Posted by
zerg harry on
URL: https://www.shado-forum.com/Conflict-tp1510316p1510338.html
If we look outside "Conflict", Henderson states in Confetti Check "I'll be holding the purse-strings" and in "Kill Straker" he entertains the idea that "Straker has become mentally-obsessed with his command and has to be removed" and in "Destruction" warns Straker that he is "getting too suspicious...it's almost a complex" and in Conflict he assumes Straker's disobedience is due to "a mental abberration, the strain of command". I'd say that Henderson is always watchful for any hint that Straker is not reliable or mentally stable and if his new role is to "hold the purse-strings", he is simply forcing Straker to provide proof and justification that more money is needed.
In "Close-Up" Henderson is withering in his sarcasm until Straker spells out his plan to get the goods on the alien planet...and then he gets approved $1 Billion and gets a launch-time from NASA organised for him into the bargain. I think the space-clearance program just doesn't seem justified until Straker proves it. The real problem is that the aliens are so good and concealing their activities, Maddox's death just looks like pilot error.
But to me, the conflict ends when Straker says "If only you hadn't been so positive that you were right" and Henderson replies "Like you?" There is a subtle, almost imperceptable nod from Straker, I think, and then he says "I'll walk you to your car". This final line means "conflict over" to me, it's Straker's admission that Henderson was just doing his job too, and I think it's Straker offering the olive branch to him. Two men both trying to do what's right. That's how I always see it.
Z.
Diorite Gabbro <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> davrecon <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
>
> I've always had trouble wrapping my head around the
> feud between Henderson & Straker. I prefer to think
> of it as just plain bad writing that the whole thing
> looks so silly and incomprehensible.
> I like to think that, yes, it is because they are so
> much alike that there is occasional friction between
> them....but for the most part (meaning that in the
> background where we don't necesarily see them most
> of the time), they are BOTH very competent
> professionals and have the ultimate respect for each
> other. [snip]
--- zerg harry <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> I thought it was quite clearly spelled out that
> Henderson and Straker both believe they are the one
> who is in the right and Henderson's position is that
> he's not prepared to spend millions and millions of
> dollars unless Straker proves beyond any SHADO of a
> doubt that they're justified. After all, a man in
> Straker's position could easily get out of hand
> without a watchdog.
>
> Z.
I've seen that this question of the conflict between
Straker and Henderson has generated a bit of
discussion before. Dave goes for bad writing (always
a possibility). I could just assume that there was
never any intent of the stories having continuity. Z.
tells us it's spelled out in Henderson thinks Straker
is wasting money.
I don't know, to me it seems like there is something a
little more personal to it. After all, Henderson
helped plan SHADO, monstrous security costs, fleet of
submarines, moon bases and all - they are mention in
Confetti Check. Straker may be executing the plan,
but the initial abitious plan was presented with
Henderson's name on it. Now he thinks too much money
is being spent? And what if he's wrong? "Sorry,
Straker, I was wrong. We really needed to prevent a
massive attack, but now the aliens have taken over
earth, and millions of people have died. We'll try to
fix it." When faced with an alien invasion is that a
risk you want to take?
Straker was the man put in charge. I know some think
Henderson recommended him, but the only thing on film
is that the committee picked Straker. Straker is the
one whose job it was to track exactly what the aliens
had been doing and try to anticipate them. It seems a
little peevish to gripe about the money that way.
The point is well taken that Straker's position is one
that could invite abuse. If I take the story as
realistic, that's one of the reasons Straker was the
absolute best choice because of his certitude of duty
- he is absolute in duing his duty and nothing more.
Diorite
---------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]