episode, it is not the best in my opinion.

Re the reasons why I believe Joan Collins was miscast.

Kirk and Spock are the only ones who appear to be impressed with her speech, and I'm not so sure Kirk is really all that impressed. Even when he tells Spock that he finds her uncommon, I saw Spock's reaction as dubious. Kirk has demonstrated himself to be a ladies' man by this time, so Spock's reaction is not surprising.

As Edith Keeler, Joan Collins never demonstrates even a spark of the greatness it would take to establish the peace movement and be able to change a President's mind about delaying entry into the war. She spends most of her time in the soup kitchen, trying to figure out the mystery behind Kirk and Spock, or dating Kirk.

Kirk may have been charmed by the British accent but in my opinion, this is just one more thing that goes against Joan Collins' portrayal of Edith Keeler. I think her accent might be more off putting than uplifting.

The question has come up as to why Kirk simply didn't take her with him into the future rather than let her die. I have to admit, this is something that never occurred to me. Kirk, to me, doesn't have that in him, so that would never be something he would seriously consider.

Does anyone wonder if Edith Keeler really loved him?

The episode has some flaws, as pointed out. However, one of the flaws I didn't see mentioned was Kirk's involvement with Edith Keeler in the first place. He and Spock talk about whatever it was that McCoy did to save her, but neither one acts as though their own actions might have an impact on the timeline.

I also found the original auto accident could not be recreated because apparently Edith Keeler was alone at the time. Kirk was not there for her to go to the movies with and there was no McCoy to pull her to safety. So for the Guardian to proclaim, "all is as it was before" makes no sense.

Kirk's affect after he comes back through the Guardian with Spock is also strange to me. McCoy returns moments later, and Spock declares they were successful. I don't know about anyone else, but I got the impression Kirk was near to tears and the rest of the landing party had no idea what happened. If all is as it was, the memory of the entire incident would have been blotted out as it never happened. Kirk would have returned to his usual self. One wonders why the Guardian didn't immediately return them the moment Keeler was hit instead of showing Kirk off by himself, grieving.

Did anyone wonder why none of them went to check and make sure she was really dead?

The last thing that I found unusual was the volume of cordrazine McCoy brings with him up to the bridge. The ship was experiencing displacement due to the time ripples, so there's the issue of instability. According to McCoy, it only takes a few drops of the drug, yet he packs a hypo. Finally, it's a tricky drug, so why not take the precaution of capping the hypo and storing it prevent an accidental overdose? Seems as though McCoy should have been brought up on charges for this mishap.

@ Linda,

The entire incident is a temporal causality loop.

Regarding Collins' portrayal, it's hard to imagine anyone saying anything that would make you believe they could change the world just by how they say a single speech. You may be setting the bar far higher than it actually is in real life.

@Peter

"The entire incident is a temporal causality loop."

I agree, the incident in New York is a temporal causality loop. If I'm understanding that correctly, then Kirk should not have any memory of Edith, not even a deja vu.

Re Keeler's speech, I wasn't stating anyone could change the world just by a single speech. To me, it's ridiculous that Kirk and Spock would even credit her with gifted insight to begin with.

That said, I would have liked to have seen some kind of spark in the woman that would make their praise of her credible, so that when the news article suddenly appears, views could connect the spark with the fame. I also could have done without the British accent. It didn't bother me as a kid watching the program, but watching it now, it makes her sound like a British citizen and that is off putting.

@ Winnie,

"I agree, the incident in New York is a temporal causality loop. If I'm understanding that correctly, then Kirk should not have any memory of Edith, not even a deja vu."

Well what I meant was that Edith always had died because of her encounter with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. That they had to mess up history, then go back and fix it, because that's how it had always happened.

The other potential temporal loop would be that there was an original incident that didn't involve Kirk et al, but that in fixing it once they locked in a new pattern, forming a temporal loop that would now repeat ad infinitum.

Between these two there's no way to know which one it would be, because if you go back in iterations to infinity you either keep going, or else finally get to a "before" scenario that was different, but either way you can't actually do that.

@Peter
I see what you mean and thank you for the explanation. I was thinking that the New York incident was an alternate time loop, and as it was corrected, Kirk would have no memory once the Guardian deposited them back on its planet.

At the end of the episode, the Guardian tells them that all is as it was, and then it continues with, "Many such journeys are possible. Let me be your gateway".

This statement seems very unusual to me, an entity telling people, or aliens for that matter, that they can go back in time and change whatever, cause alternate timelines, or even loops in time. All they have to do is use the portal. This seems like a terrible and horrific risk this donut places on anyone who comes in contact with it. That cannot be its true purpose.

We see Kirk making a log entry when there is no reason to do so. Furthermore, instead of being concerned about McCoy's welfare, he's wrapped up in fixing whatever it was McCoy did.

It was not the Guardian who said McCoy changed time. It was Kirk. Perhaps the events we see are the Guardian's way of letting itself be "their gateway". The series of incidents Spock and Kirk, and even McCoy go through seem to be logical and successful, despite the backward time and place. Kirk and Spock even manage to find clothes that fit. McCoy remains in his uniform the whole time and is hardly noticed.

As for Edith Keeler, maybe she, and the alternate time line, never really existed.

I am inclined to agree with Tidd, winnie, and Linda (tangential thought: Are winnie and Linda the same person?) that Joan Collins was not the best actress for the role, even though it's now hard for me to imagine the episode with anyone else.

She plays the relationship with Kirk convincingly, but I agree that as a charismatic leader who could affect decisions on an international scale, she falls short. That's perhaps not surprising if it really is true, as Harlan Ellison claimed, that she later referred to the character as "Hitler's girlfriend." Such a complete misunderstanding of the character would make it impossible for her to play Edith Keeler accurately. She played her as a pretty woman who was attracted to men who exuded an aura of power. It made sense that such a woman would fall as easily for Kirk as for Hitler and go off to a Clark Gable movie on her night off from the soup kitchen.

It doesn't make sense that she would have single-handedly convinced the United States to stay out of WWII until it was too late to stop Hitler, just a few years later. Maybe she thought she was supposed to be some sort of German secret agent deliberately holding back the US from fighting Germany, but she doesn't come across as that, either, at least to me. She doesn't have that "spark."

If she wasn't miscast, then she was perhaps misdirected.

I have always found something especially poignant in two of Uhura's few lines:

"Captain, I'm frightened," spoken not like a weak damsel in distress screaming as she awaits rescue from some hero, but like a strong, brave officer surprised at her own fear in the face of an unimaginable existential threat, the loss of all she has known.

And "Good luck, Captain. Happiness, at least," as Kirk and Spock walk off into a certain past that offers a decidedly uncertain future for them all. If none of them can ever get their present back, perhaps they can each still find some fulfilling future or another … in the past. She recognizes, more than Kirk is willing to, that failure actually IS an option.

Trish,
Yes winnie and Linda are the same person. I was on a different computer and screwed up. My intent was to go with the name winnie, no matter which computer I happened to be using. I am sorry about that.

With regard to your comments about Uhura, I agree. I also wonder how different the episode would have been had Uhura and Scotty gone back in time.

I know it wouldn't be the same but could it have been every bit the classic that this episode has become?

@Winnie

I think Uhura and Scotty going through the Guardian could be a great story for a novel!

Realistically, I suspect it would have been unthinkable in the series, because they simply were not the stars of the show, and TOS wasn't as much of an ensemble operation as some of the later Treks, in which one episode might focus on one character and the next episode on another. If the story in this episode of this series was going to be primarily about what happened in the past, then at the very least Kirk was absolutely going to go, and probably with Spock, very likely with McCoy, or else the plot would have been intercutting almost equally between whatever time Kirk was in and whatever time Spock was in, with McCoy accompanying one or the other, as in "All Our Yesterdays." (The latter comes close to being a Spock and McCoy episode, but Kirk gets a lot of screentime, too.)

@Trish

Yes, the powers that be found a way to incorporate Spock and Kirk into the episode, and you're right. They're the stars. But I don't see either character making a lot of sense in view of how serious the situation is, if it is really all that serious.

Other than earning money to buy tubes and romancing Keeler, Kirk is useless. Spock is very useful, but he is also an alien, so his presence in 1930 is a precarious one.

Both Uhura and Scotty have the knowledge and skill to alter the transporter and the two of them are the best resource for working together and saving McCoy. I don't think it would have made a bad story for Star Trek either, maybe it would be have been one of the greats.

However, I'm still not convinced that the Guardian was really able to change time, or if this was just some kind of elaborate entertainment that posed no real danger to begin with.

Kirk sweats it out, knowing Keeler's going to die, but other than that, he's doesn't seem concerned that time really is going to be restored so that everything is as it was.

@Winnie

I am intrigued by your theory that maybe the Guardian is not really a gateway through time, and may possibly even be simply an extinct culture's entertainment technology. Sort of a holodeck for history buffs.

However, I'm not clear on how that fits with the disappearance of the Enterprise as soon as McCoy goes in and does … whatever it is that McCoy does. The Guardian says, "Your vessel, your beginning, all that you knew is gone."

Even if we say the Guardian was lying, or meant something more like, "Forget your troubles and enjoy your trip through the Gateway," the ship is not there for them to contact.

@Trish
"However, I'm not clear on how that fits with the disappearance of the Enterprise as soon as McCoy goes in and does … whatever it is that McCoy does. The Guardian says, "Your vessel, your beginning, all that you knew is gone.""

I have thought about this, because it does seem to indicate that McCoy actually changed time. But then I was thinking, there have been times when powerful aliens snatched crew members, and as a result, they lost contact with the Enterprise. In those instances, the kidnapped crew members had no idea if they were even going to see the Enterprise again, or if the aliens had destroyed it. Sometimes the aliens confided to Kirk that his ship and crew were fine, other times they never mentioned it.

Could the Guardian "lie"? It wasn't real forthcoming when Kirk asked if it was a machine or being.

It also makes a strange statement at the end of the episode:

"Many such journeys are possible. Let me be your gateway."

It this isn't some kind of entertainment, I wonder why the Guardian would offer such a journey.

For what it's worth, there would be no way to distinguish any of the following cases as an individual observer:

1) The Guardian puts you in a holodeck that follows all the normal rules of the universe (Inception problem)
2) The Guardian allows you to change history in your 'prime' timeline
3) The Guardian transports you to another universe (Sliders)
4) The Guardian is actually not doing anything other than following some predestined procedure

I don't see how there could be any way of us, the viewers, distinguishing between these meaningfully. The story expects us to understand #2 has happened, but it doesn't precisely matter IMO if it's one of the others for the purposes of the story's impact.

@Peter G.
Are you saying then, that we shouldn't discuss then because everyone should have the same understanding of the episode?

@Trish
"That's perhaps not surprising if it really is true, as Harlan Ellison claimed, that she later referred to the character as "Hitler's girlfriend." Such a complete misunderstanding of the character would make it impossible for her to play Edith Keeler accurately. She played her as a pretty woman who was attracted to men who exuded an aura of power. It made sense that such a woman would fall as easily for Kirk as for Hitler and go off to a Clark Gable movie on her night off from the soup kitchen."

I meant to comment on this fascinating paragraph. In Patterns of Force, Nazism is once again revisited, with the thought that because of Hitler, Germany rose from a tiny country to being a step from world domination. The episode goes on to ask could Germany have been run benignly and accomplished its efficiency?

Maybe Joan Collins had it right. The newspaper article states the time period was 1936, prior to WW2. Could Edith have been working on Hitler at the same time she was conferring with FDR?

From the perspective of the episode, I do think Edith Keeler would have found Hitler much more compelling than her out of work-not going anywhere young man.

I don't believe that's what I'm saying. What I was doing was conveying my own input to the discussion. That input was to say that multiple theoretical readings are mostl likely concordant with what we see onscreen. It neither validates nor invalidates your theory. Although I suppose my remark also suggests that while plausible (and as Trish says, interesting), I'm not sure there's anything to give more weight to the one possibility than the others.

Thanks for the explanation. I was confused by the way the last sentence was worded. I appreciate the clarification.

@Winnie @Peter G.

I think what some of this may come down to is different styles of literary interpretation. Is the meaning of a work of art fundamentally what the artist was communicating, or fundamentally what each individual viewer perceives in it?

I don't think there is a single absolutely correct answer to that question that completely excludes the other from discussion. On the one hand, some of what makes art so powerful is that it sometimes says more than the artist intended to communicate, at least at a conscious level. On the other hand, I must say that as a writer myself (though at least so far not a screenwriter), I think that the intent of the artist deserves a great deal of respect, and that the "reader response" approach tends to lead to more profound insights when it accepts some level of accountability to "artist intent."

Harlan Ellison was very adamant that Edith Keeler was not Hitler's girlfriend. She just wasn't. I take that as canon, because he's the one who created her. While I think that interesting artistic insights beyond anything Ellison consciously encoded in the story can be reached by asking "But what if she had been?", I would consider these insights sort of at the level of "fanfic," playing with the stories and characters with our own imagination, which can be an art form of its own, but not at a level I would be comfortable saying either the characters or the story "really are."

in the final analysis, I believe that if fanfic (and literary interpretation that borders on becoming fanfic) is not to drift so far off from its origins in the canonical material that it passes a tipping point at which it becomes less rather than more meaningful, it needs to be held accountable to the "canonical" material.

I share Peter G's sense that we are intended to understand the Guardian of Forever as being a gateway into other times and places, through which people can pass and can even do things that might change the time to which they return. I don't think we are told why the creators of the Guardian thought it was a good idea to make such "journeys" possible. For all we know, maybe it turned out to be a terribly bad idea that eventually destroyed their civilization.

If it were merely displaying illusions like a very advanced holodeck, I would think that it might be possible for its purpose to be entertainment, but I do not find that hypothesis as likely when interpreting it as actual time travel. While it is interesting for us to ask why it was made and why there were no "safety rails" to prevent exactly the kind of accident that occurred, the story is not about those questions. The story instead asks what we would be willing to sacrifice in order to have history play out in the way that led to the universe we know. Going back in time and killing Hitler would have been a less heartrending moral conundrum. Instead, we are asked if we would permit the preventable death of a very kind woman who sought only to do good, and further, if we would do so if we happened to have fallen in love with her.

Ellison, by the way, wanted the story to end with Kirk having to be restrained, instead of Kirk making the painful decision to restrain McCoy. He wanted Kirk to be willing to throw away the universe for the love of one woman, and all his life he resented that Roddenberry overruled his artistic vision. However, I accept Roddenberry's version as the canonical view to which even Ellison's "What if" needs to be accountable, not just because it's the version that ended up going out over the airwaves, but because while Ellison created this episode's story and created Edith Keeler, Roddenberry created Kirk, and the Kirk he created would not have thrown his perceived duty to the universe aside for love. It ripped his heart out to have to choose, but his choice was a foregone conclusion, as the person Roddenberry had created.

Just as I see the Guardian as something more than a fancy holodeck showing its users "what would have happened if …" but a gateway to a history that can be but should not be changed, after I've played with the "what if" scenarios in the episode, I land on an interpretation that feels, to me, consistent with what I accept as canon.

"I think what some of this may come down to is different styles of literary interpretation. Is the meaning of a work of art fundamentally what the artist was communicating, or fundamentally what each individual viewer perceives in it?"
I just want to chime in here and say that the decision between authorial intent and "death of the author" (audience perception) is often not really there. For the vast majority of art we have no idea what the intent of the artist really was.
We all were forced to write essays about books because the teachers had their fixed idea what this or that book meant. I was always suspicious about that. How did they know what the author really had in her/his heart when writing something. Even if an author revealed what a work of art meant, does the artist always perfectly understand what she/he creates?? So interpret away. In the end it's, as in many things, about how convincing you are.

(Sorry, I'm not sure what my point was. Maybe I'm just rambling:)

@ Booming,

I think that *can* be true, but isn't always. Often in text analysis we will see that a well-considered work, or that of a great writer (or master) will have details scattered throughout that relate to unstated concepts in the author's mind, and if you don't actually solve the puzzle of their intent those lines cannot be understood and will not even make sense to the actors. A very obvious example of this is any Shakespeare study, but I have had the same experience in other plays, in screenplays, and teleplays. When doing the analysis detective work you can find clues or even Rosetta stones that really do reveal the author's intent. If the piece has a sort of consistent integrity, you will need that knowledge to figure out how to play the lines. In a piece of lower quality or haphazard writing this is obviously not really possible, and so, yes, you'd just interpret it however you see fit. If it's a TV show the most likely result won't even be 'interpretation' but just having the actors do their thing and make the line readings fairly to the point and without nuance and move the story along.

@Peter
Sure. I agree. Many works have certain messages that are clear but I would still argue that what matters more is audience perception(death of the author) and not authorial intent.
A few examples out of my head
Matrix or more specifically "red pilled". The actual authorial intent of the movie is an allegory for transitioning and the red pill is red because the pill you got often during the 90s for hormone replacement was actually red. Still, these days the red pill metaphor has been adopted by the manosphere and hard right people who often are very transphobic. Isn't there some bitter irony there?!

Another would be Gene Roddenberry clearly stating that there is no money in Star Trek and still people argue that it is still somehow capitalist without actual capital.

These are extreme examples but in my opinion the audience perception trumps over authorial intent almost always. So how important is authorial intent outside of liberal art colleges really? I guess mastery would be if authorial intent leads the audience to certain conclusions. Still...

@Booming

Where do you come down on the "death of the author" approach to literary interpretation in a case like this when an author has actually explicitly commented on his or her own work? I know that to some, "authorial intent" does not matter at all even when it is known.

As I said above, I am not in that camp. I think that awareness of authorial intent has the potential to deepen the meaning found by way of audience response, and that it is a mistake to take it out of the equation.

We may not always have the benefit of recorded interviews to tell us what an author intended, but sometimes a bit of historical background can give us a pretty good idea of some things an author DIDN'T intend. Do you think such background matters, or do you see it as a tangent that distracts from rather than contributes to literary interpretation?

@ Trish and Booming,

The classic example is Ray Bradbury, who not only explicitly says that Fahrenheit 451 is about population illiteracy, but who repeatedly had people (in lectures no less) tell him to his face that he's wrong. In this case we face a peculiar phenomenon, which is the author quite possibly making construction errors in the pieces and creating unintended results. That, in my opinion, renders the piece short of being a masterwork because there are flaws, either in design or in execution.

In visual media the problem becomes exponentially worse when the director and actors come into it. Not only can the author make writing errors, but additionally the director or actors can fail to pick up on 'obvious' cues and simply mis-represent what the text implies. This creates an overlay over the text that is at odds with it, creating a conflicted final product. We can see this exact thing happen in TNG's A Matter of Perspective, and in others besides. So it's not just a question of whether the audience is right or not, but rather to observe that their reactions often illustrate failures in acting/directing (or in writing) and serve to highlight weaknesses rather than intents in production.

@Trish
"Harlan Ellison was very adamant that Edith Keeler was not Hitler's girlfriend. She just wasn't. I take that as canon, because he's the one who created her. While I think that interesting artistic insights beyond anything Ellison consciously encoded in the story can be reached by asking "But what if she had been?", I would consider these insights sort of at the level of "fanfic," playing with the stories and characters with our own imagination, which can be an art form of its own, but not at a level I would be comfortable saying either the characters or the story "really are."


I don't look at the Guardian of Forever as some kind of specialized alien holodeck. I never did. I don't think there's any explanation for what this Guardian does.

If Joan Collins viewed Edith Keeler as a potential girlfriend of Hitler's, that is a complete diversion from a sweet love story between Kirk and Keeler.

I'm speculating here, but if Edith Keeler got the U.S. to delay entry into the war, she would have to have Hitler's buy in as well. Viewers would not be expected to believe Keeler's good looks, would have been enough to delay the U.S.'s entry into WWII.

You've labeled what you call "my insights" as fanfiction. I'd be interested in reading your insights. For instance, what do you consider "canon" with regard to the story?

It's an interesting point that Keeler might not be convincing as someone who could launch a history-altering pacifist campaign.

I think that Harlan Ellison's intent is not something I take as the sole arbiter of the final version of the story, given that we already know that Roddenberry vetoed the original version of the story -- not just the ending, but also Ellison's draft had a kind of drug-using underbelly on the Enterprise, IIRC. I don't think that actors are the sole arbiters of their characters, either, but I do think that Collins' take on the character does matter in terms of what got on screen. I think that in a multi-artist work it is worth considering many people involved in the production as part of the creative process.

I personally never got the impression that Keeler wasn't sincere about longing for peace, however, or that she was particularly attracted to commanding men. I think that she did respond to Kirk but more to his idealism, his otherworldliness. I haven't watched the episode in about a decade, but much of what I remember most clearly is her conversations with Kirk about the future and her being taken by Kirk and Spock's bond -- and I thought that what she remarked on was the very un-20th century selflessness of the devotion the two showed each other. Maybe she could have been into a read of Kirk/Spock as a power dynamic, with Spock devoted to Kirk as a charismatic leader, but I don't really buy that. If Collins did believe that Keeler was "Hitler's girlfriend" I personally never saw that in her performance.

Taken from the transcript, The City on the Edge of Forever. This is a portion Edith Keeler's speech that Kirk was so interested in

"Now, let's start by getting one thing straight. I'm not a do-gooder. If you're a bum, if you can't break off of the booze or whatever it is that makes you a bad risk, then get out.

Now I don't pretend to tell you how to find happiness and love when every day is just a struggle to survive, but I do insist that you do survive because the days and the years ahead are worth living for. One day soon man is going to be able to harness incredible energies, maybe even the atom.

Energies that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in some sort of spaceship. And the men that reach out into space will be able to find ways to feed the hungry millions of the world and to cure their diseases. They will be able to find a way to give each man hope and a common future, and those are the days worth living for. Our deserts will bloom....."

This sounds more like the speech of a fighter, not a pacifist.

The way I personally read that speech is that Keeler is aware that some of her audience roll their eyes and consider her a sermonizing do-gooder -- and we know this to be true, because immediately before she starts that speech one of the people in the room says that to Kirk. I think she intended the sentence about "get out if you can't quit the booze" is a tough-love pill as a prelude to her most important point, which is that she "insist[s] that [they] survive." By the end of the speech she is actively describing a world that can give "each man hope and a common future," rather than a world with divisions. I think she *is* a fighter, but I think she sees the enemy as more abstract -- despair, hopelessness -- rather than any other person.

I was thinking that maybe instead of the fighter/pacifist axis it would be more appropriate to place her on the active/passive axis. She not only dreams of a better future, and hopes for it as a shiftless dreamer, but actively tries to make that future a reality and believes in it as if it was a real solid thing. She acts in accordance with this belief, which is why she isn't a do-gooder, but sees herself as part of the inevitable change. It is more like observing a fact rather than expressing a sentiment, which is why she isn't a do-gooder. And I think the expression 'do-gooder' also implies she's sort of a chump, doing good but in a way that doesn't matter and that people take advantage of. I doubt the guy who said that to Kirk resents getting freebies, but he might resent the idea that someone deludes themselves into thinking that anything will ever change. Keeler believes it will and so isn't a chump but rather a visionary. What Kirk sees in her may look funny to someone who sees no hope, but apparently will look a lot more like a reality when someone important notices her and gives her a soapbox. The notion that foreseeing the future Federation ideals makes her Hitler's girlfriend is an outrageous misunderstanding (if that's on Collins' part, then so be it). But what TOS does make clear is that things must get much worse before they get much better, and that Earth circa 1930 (or 1966) wasn't ready for peace. The tragedy isn't just that Kirk has to let a girlfriend die, but that Earth must let peace die, until it's ready for it post-WWIII. Keeler's message is both correct and out of its proper time. That is very sad, and even more sad that if people had listened to her it would have destroyed everything (according to the Guardian).

I still see Keeler's speech as coming from a woman who is basically a fighter. One reason I think this is Kirk and Spock's reaction to her speech. Neither one of them makes a comment at that time that this uncommon woman believes above all else that peace is the way. Instead they comment about her insight when she speaks of man's going to other worlds in some sort of spaceship.

Right, ok. I mean "fighter" and "pacifist" when taken side by side would usually connote violence and non-violence, rather than action and inaction. But if what you mean is "action" then I agree.

I wonder at Edith's meaning when she lectures about survival. Some of these men are going to ensure their survival, or that of their families, at any cost. That might include violence. If she's looking at survival as a path to peace in the future, it would have been wise to caveat her lecture and condone peace. She never does.

Spock sees men fixing clocks and decides he needs their tools in order to tap into the tricorder. He breaks into the mission safe and steals the tools. That theft is an act of violence. Those tools are quite possibly the mens' means of survival. They may have families to feed too.

Edith confronts Spock, justifiably angry at the theft. She doesn't fall for his statement that they would be returned in the morning, and really doesn't fall for Kirk's statement either unless he walks her home. Granted this was an excuse for her to probe Kirk with questions, but Edith just gave a lecture that very day about survival, yet doesn't seem to see Spock's use of the tools as a potential way of survival. Even when she asks Kirk if he was in the war, she still doesn't take the opportunity to talk about how peace figures into the future.

By the way, I always wondered how Edith found out so quickly that it was Spock who took the tools.

@Winnie

I wonder, does it count as "falling" for a claim if that claim is actually true? I generally hear "fall" as implying that one has been deceived. But we, as the viewer, know Spock, and I think we have strong reason to believe, as Kirk says, that if Spock says the tools would have been back in their place by morning (and therefore that their theft would not have done violence to the rightful owners), then those tools would be back in their place by morning. If Edith does decide to believe the claim, she is not deceived. She may be naive and simply happened to hit it right by luck this time, but I think we are meant to perceive that she is discerning. She has learned to size people up quickly, and is good at knowing which ones to trust. Perhaps she even has a pretty good guess, even without knowing the details, that Spock's "radio work" is more important than a "hobby."

By the way, I have always interpreted it that her knowledge of Spock's "hobby" gave her cause to connect the missing tools with him.

Regarding the question of what I personally consider "canonical," in the context of Star Trek episodes, I think that can be a bit more complex than it is with, for example, a novel.

I have been a freelance book editor, but it was my clients who had the final decision of whether to make the changes I suggested or not, so nothing I marked on the manuscript was in itself canonical. It only became so if that was what was ultimately offered to readers. The publisher was thus the final arbiter of canonicity.

For some projects I worked on, the author and the publisher were the same entity, but for some they were not. Of the latter, some publishers deferred more to the author than others. But when push came to shove, the book that ended up in the reader's hands was what came off the press after it had passed through many hands, including the author's and mine. It was this final result that I would have considered an interpreter ultimately accountable to. Not that the reader is by any means obliged to agree with the book, but that in interpreting it, they must be transparent about when they are interpreting what they think the book says, and when they are interpreting what they themselves think about what the book has said, including how they might have written the book differently, had it been their book to write.

Those are both ways of interpreting books, but they are different. To acknowledge a distinction between what the book says and what oneself says about the book is a way of maintaining boundaries that respect both oneself as the reader and the one(s) who created the book. It keeps either one from overruling the autonomy of the other. I think it also keeps the interpreter honest by stopping them short of appropriating the book as if they themselves had written it. If a book can "mean" anything that any reader decides that it means, then there may as well not be a book; the reader could just go straight to their own self-expression, unmediated by the self-expression of another.

A performance, however, is not just a script to be read like a book. The contributions of the "many hands" through which it passes on the way to the viewer have a more complex balance. I would say that "canon" in that context is based on "intent of the storyteller," and the "storyteller" is a corporate entity made up in various degrees by the people who contributed to what is ultimately presented to the viewer. It is interesting that the term "writer" is more commonly used than "author" to refer to those who compose the text of screenplays, perhaps because authorship is such a complex phenomenon in this context. There may be, for example, one person who proposed the story summarized in a couple of paragraphs, another who wrote the first version of the script, two or three more who rewrote it, a producer who approved the final script, and a director who worked out the practicalities of bringing it to life onscreen. Beyond that, there are the actors who do make some contribution (but, I would argue, usually less than those closer to the writing end of the chain, for, as a common saying goes, "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage."). There are also the (usually) unsung heroes of the storytelling process, such as sound editors, makeup artists, set designers, etc. All of these are part of the corporate "storyteller" entity that is the final arbiter of canonicity. It is the final product they have all worked together to create which is canonical.

It's in the context of that complicated process that I would say Ellison's perceptions of the characters is canonical, except where it contradicts what Roddenberry made the final decision to put on the screen. Sources like recorded interviews with the writer and early drafts of the script can help us know the intent of the storyteller, but the screen trumps all.

A fairly trivial example from Next Generation: I have read some novels (which are not considered "canonical," even if published under a valid license, and which in fact often contradict one another) that refer to Commander Data having "lime green" skin. This always strikes me as authors showing off that they know the color of Brent Spiner's makeup. However, I have always found it a jarring distraction from the story when they mention this, because I consider the canonical color of Data's skin to be what it appears to be on camera, a very light gray. By the time the image reaches the viewer, Brent Spiner's makeup does not happen to look the same as Data's skin, and, somewhat paradoxically, Brent Spiner does not exist in Star Trek. It is Data I want to read about within a Star Trek novel.

@Winnie

I wonder, does it count as "falling" for a claim if that claim is actually true? I generally hear "fall" as implying that one has been deceived. But we, as the viewer, know Spock, and I think we have strong reason to believe, as Kirk says, that if Spock says the tools would have been back in their place by morning (and therefore that their theft would not have done violence to the rightful owners), then those tools would be back in their place by morning. If Edith does decide to believe the claim, she is not deceived. She may be naive and simply happened to hit it right by luck this time, but I think we are meant to perceive that she is discerning. She has learned to size people up quickly, and is good at knowing which ones to trust. Perhaps she even has a pretty good guess, even without knowing the details, that Spock's "radio work" is more important than a "hobby."

I agree that Edith is discerning, but I don't think she trusts either Spock or Kirk. To her, stealing is stealing, no question about it. The act can be softened a bit because we know Spock to be trustworthy and he would have returned the tools. However, Edith doesn't know that, and while the rightful owners have their tools, damage has still been done. That damage is to Edith. She was entrusted with keeping them safe and that trust has been violated. This scene shows me trust means much more to Edith and not so much to Spock. I think it's important that Spock never expresses any regret for what he's done.

As for Kirk, he's already admitted to Edith that they stole their clothes. She knows these two have a deep connection, so would she really trust Kirk's word? The line she uses to get Spock off the hook is a corny one and I think she would have let Spock off even if Kirk didn't walk her home.

Edith has dealt with many different kinds of men in her mission. No doubt the survival speech has repeated itself many times. I think she let Spock off because she believed that the theft was done to ensure some kind of survival. Whatever he's doing, she hasn't a clue, but if he has to do work to accomplish it, so be it. It's the very thing both of them hold to so firmly.

Stanley Kenner wrote on Tue, Feb 20, 2018:
"The obvious has not been mentioned. When Kirk, Spok and Macoy returned to the present, everything was as before. Their uniforms, equipment and memories. They had no recollection of what happened in the past. Spok first looked shocked when he returned to the present. Then he saw Macoy return which caused him to use logic by stating “We were successful”. Had they not been successful the three would not have returned.

All Kirk and Spok remembered was jumping to try and land in the1930’s to stop Macoy and landing back where they started. In this way, in the words of the Guardian, “Time has regained its shape. Everything is as it was before”. This would include the memories held by Kirk, Spok and Macoy."

This is correct. The pause at the episode and the camera panning on the actors' faces always seemed to me to indicate Kirk, Spock, and McCoy DID remember Edith Keeler. It seemed further enhanced by Scotty's question to Kirk, asking what happened, and Spock answering instead because Kirk was sad, unable to respond.

That would not make sense, if, as the Guardian stated, time had resumed its shape and all "is as it was before".

I've always had an issue with the ending and wondered how time could be back to its former shape if all three crewmen remembered what happened. In the reality of the episode, there were no memories of Edith Keeler. There's no indication Kirk was sad over Edith's death, in fact, there's no indication he was sad at all. There's nothing that points to Spock or McCoy remembering anything. As for the pause and Spock answering the question Scotty asked of Kirk......Star Trek is full of pauses and Spock has often answered for Kirk.

I believe it makes the episode better. It's as it should be.

Ok, sorry again that it took me so long. Had a few hellish weeks.

@Trish
"Where do you come down on the "death of the author" approach to literary interpretation in a case like this when an author has actually explicitly commented on his or her own work?"
hmmm I guess it depends. To give two extreme examples. "The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan" this was the book that was adapted into "A Birth of a Nation". The author of that book wrote:"I have sought to preserve in this romance both the letter and the spirit of this remarkable period. The men who enact the drama of fierce revenge into which I have woven a double love-story are historical figures. I have merely changed their names without taking a liberty with any essential historic fact." So in this case we have several explicit comments about the meaning of the book. The author believed that the book didn't vilify black people or legitimized and glorified violence against them. He also believed that it portrayed the Ku Klux Klan accurately.

Of course, anybody with a little bit of historical knowledge will know that this book is anything but historical and extremely racist. Would you say that the view of the author in this case has any value besides highlighting his warped view of reality?

In general, this example perfectly highlights that authors themselves often don't know what they have created and what it means or how the perception of it will change over time.
Can we expect that an author understands perfectly what her/his brain creates? There might be some authors who have a good understanding of the influences that formed them in general and the specific forces that made them create a work of art. For those authors commentary can certainly be enlightening.

Case and point. Tolkien.
So Tolkien always argued against seeing modern analogies in his works. For example, in Lord of the Rings/Hobbit there is the West (good) East (evil) divide. Tolkien stated (Taken from wikipedia; I'm not doing real research for this?!:)
"The goodness of the West and the badness of the East has no modern reference. The concept came about through the necessities of narrative."
Then there is the fact that the good people are generally white and the bad people are non-white.
Tolkien on this again refused to accept allegories and argued that in real life settings for example Orcs, as a representation of a certain character, are on both sides.
Still, I think most of us would agree that some real world prejudice found it's way into Tolkien's works, even though he was openly anti-racist.

About the situation in South Africa he wrote to his son. "As for what you say or hint of 'local' conditions: I knew of them. I don't think they have much changed (even for the worse). I used to hear them discussed by my mother; and have ever since taken a special interest in that part of the world. The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain & not only in South Africa. Unfort[unately] not many retain that generous sentiment for long."

So my view of "death of the author" is twofold. Personally, I find the viewpoint of some authors interesting but most of the time I don't know the view of the author or don't care about it and form my own opinion.

For the general public "death of the author" is the modus operandi. Apart from very dedicated fans, the vast majority of the audience doesn't know or care what the author thinks. They view or read something, make their interpretation and that is the end of it.

"Do you think such background matters, or do you see it as a tangent that distracts from rather than contributes to literary interpretation? "
I would maybe even go so far as to argue that the background of an author is more relevant than the opinions of that author. For example, Tolkien spent part of his childhood in rural England and he became an orphan at a young age. So Frodo, an orphan, starts and ends his voyage in an idealized version of rural England.

@Peter
I do not know the author Bradbury or the book but it seems that the author himself changed his view on what the book meant several times. What should we do in that case? What opinion is the definitive one? What if the view of the author about his own work changed because of the audience reaction?

"In this case we face a peculiar phenomenon, which is the author quite possibly making construction errors in the pieces and creating unintended results."
Can an author actually make mistakes or errors? Is it even possible to make error in a work of art? Is art not maybe a realm of Human experience in which only choices exist? Is there an erroneous and a correct way to make art?
Maybe you also meant the effectiveness of an author to get her/his points across. From my own research I know that most people only have a very limited understanding of the forces that actually drive them. Can we expect authors to be any different?

I guess, that is why people study literature and it has a certain allure right now. Sitting in a dusty library, surrounded by an endless amount of books, coming up with ideas what they mean. Completely closed off from the world. Doesn't seem so bad right now, does it? :)

To close this off, let's look at the example of the Room. A movie in which everything is perfect and wrong at the same time. Where the author/director completely failed to get his points across. Are these two little scenes ,among many others, a mistake or just such a giant disaster that they became transformative?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLhoDB-ORLQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIkoXhgtI58

Ps: I have done no proofreading.

@Booming

I think the examples you offer are a good illustration of the fact that literary interpretation is not about finding a meaning in a work that the interpreter can agree with. It is quite all right, and sometimes necessary, for a reader to disagree with an idea they perceive in a book, whether the book is fiction or nonfiction. The reader may or may not be accurate in their assessment of what the author was attempting to communicate, so their disagreement with the book may or may not be an actual disagreement with the author. It is also very often, indeed I would say almost always and inevitably, the case that the author communicates more about themselves than they realize or intend at the time of creation, and a reader's perception of these unintended self-revelations may also be accurate or inaccurate, agreed with or disagreed with.

I think in a full-fledged reader response/death of the author approach to literary interpretation, the text serves as little more than grist for the reader's own self-expression, and does not necessarily have much to do with (and, if this approach has been chosen explicitly does not have anything to do with) agreeing or disagreeing with the author. Any agreement or disagreement is with the meaning of the text, as the reader perceives it. This feels more abstract and less personal than disagreeing with the author.

If the reader has the sense of disagreeing with the author, then the author is not dead for them. The author (even if physically dead for centuries) is very much alive as an entity to be disagreed with. To get into issues such as what the author claimed the book was and was not about and what the circumstances of the author's life say about what it really was and was not about is to enshrine the author as an entity that lives as long as the work itself lives in the reader's thoughts.

When the author as an entity is fully extinguished, an interpretation can still be judged to be unsupported by the text, but it cannot be "wrong" in the sense of not being either what the author was trying to communicate or of not being consistent with the author's self-revelation (intended and unintended). By interacting with the book at this level, the reader can sometimes recognize things about their own beliefs and experiences. Essentially, the book is reading the reader, at least as much as the reader is reading the book.

If, on the other hand, the author "lives," then information outside the text becomes potentially relevant, because it assists in assessing the author's meaning (intended and unintended) as accurately as possible. The reader's reaction, including possible disagreement, is to the author, through the text, rather than to the text alone.

The more "real" the life of the author becomes to the reader, the more risk this interaction can entail. Not being familiar with the twentieth-century science fiction author Ray Bradbury, you have presumably never heard of "Bradbury's defense." The story goes (and I believe was told by Bradbury himself) that he once met a reader who informed him that a detail in one of his works was scientifically impossible. "So I hit him," Bradbury related. (I personally take no position on the historicity of this story. As I recall, I read it in Isaac Asimov's forward to one of his own works, as a warning to those who would nit-pick his science.)

It is interesting that in neither the dead-author nor live-author approaches does the text stand alone. I think it is also interesting to see how the two approaches usually are employed in some kind of admixture, rather than purely one or the other.

Another issue in live-author literary interpretation, distinct though rarely separate from the issue of whether one agrees or disagrees with what the author is perceived to have communicated, is whether one "approves" of the author in a broader sense. Some readers may not have a desire to make any judgment on this matter, but I think it is important to recognize that it exists as an interpretative option, in order to draw a healthy boundary between agreement with message and approval of person.

For example, a person who has spent a lifetime immersed in a culture of white supremacy is likely to have a reflexive tendency, when portraying nonhuman "races," to portray those fictional races in ways that reflect their own engrained racist beliefs, without necessarily speaking allegorically about literal racial groups in the real world. Rather, in attempting to personify good and evil, they portrayed someone that they and their consciously intended reader would feel comfortable with as good and those who were in some way "other" as evil. It is quite possible to disapprove of the racism that led the author to employ that particular literary device and still agree with the message the book may be communicating about good and evil. I believe many readers would disapprove of both Dixon's and Tolkien's engrained racism, yet agree with the messages they perceive in Tolkien while disagreeing with Dixon.

I also think that in some cases, mapping literary signals onto racial stereotypes is unproductive. Indeed, I think the symbolism may not always be even subconsciously related to race. I would argue this in the Star Wars use of light and dark. Even cowboy movies had the convention of good guys wearing white hats and bad guys wearing black hats, so the viewer could tell right away which was which. The "bad guys" did not generally have the qualities stereotypically applied to black people at the time (nor were they typically played by black actors). Rather, the black-hatted cattle rustler was the personification of evil, using all his cleverness to commit dastardly deeds against others, while the white-hatted cowboy was the personification of good, fighting against evil to maintain order and defend others from harm. I think a strong argument could be made that the black and white symbolism in this dichotomy was not rooted in race, but in the idea of the darkness of night being dangerous because you could lose your way and stumble, while the light of day shows you a safe path.

The live-author and dead-author interpretation methods can be applied to performed works as much as to books, even though the author/storyteller may be a corporate entity rather than simply one writer.

The issue of whether the author included unintended parts of him or herself into the work is interesting, and as artists this is always going to happen. Or at least, it's intended insofar as you want to put all of yourself into your work, it's just you can't explain how that will come out.

But I was mainly saying above is that there are two issues when reading a text, *especially* a screenplay or play, which are mean to be heard and seen as performed by actors. So the viewer doesn't merely observe what the author wrote, but how it is performed. So there are two levels to 'hearing' the words, that are really quite separate. I have, for instance, gone to lousy Shakespeare performances in the past just to 'hear' Shakespeare's words, more or less ignoring the acting 'choices' being made. Alternatively, it's possible to get focused on the performance and not pay much attention to the words.

Another axis, and the one I'd like to focus on, is the "comprehension" axis versus the "interpretation" axis. And then there's the "agreement" or viewer perspective axis, which is a third. You definitely need to inspect authorial intent to get as pure comprehension. You need to make sense of the literal lines, understand what they mean, and know why the script is constructed and ordered the way it is. This can be just to listen to it and 'get it', or it might involve detective work and looking at repeated motifs, word choices, and so forth. I go through this exercise all the time in plays, where if the actors (and consequently the viewers) don't know why a line was included or written that way it will be garbled beyond comprehension. And this is where there can be writing errors: the author wanted a line to show X, and really it doesn't. For it to achieve that it need a rewrite, which is why especially in TV there are so many rewrites. Even a director or producer can intervene and say we need to fix the script; they can bring in a script consultant or other writer to fix things. I myself have taken part of critically deconstructing plays, and certainly I pointed out elements that didn't work, needed re-organizing, etc. It happens all the time. So yes there are plenty of errors.

Where things get funny, and what I think Boomiing is talking about, is when a well-considered piece comes into contact with a reader, and now some joint operation is going on. The read has to (a) comprehend the literal text, (b) (hopefully) reflect on it, and (c) have some opinion about it. Your opinion is fine, but cannot precede comprehending the piece. I mean you can have a "I liked it" kind of opinion even if you didn't get it at all. But to opine on the messages and themes of the work really requires the ability to say you know what the lines and statements made in it mean. Getting things to mean specific things is more or less a necessity in performable material. Things get a little different in novels which are for reading only. There author's meaning behind certain lines still exists, but the need for it to make sense for an actor is absent, so you loose a level of complexity there. But at the same time a *well performed* script may illuminate details in the wording that you'd have missed if you had read it by yourself, but losing that level of complexity also takes away a powerful took to inform you about line meanings (if the performance is good).

*powerful TOOL, sorry

KIRK: Edith.
EDITH: Are you following me, sir?
KIRK: With ulterior motives. Does that please you?
EDITH: I hope it means (she stumbles on the step and Kirk catches her, while Spock watches.) Oh! How stupid! I've been up and down those stairs a thousand times. I could have broken my neck.
(Spock goes back into room 21 as she kisses Jim, and re-emerges when Kirk comes down the stairs again.)
SPOCK: Captain, I did not plan to eavesdrop.
KIRK: No, of course you didn't.
SPOCK: I must point out that when she stumbled, she might have died right there, had you not caught her.
KIRK: It's not yet time. McCoy isn't here.
SPOCK: We're not that sure of our facts. Who's to say when the exact time will come? Save her, do as your heart tells you to do, and millions will die who did not die before.

Spock notes Kirk's actions in saving Edith on the stairs, might have prevented her from dying. When Kirk counters, Spock asks the question, "Who's to say when the exact time will come?".

Spock read the newspaper article. He knows when the time will come. He knows that Edith's death is caused by a traffic accident. Yet he's questioning the newspaper article, which is not fiction, but a historical document in its own right.

I thought I'd mention this in view of the last few posts.

@ Winnie,

"Spock read the newspaper article. He knows when the time will come. He knows that Edith's death is caused by a traffic accident. Yet he's questioning the newspaper article, which is not fiction, but a historical document in its own right."

What Spock didn't know was whether they were involved in a causality loop (in which case everything must occur exactly as it always had) or whether by being there they have already altered history and have to repair it as best they can, by 'allowing' her to die in some accident. I take Spock's line to almost mean that they have to deliberately arrange somehow for her not to survive. And I think this is probably in keeping with Ellison's theme. The premise here is that time travelers want to ensure the best possible future for Earth, and instead of the usual "would you kill Hitler" trope they are faced with the opposite - would you kill a saint? Ellison's premise is that it's not clear at all that killing a bad guy ensures the best future. What if it's a good person? This episode at least seems to claim that fixing the timeline (i.e. ensuring the good future outcome) justifies allowing someone good to die. That's not the same as murdering them, but it's a trolley problem nonetheless. He's just turned it on its head.

@Winnie

Spock read the article, but the records he was accessing were fragmentary. I don't think there is any indication that he knew the date.

I know, it's very convenient for the plot that the part of the newspaper image that would be missing would be precisely the one with the date on it. But then, fiction is filled with such "conveniences."

@Peter G
"What Spock didn't know was whether they were involved in a causality loop (in which case everything must occur exactly as it always had) or whether by being there they have already altered history and have to repair it as best they can, by 'allowing' her to die in some accident."

I don't think so. Star Trek was not that sophisticated enough when it came to time traveling stories. Kirk and Spock come to an immediate conclusion that it was McCoy who changed the future. When they go back into the 1930s, they don't seem concerned about how their own actions might change time.

I just thought it was interesting that Spock questions an actual historical event that technically wouldn't subject to interpretation.

This is more than likely one of those author construction errors that you talked about earlier.

@Trish
"Spock read the article, but the records he was accessing were fragmentary. I don't think there is any indication that he knew the date.

I know, it's very convenient for the plot that the part of the newspaper image that would be missing would be precisely the one with the date on it. But then, fiction is filled with such "conveniences."

If this were Kirk or Uhura, or Scotty, I would tend to agree. As it's Spock, and their lives depend on knowing as much as they can know in order to save humanity, he would not miss the date. That said, it's an obituary, and the date is a moot point as it has no bearing on when McCoy stepped in to save her.

In the reality of the episode, the newspaper articles referencing Edith Keeler would never show up so easily and so quickly. The Guardian was flashing all kinds of history. As it's showing documents to go along with it, then there's millennium after millennium of written history to review. Even if Spock is able to accomplish such a feat, his stone knives and bearskins could not. Television tubes were not durable.

@Winnie

I'm not saying that Spock "missed" the date, but that it was not necessarily there in the material he had access to. It is shown to be rather fragmentary. I don't think that our view of his screen ever shows the part of the newspaper page with the date printed on it, so perhaps he never saw it, either. Even Spock can't take note of even a vital piece of information, if he can't see it.

And the date is the absolutely vital piece of information. If he possessed it, the episode would be wrapped up more easily, too easily.

Regarding the vacuum tubes, yes, Spock did have some bearskin limitations to deal with. But I think we have to assume that he, perhaps with the aid of his tricorder, is able to program more efficient search algorithms than Google has yet imagined. I'm willing to grant the episode his ability to dig out a record of the one event they needed to know about. But yes, it is extremely convenient.

@Peter G.

The role of the performers is part of what I mean by the idea of the storyteller as a "corporate entity" rather than a literal human individual, like the author of a book. When different parts of that entity are not on the same page, so to speak, the integrity of the work of art can be undermined.

I have written two (unpublished) novels, and I remember having the sense that a novelist operates as both the scriptwriter and all the actors, in that the words a novelist writes are what will bring the story to life for the reader, as if they were watching it. I was in the process of converting one of them into a screenplay when, unfortunately, they were lost in a fire, and during that process, I was struck by how in order to write the story as a script, I had to let go of some of the details from my novel to leave room for the director and actors to make their own contributions to bringing the story to life for a viewer.

@Trish
And the date is the absolutely vital piece of information. If he possessed it, the episode would be wrapped up more easily, too easily.

I'm curious. How would the date of Edith's death make the episode wrap up to easily?

Update
@Trish
"And the date is the absolutely vital piece of information. If he possessed it, the episode would be wrapped up more easily, too easily."

Just for the fun of it, I went into the internet to see if there was a picture of the newspaper article from Spock's tricorder. It turns out there is, and a replica of the newspaper can be purchased. Oddly enough, there is no date on the newspaper, only the year.

The newspaper apparently was printed the same day that Edith Keeler was killed, because the headline states "Edith Keeler, social worker from the 21st Mission was killed today". There no article about her death, so there is an unanswered question of how Spock knew she died in some sort of traffic accident.

@Winnie

The episode would have wrapped up more easily because instead of every moment possibly being the one on which the recovery of the universe they know depends, requiring constant vigilance and giving the viewer constant suspense, they could have cooled their heels just waiting for "the" moment, then made sure they were prepared to act right then. Not nearly as interesting an episode.

I think it's interesting that the actual view of the newspaper page is as limited in its information as you describe, but perhaps not surprising. The original series was made long before home video recorders, and also long before they knew there would be people re-watching the episodes over a period of decades, so there was no need to put in details they could assume no viewer would ever have time to notice. They just dummied up a close enough approximation to a newspaper page to convey, in a brief glance, that there was a record from Edith's time period for Spock to look up. No need to write up an actual article on the accident; just put a headline over a photo and a very brief text, because the headline and photo are what the viewer will first notice, and the scene will have moved on before there has been enough time to read farther.

The detailed exposition about what happened, and the fact that Spock's information was limited, came through Spock's lines, rather than from that brief partial view of a newspaper page.

Spock has seen it longer than we have, and he is able to tell Kirk, and therefore tell the viewer, as much as the plot requires.

@Trish
"The episode would have wrapped up more easily because instead of every moment possibly being the one on which the recovery of the universe they know depends, requiring constant vigilance and giving the viewer constant suspense, they could have cooled their heels just waiting for "the" moment, then made sure they were prepared to act right then. Not nearly as interesting an episode."

I don't think it would make much difference. If Edith's date of death was provided, okay, that's one more piece of information for the puzzle. I would have liked to have known it because I think that she probably didn't die when viewers saw it, but either earlier or later.

The whole suspense of the episode is really about Kirk and what he's going to do to restore history.

"The whole suspense of the episode is really about Kirk and what he's going to do to restore history."

Prior to the end we actually learn what he's going to do to restore history; not in detail, but in principle. He'll have to let Edith die. The question ceases to be what he needs to do, but whether he will force himself to do it. I really think the 'surprise' boils down to a 'would you kill Hitler' scenario but the jack in the box is that it's not Hitler who needs to die but Edith.

"He'll have to let Edith die. The question ceases to be what he needs to do, but whether he will force himself to do it."

I agree with what you said, with one change. I think the question is not one of 'will he force himself to do it', but 'can he force himself to do it?'.

While he was taking Edith to the movies, both of them step in the path of an oncoming car. He pulls her back and gets the both of them safely back on the curb. It's a flash of a moment, and it shows Kirk didn't intend to change the future by willingly pulling them both back. He did it out of reflex.

When Edith crosses the street, again into the path of an oncoming vehicle, it almost seems like a deliberate act that Kirk goes after to save her. I don't think so. He went to save her out of reflex, just like McCoy was about to do. To his credit, Kirk stops, (maybe it was both Spock and McCoy that brought him out of it by shouting at him). Not only that but he has now has the wits to prevent McCoy from saving her, although I think it'd be a close argument to say that McCoy could have done anything at that point.

@ Winnie,

"I agree with what you said, with one change. I think the question is not one of 'will he force himself to do it', but 'can he force himself to do it?'."

I see what you mean about reflex vs deliberation, but by this point in the series I think it's been pretty well established that Kirk can make himself do whatever he needs to. But of all the occasions we've seen him give up pleasure, bliss, ease, and anything else others would reach for, this is perhaps the first time he lets something go that isn't just about him, but about its value in itself. Edith isn't just a girlfriend he walks away from to do his duty, but a precious treasure he sees go to waste, lost to the world. It's almost like giving up the dream of the Federation, but in order to realize the dream of the Federation down the road. It's not his usual kind of sacrifice, but involves also a conflict within his values: is it tolerable to let an atrocity occur in order to gain a superior result in the long run? There are perhaps shades of Churchill and the Enigma code here.

At least to me, I don't question Kirk's capacity to make any sacrifice he deems necessary. It's not 100% clear to me that he did in fact find this one necessary leading up to the event, but finally he did make his decision and held the others to it as well.

@Peter
"It's not his usual kind of sacrifice, but involves also a conflict within his values: is it tolerable to let an atrocity occur in order to gain a superior result in the long run? There are perhaps shades of Churchill and the Enigma code here."

That's a good point. There are questions in this very thread wondering why Kirk didn't take Edith with him into the future. Your post reminded me of them because if that happened, Kirk would not let an atrocity occur, and the superior result would still occur in the long run.

I've never thought about the episode in that manner, but I did wonder what would happen if Kirk personally saved her instead of preventing McCoy from doing so.

Edith slips on the steps and almost kills herself but is saved because Kirk caught her in time. I don't think he caught her because she was everything to him, I think he caught her out of reflex, as any of us would do if we saw a potential accident and tried to prevent it.

What's unusual to me about this is Spock's reaction to the catch. He warns Kirk of doing what his heart tells him to do, and the catastrophic results. The thing that's unusual is Spock's statement. Kirk is right. McCoy is not there. When Kirk brings that up to Spock, he simply chalks it up to the issue of not having all of the facts, so who's to say how Edith's death will happen.

From my point of view, it seemed Spock had taken the perspective that Kirk might be tempted to save Edith himself, rather than waiting around for McCoy to show up. I wondered if Kirk was thinking that history might be still be changed, but for the better if he saved Edith. For instance, she never goes on the peace objective because she becomes Mrs. Kirk and they both go on to live a quiet life together in the 1930s.

Spock's statement seems to reflect that the future wouldn't change if Kirk or McCoy saved her, but he doesn't know. He admitted they didn't have all of the facts.

The one thing I noticed throughout all of this is Kirk's outlook. He knows Edith has to die, and there's no doubt he doesn't like it. However, I never saw him once counter to Spock that he was thinking of a way to keep her alive.

I have never seen Ellison's script, but I read somewhere that his version of Kirk actually reveals his conflict and is unable to prevent the drug dealer? from stepping in to save her life. In the end, it's Spock who prevents the intervention and thus saves history. I wonder if Spock's statement was in that script, and it was kept for this episode.

@ Winnie,

"What's unusual to me about this is Spock's reaction to the catch. He warns Kirk of doing what his heart tells him to do, and the catastrophic results. The thing that's unusual is Spock's statement. Kirk is right. McCoy is not there. When Kirk brings that up to Spock, he simply chalks it up to the issue of not having all of the facts, so who's to say how Edith's death will happen.
"

Yes, and in fact the strange timey-wimey thing is that if we stop thinking of time linearly, the fact that Kirk and Spock see a changed future prior to stepping into the Guardian themselves, doesn't actually preclude the change having been caused by them rather than McCoy.

"From my point of view, it seemed Spock had taken the perspective that Kirk might be tempted to save Edith himself, rather than waiting around for McCoy to show up. I wondered if Kirk was thinking that history might be still be changed, but for the better if he saved Edith. For instance, she never goes on the peace objective because she becomes Mrs. Kirk and they both go on to live a quiet life together in the 1930s."

Yes, I think this is subtly present within the story, with a stronger firmament than merely being head canon.

I'll just throw in that I think the episode's title supports the idea that the main moral conflict of the episode is about intentionally delaying the peace movement because Earth isn't ready for it. Killing the dream of the Federation in the present to preserve if for the future is that beautiful city that seems still so far away that it may as well take forever to come. Perhaps the 'forever' has a religious overtone as well, suggesting that we can't actually create paradise in the present and have to face harsh sacrifices of the beautiful in the face of necessity.

@Peter G.

I like the element you suggest about paradise, because, as you know, I have at times seen Kirk's battle to prevent societies from creating Paradise as a recurring theme. I had never noticed it with regard to this one, but it's definitely there.

Hey Trish, I have seen your post. It's longer and I want to give it the appropriate time. Lots on my mind right now and little time but I get to it eventually. Happy to see that you guys have such a lively debate! :)

@Peter G. "I see what you mean about reflex vs deliberation, but by this point in the series I think it's been pretty well established that Kirk can make himself do whatever he needs to."

I like this episode a lot, always have. I've just never seen it as the greatest Star Trek episode of all time for this very reason. We, as the viewers already know that Kirk will never let Edith live. He'll be conflicted about it, fret about it, might get angry thinking about the atrocity of it, and he might even go so far as to plot a way he could accomplish it. We all know it won't happen under his watch.

@Peter G.
"But of all the occasions we've seen him give up pleasure, bliss, ease, and anything else others would reach for, this is perhaps the first time he lets something go that isn't just about him, but about its value in itself. Edith isn't just a girlfriend he walks away from to do his duty, but a precious treasure he sees go to waste, lost to the world. It's almost like giving up the dream of the Federation, but in order to realize the dream of the Federation down the road. It's not his usual kind of sacrifice, but involves also a conflict within his values: is it tolerable to let an atrocity occur in order to gain a superior result in the long run? There are perhaps shades of Churchill and the Enigma code here."

and,

What would traveling back in time do to a human? Could it change their outlook because memories that were there are no longer there? Kirk's no longer within the protective bubble of the Guardian, so when Spock makes the cryptic warning of the millions who will die who did not die before, does that have any true meaning for Kirk? It's terrible to say about Kirk, he's the greatest Captain to have ever served Starfleet, but that no longer exists and not being within the protective bubble of the Guardian, would those memories begin to dissipate? Kirk doesn't know those millions and will never know them. They're like widgets to him. He does, however, know Edith and he's forming new memories with her and with Spock.

I do want to point out that the episode never shows anything like this, it's just something I'm throwing out there. However, it shows something that has always bothered me. The episode seems to take a more lighthearted approach. The 1930s for Kirk and Spock begin with a theft of clothing and when they're caught by the cops, Kirk begins this yarn about Spock's fake nationality and accident, then it becomes a run for your life piece until they meet Edith Keeler. After that, it's Kirk fostering a growing relationship for Edith and falling in love with her. Everything Kirk does seems to go against what a person would do in such a serious situation, if said person was from the future, it's already been obliterated, and the objective is to restore it to normal. I already said Star Trek was not sophisticated enough to delve into time loops, so it could be the same here. But there are some comedy elements to this episode, which really shouldn't be there.

"Perhaps the 'forever' has a religious overtone as well, suggesting that we can't actually create paradise in the present and have to face harsh sacrifices of the beautiful in the face of necessity."

Very well said. Edith's death is vital to their future, but something I think is even more vital, are Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock. They seem to fall by the wayside so Kirk and Edith can shine. But they are stuck in the present with Kirk. If he stays, they are condemned to an existence that is not of their choosing. What would be the more difficult sacrifice. I wonder.

That said, I also wonder if the future would be so bleak with the three of them stuck in the past.

@Peter
Ignore the word, "and", that's alone in the above post. I meant to string your two posts together but then thought more about it, and separated them. I should have deleted the word, "and".

@Trish
hmmm I guess you convinced me. I call my new approach "comatose author". I never ignore the author fully and as many readers I will contextualize the author. Like Aristotle being pro-slavery, actually starting one of his most important works with a long defense/explanation. The father of western philosophy everybody.
At the time it was probably unimaginable to not have any slaves.

Sorry if I don't write that much in response but I was mostly nodding along while reading your post. See the shortness of my reply as a compliment to the quality of you thoughts on the matter. ;)

@Peter
You seem to go even further down a media theory road. A play or a movie is often an extra level removed from the author, than the book itself. One could probably argue two levels. First, turning a book into a screenplay; second, the actor/director interpretation and then the audience but I can make it even more confusing and incomprehensible. :D

"You definitely need to inspect authorial intent to get as pure comprehension. You need to make sense of the literal lines, understand what they mean, and know why the script is constructed and ordered the way it is. This can be just to listen to it and 'get it', or it might involve detective work and looking at repeated motifs, word choices, and so forth."
I'm not sure that I agree with this point and you make a similar one further down.

Most people have a hard time understanding that people living more than 100 years ago had a completely different perception of reality.
Here a short vid that highlights this point (I assume many have seen already)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI

(I'm using Flynn here because he explains the phenomenon nicely but the phenomenon itself is well known and studied)

So in essence you are interpreting the thought processes of a Human being that had a perception of reality so alien to yourself that you would have a hard time communicating. How much can be gained from such an interpretation? What many don't understand or at least ignore most of the time is that our perception of reality is itself just an interpretation based on the experiences and environment we grow up in. That interpretation has fundamentally changed over the last 100 years.

That means that when you interpret an older play, you are applying your interpretation of reality to the interpretation of reality of somebody with a perception completely alien to you, to interpret something specific. In the end you have so many levels of interpretation that it is anybodies guess if you are close to the meaning or lightyears away or if you could ever understand the meaning in the first place.

" I myself have taken part of critically deconstructing plays, and certainly I pointed out elements that didn't work, needed re-organizing, etc. It happens all the time. So yes there are plenty of errors."
It is your opinion that there are absolute categories of right and wrong in an artistic work and that people can be trained to recognize and correct the wrongs? Even if it changes the artistic work to a significant degree?

How did they beam (up or down) a 7-person landing party when the transporter only had 6 pads?

@Booming

I have only just gotten around to revisiting this page, so I just saw your response.

I shall take its brevity as high praise indeed. :)

This is a very elegant episode, beautifully shot. William Shatner will never look more handsome than he does in this, or his eyes more expressive. There is no scenery chewing here.

Well, except for DeForest Kelley. His drug overdose is very believable, like a meth addict, bug-eyed, crazed and covered in red blotches. They went for realism here! His acting is fantastic.

I love the crux of this story, that one thing is a consequence of another and that all that we know is a result of innumerable consequences following from consequences, every tiny thing that happens affecting what follows. It's the butterfly flapping its wings but affecting both space and time. Who knows how our own lives will affect the future?

What I don't love about this episode is Joan Collins. She is fine, but for some reason, I have never loved her as an actress, finding her a bit vacuous. I was never able to watch "Dallas." It's a problem for me because we need to really care what happens to Edith. What makes it work is the look on Kirk's face.

I actually loved "Devil in the Dark" more than this one. I guess I find the Horta a more compelling female character than Edith Keeler! But there is no denying that this was a superbly written, directed and produced episode.