Re-write Jonathan Archer

[JiNX-01]

A few posters -- myself included -- maintain in the "re-cast JA" thread that the problem had more to do with the writing than Scott's portrayal.

So here's the challenge: Pick an episode where you thought Archer's behavior was way off the mark in terms of characterization, consistency, leadership or simple appeal to the fans, and tell us what you would have done with him in the circumstance posed in the episode.

I'm picking Cogenitor, one of my favorite episodes:

I'm OK with Archer developing a friendship with the Vissian captain so I wouldn't change any of that.

Back on Enterprise: Archer learns what has been going on with Trip and the cogenitor. He's mad, but he isn't angry that Trip believes he has emulated his captain. Archer recognizes that Trip was acting on his principles, which is what Archer has done on many occasions.

What angers Archer is how Trip went about it. Lying, sneaking around the Vissian ship, taking surreptitious scans of the engineer, his wife and the cogenitor. He didn't ask questions or make any effort to understand the history, social structure or reasons (perhaps biological) behind the cogenitor's status.

When Archer is asked for asylum, we see him as he struggles over what to do. He talks to T'Pol and Phlox who both suggest non-interference. He even contacts Forrest for guidance.

In the end, he will say no. He'll talk to the Vissian captain about the history of the inequality of the sexes on Earth and the changes in attitude that are possible. He'll encourage the cogenitor take up the fight for equality.

And when Charles kills itself, he won't just dump the blame on Trip's shoulders. He'll be sympathetic and acknowledge that any one of his own attempts to help others could have gone just as badly and gotten people (including members of the crew) injured or killed.

 

[angie]

I thought Cogenitor was written dead on as it was---Archer saw tragically how his behavior was seen by his crew. He felt responsible but was on his way to learning the principle that would become the Prime Directive. First contacts shouldn't be easy and Archer and Trip both learned a valuable lesson.Archer was willing to learn fro T'Pol's and Phlox's greater experience.

Archer grew over the seasons which is what characters do--not always evenly but neither do most of us.

 

[JiNX-01]

I thought Cogenitor was written dead on as it was---Archer saw tragically how his behavior was seen by his crew. He felt responsible but was on his way to learning the principle that would become the Prime Directive. First contacts shouldn't be easy and Archer and Trip both learned a valuable lesson.Archer was willing to learn fro T'Pol's and Phlox's greater experience.

Archer grew over the seasons which is what characters do--not always evenly but neither do most of us.

I agree, Archer does grow over the course of Enterprise.

As for recognizing how his behavior is seen by his crew, the fact is he only gives lip service to that: in the final scene, he holds Trip entirely to blame for the death of the cogenitor. And was awfully hard on him, ignoring the fact that Trip was the only member of the crew who gave a damn about Charles.

And Archer never learns from the incident, either: He'll continue to put his crew at risk while going to the aid of others (Rajiin, North Star, Chosen Realm).

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Jeez, JiNX, you just jump in with both feet, don't ya?

I agree that it would have been interesting to know the reason why the cogenitors held the position they did in Vissian culture. But the more Trip knew, the less he might have been credibly able to do and still believe he wasn't doing anything wrong.

I also wish we had seen more of the asylum scene. Archer brings up some issues to Drennik that Archer and the Vissians clearly don't see eye to eye on. But we don't get to see how he resolves this and comes to his decision. That would have been compelling to me.

In the end, he will say no. He'll talk to the Vissian captain about the history of the inequality of the sexes on Earth and the changes in attitude that are possible. He'll encourage the cogenitor take up the fight for equality.

Actually, this sounds like Archer interfering--offering advice and counsel where none was asked for (which he chastised Trip for doing earlier). Archer has already almost crossed the line when he brings up asylum to Drennik & co: Archer is explaining why he is considering asylum, and the Vissian engineer says at one point, "Why are we debating this? The cogenitor belongs on our ship."

And when Charles kills itself, he won't just dump the blame on Trip's shoulders. He'll be sympathetic and acknowledge that any one of his own attempts to help others could have gone just as badly and gotten people (including members of the crew) injured or killed.

Absolving Trip of responsibility for his actions would be a morally incorrect decision on Archer's part, IMHO, and morally irresponsible storytelling. The cogenitor's worldview was changed because Trip's actions widened its horizons. Trip is correct when he says, "I'm responsible," because he is. Of course he isn't solely or wholly responsible; the cogenitor lifestyle appears to be a factor, if not a direct cause. But if Archer were to say, "Aw, no worries, Trip, we all screw up sometimes!" that's like saying there are no consequences to actions. But there's this dead cogenitor.

Cogenitor has always struck me as that classic Trek "impossible dilemma" story, where there are two compelling sides of a thorny issue, each with powerful arguments to back them up, and no "right" choice that will make everybody happy in the end. It's like the Kobayashi Maru--it's a test of character. Will the newly-enlightened Charles figure out how to be content within the strict confines of a cogenitor's existence? (Sadly, no, so this story is a tragedy.) Will Trip have the strength of character to take responsibility for his well-intentioned but impulsive actions, which contributed to the tragedy? Will Archer, who is a man of compassion but also a commander, stay true to Starfleet's nascent policy of non-interference with alien species, or will he lead with his heart when this "incident" with his best friend and the cogenitor is presented to him? I love stories that put characters in crisis and compel them to reveal parts of their deeper selves.

Archer...was awfully hard on him...

Archer's anger in that last scene could be interpreted, not as heartlessness, but as disappointment from a man who is full of heart. It reminded me of a man who felt let down by his younger brother, as well as a captain let down by his officer. It could be that Archer expected more from Trip, and yes, felt responsible ("I guess I haven't been very successful at getting through to you"), and so was all the more disappointed. I'd been wondering whether their personal and professional relationships would ever collide, and kapow, this was the episode where they did, for me anyway.

All this blather is just my .02.

 

[Captain X]

I'd have Archer have Trip's back and initially grant the cogenitor asylum. It should've taken an order from Starfleet Command or the threat of war with the vastly technologicaly superior Vissians to eventially deny asylum.

 

[JiNX-01]

Jeez, JiNX, you just jump in with both feet, don't ya?

Yup. Goin' where fear to tread.

I agree that it would have been interesting to know the reason why the cogenitors held the position they did in Vissian culture. But the more Trip knew, the less he might have been credibly able to do and still believe he wasn't doing anything wrong.

What angers Archer is how Trip went about it. Lying, sneaking around the Vissian ship, taking surreptitious scans of the engineer, his wife and the cogenitor. He didn't ask questions or make any effort to understand the history, social structure or reasons (perhaps biological) behind the cogenitor's status.

I'm rewriting Archer, not Trip.

I also wish we had seen more of the asylum scene. Archer brings up some issues to Drennik that Archer and the Vissians clearly don't see eye to eye on. But we don't get to see how he resolves this and comes to his decision. That would have been compelling to me.

Yeah, more discussion with the Vissians at that point might have shed some retrospective light on some of the facts of their society. Which might also have cast Trip's conduct in a very different light (or even strengthened his position).

In the end, he will say no. He'll talk to the Vissian captain about the history of the inequality of the sexes on Earth and the changes in attitude that are possible. He'll encourage the cogenitor take up the fight for equality.

Actually, this sounds like Archer interfering--offering advice and counsel where none was asked for (which he chastised Trip for doing earlier). Archer has already almost crossed the line when he brings up asylum to Drennik & co: Archer is explaining why he is considering asylum, and the Vissian engineer says at one point, "Why are we debating this? The cogenitor belongs on our ship."

Let's examine the record up to the point of Cogenitor:
Terra Nova (nobody asked for help or advice); Andorian Incident (nobody asked for help or advice); Civilization (nobody asked for help or advice), Fortunate Son (they actually refused help); Dear Doctor (Valakians asked for help, but then Archer lets Phlox withhold help); Detained (nobody asked for help or advice); Desert Crossing (again he was asked for help and refuses); Marauders (nobody asked for help or advice -- and if the Klingons hadn't been conveniently written as a bunch wusses, they would have blasted that mining town to bits from space!)
So, it would appear that if the Cogenitor had asked Trip for help, he would have to refuse, because he was emulating Archer.

The reason I want Archer to at least speak up is because way way way back in Fight or Flight, Archer was angry and ashamed for forgetting his principles when he "walked away" from the ship of dead aliens. He even scolds Trip and T'Pol because they seem indifferent to it all.

Now Archer has a living, breathing sentient life form asking for help, and all of a sudden the principles of freedom, justice and self-determination are relativistic bull because "we're not in Florida or Singapore." Well, at least he was being consistent.

And when Charles kills itself, he won't just dump the blame on Trip's shoulders. He'll be sympathetic and acknowledge that any one of his own attempts to help others could have gone just as badly and gotten people (including members of the crew) injured or killed.

Absolving Trip of responsibility for his actions would be a morally incorrect decision on Archer's part, IMHO, and morally irresponsible storytelling. The cogenitor's worldview was changed because Trip's actions widened its horizons. Trip is correct when he says, "I'm responsible," because he is. Of course he isn't solely or wholly responsible; the cogenitor lifestyle appears to be a factor, if not a direct cause. But if Archer were to say, "Aw, no worries, Trip, we all screw up sometimes!" that's like saying there are no consequences to actions. But there's this dead cogenitor.

I'm not saying Trip should be absolved. I'm saying Archer shares responsibility, not for setting a "bad" example but because when he came down on the side of the powerful, he set a worse example. And don't forget, this is the guy who is going to be instrumental in founding the Federation, which is going to be built upon those ideals he spoke about back in Fight or Flight and hold all members to those principles.

Cogenitor has always struck me as that classic Trek "impossible dilemma" story, where there are two compelling sides of a thorny issue, each with powerful arguments to back them up, and no "right" choice that will make everybody happy in the end.

It is a terrific episode, that's why it's one of my favorites.

It's like the Kobayashi Maru--it's a test of character. Will the newly-enlightened Charles figure out how to be content within the strict confines of a cogenitor's existence? (Sadly, no, so this story is a tragedy.)

Yes, it is a tragedy. But if, as I proposed, Archer had given the cogenitor a new sense of purpose, it need not have been a tragic ending. It might have been the beginning of a great movement for equal rights. Or ill-equipped to deal with having its new found aspirations crushed by disappointment, it might very well have committed suicide anyway.

Will Trip have the strength of character to take responsibility for his well-intentioned but impulsive actions, which contributed to the tragedy?

Well, he certainly did, so I guess he passed the test.

Will Archer, who is a man of compassion but also a commander, stay true to Starfleet's nascent policy of non-interference with alien species, or will he lead with his heart when this "incident" with his best friend and the cogenitor is presented to him?

As I noted above, Archer has not been true at all to any such policy and he won't be in the future, either.

I love stories that put characters in crisis and compel them to reveal parts of their deeper selves.

I do too. Unfortunately, in this episode we see the hypocritical Archer who just got lucky when it came to interfering and offering unsolicited "help." (Marauders reference above).

Archer...was awfully hard on him...

Archer's anger in that last scene could be interpreted, not as heartlessness, but as disappointment from a man who is full of heart. It reminded me of a man who felt let down by his younger brother, as well as a captain let down by his officer. It could be that Archer expected more from Trip, and yes, felt responsible ("I guess I haven't been very successful at getting through to you"), and so was all the more disappointed.

Archer had already expressed anger when he first confronted Trip.

So if the final scene was to convey disappointment, maybe people are right and Scott needs to work on his delivery.
No. 1. However badly Trip might have screwed up, he was the only person on the ship who actually liked and cared about Charles, so I would have toned down the anger to deliver the news of its suicide.
No. 2. Disappointment has a different voice from anger.

I'd been wondering whether their personal and professional relationships would ever collide, and kapow, this was the episode where they did, for me anyway.

Yup, they sure did!

All this blather is just my .02.

No blather. Fair critique.

 

[commodore64]

I liked Archer 99% as-is. I like that in season 1 he didn't fully trust the Vulcans and in some respects T'Pol, and I like that he and T'Pol reached a solid trust by Fallen Hero. (Something that grows from the first episode where he saved her life and she respected his wishes.) I think in Fallen Hero, Archer learns there are some well-meaning Vulcans as well -- something he seems to have negated after meeting the votush ka'tur from Fusion. (Which means of course the reason he disliked them was they hurt one of his crew - T'Pol, a Vulcan. He liked the "different" Vulcans at first.)

Perhaps the one "wish" I had about Archer is that the writers showed the death of his father to know how he was impacted - a show vs. tell moment. I think some folks saw the Vulcans as equally sympathetic despite the fact Soval and the majority of the Vulcans in seasons 1 and 2 were mostly tools.

Angie: I thought Cogenitor was written dead on as it was---Archer saw tragically how his behavior was seen by his crew. He felt responsible but was on his way to learning the principle that would become the Prime Directive. First contacts shouldn't be easy and Archer and Trip both learned a valuable lesson.Archer was willing to learn fro T'Pol's and Phlox's greater experience.

Agreed. I know I tell this story a lot, but to me it illustrates Trip's actions. During the episode, my husband kept telling the television "Don't do it, Trip." To me, it was pretty clear that the Vulcans and Denobulans open-mindedness was important and brings to mind T'Pol's scolding of Trip in the first episode: for him to get over his provencial attitude.

(By the way, the Vulcans learned something from the humans, too. Just like the humans learned something from the Vulcans.)

 

[angie]

I think if you feel Archer held Trip totally responsible for the death of the Cogenitor you missed the whole point of the TAG scene.Archer held himself responsible.

 

[Captain X]

Uh, no he didn't.

Trip: It's all my fault...

Archer: You're damn right it is!

Archer dished it out and Trip took it like an abuse victim. Not only was it wrong, but it made Archer a complete hypocrite.

 

[commodore64]

A tag scene is the very end of the show. In this case, Angie is referring to where Archer stares out the window in self-reflection.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Actually, this sounds like Archer interfering--

Let's examine the record up to the point of Cogenitor...

These all appear to be different premises than Cogenitor, so to me, this is like comparing apples and oranges, rather than making a structural choice based on character precedent. Enterprise had been sent to solve the mystery of the (human) colonists in Terra Nova; the landing party got guns shoved up their noses by Andorians within a few minutes of arriving in Andorian Incident; Archer did provide medical aid after being asked in Dear Doctor (Phlox explained the rest better than me); Archer had doubts about Zobral in Desert Crossing because Zobral significantly misrepresented himself and admitted he was a rebel only when his hand was forced; T'Pol agreed with Archer's desire to help the miners in Marauders, and the miners changed their minds about not wanting to defend themselves. And yeah, maybe the Klingons didn't need that deuterium so much after all. But greedy people aren't necessarily brainy.

The reason I want Archer to at least speak up is because way way way back in Fight or Flight, Archer was angry and ashamed for forgetting his principles when he "walked away" from the ship of dead aliens. He even scolds Trip and T'Pol because they seem indifferent to it all.

And he went back, and Enterprise almost got all of its people brain-sucked too. Another great dilemma about how to juggle principles and ship safety and know when to step away--all at once. Very compelling.

Now Archer has a living, breathing sentient life form asking for help, and all of a sudden the principles of freedom, justice and self-determination are relativistic bull because "we're not in Florida or Singapore." Well, at least he was being consistent.

No no, those principles aren't bull! They're human. The cogenitor is Vissian. Applying human moral principles to Vissians wouldn't make sense to them, any more than Klingons forcing their moral value system on humans would make sense to us.

Yes, it is a tragedy. But if, as I proposed, Archer had given the cogenitor a new sense of purpose, it need not have been a tragic ending. It might have been the beginning of a great movement for equal rights. Or ill-equipped to deal with having its new found aspirations crushed by disappointment, it might very well have committed suicide anyway.

I can see it now...more claims that "super-Archer" sweeps in at the last minute, shoulders that screw-up Trip aside, makes a speech to Charles about taking charge of its life, and Charles starts the Vissian suffrage movement. Um, given the perspectives of the other Vissians, even Drennik, I don't think the cogenitor would have gotten very far if it had tried to change its status. (Who knows--maybe it did try, and its efforts were summarily rejected. Thus, suicide.) I can see it now...more claims that Archer makes yet another ghastly mistake because of his well-meaning but impulsive speechifying, leading to an innocent's death...

Will Trip have the strength of character to take responsibility for his well-intentioned but impulsive actions, which contributed to the tragedy?

Well, he certainly did, so I guess he passed the test.

Will Archer, who is a man of compassion but also a commander, stay true to Starfleet's nascent policy of non-interference with alien species, or will he lead with his heart when this "incident" with his best friend and the cogenitor is presented to him?

As I noted above, Archer has not been true at all to any such policy and he won't be in the future, either.

If the point is to write Archer well, then forget about the inconsistent writing in other episodes. The question is about this Archer in this episode. Does he behave like a commander, a leader, aware of the big picture? Does he take responsibility for what has happened even as he holds Trip responsible? Do we see his compassion--for the cogenitor, for Trip--even in the midst of this tragedy? (You may have other criteria for a well-written Archer; this is just off the top of my head.)

No. 1. However badly Trip might have screwed up, he was the only person on the ship who actually liked and cared about Charles, so I would have toned down the anger to deliver the news of its suicide.
No. 2. Disappointment has a different voice from anger.

It would be interesting to see any stage directions from the script for this scene, if anyone has it.

Trip was the only human we saw who interacted with Charles. There might have been lots of people who had opinions about the Vissian social system, but kept their opinions to themselves, or debated it in private, i.e., didn't interfere or make judgments.

As for disappointment vs. anger, different people express themselves in different ways. The scene worked for some viewers, not for others.

This is a fascinating discussion.

 

[Captain X]

Either way, I never got any indication that Archer blamed himself for anything that went down, not even that lame "I set a bad example" kind of way. Archer was simply portrayed as being right because he was the captain, so it really didn't matter what his track record was up to that point as far as the writers were evidently concerned. No, all I got out of it was that Archer was pissed.

 

[Guy Gardener]

What about in Home? He was still cut about about that guy dying from the pollen three seasons earlier in Brave New World.

Of course both episodes had the same author, so that's cheating.

 

[Captain X]

Except that this is about the end of Cogenitor.

 

[Skywalker]

The thread is about picking any instance where you would have re-written Archer, not just in Cogenitor.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Archer being pissy about Vulcans because they refused to give his daddy their tech really rubbed me the wrong way. And that was in the premiere, a bad time to be introducing an element that gets a character off on the wrong foot. The way it was handled, it sounded like Archer's dad was expecting charity from the Vulcans.

Much later, the story was rejiggered to make it sound like Archer was much younger than I'd assumed, so young he could have misinterpreted the whole thing. Maybe that was a recognition of the damage that detail had done to Archer. Anyway, I'd ditch that element entirely.

But Archer's problem didn't lie in any one episode. To rewrite him adequately would involve rewriting the series premise. I wanted Earth of that time to be far meaner and grittier than it was depicted, really riven with war, injustice, hunger, disease, etc. The Starfleet of the time should have been an embattled organization trying to solve Earth's problems, not send Archer et al out on a pointless joy ride. There should have been an immediate reason for Archer's journey - the attack at the start of S3 was the kind of thing I wanted to see in the series premiere.

Or, it could have been an alien world that had the antedote to a plague sweeping Earth. Archer journeys to the planet and much to his astonishment, they up the price from what was agreed, because they figure the Earthlings are desperate and will pay any price. But they don't reckon with Jonathan Archer, who kicks butt (but intelligently) and gets the medicine for the original price, and that planet knows never to frak with Earthlings ever again. And (this being part of why Archer did what he did) the reputation of Earthlings spread - sure, they're backwards and nobody would ever mistake them for Klingons, but they're not an easy mark. He returns to Earth a hero, perhaps a little dismayed at what he had to do to make his mission a success. But then there are other jobs to do...

Rewrite the premise to amp the conflict and distinguish the 22nd C better from the 23rd-24th, and Archer's persona just naturally flows from the premise. I wouldn't have Archer be a crusty old salt or a murderous pirate type. He'd be basically the way Bakula played him, maybe a bit naive with a silly streak. But getting out there in the nasty old universe smacks him around and he's a bit astonished at the lengths he's willing to go, when the chips are down. Being the Enterprise captain will be a internal discovery process for him, not just external, as he strives to find the correct moral balance when he's thrust into situations where there are no rules. The rules will be written by him, and that implies a heavy responsibility.

And no, this won't delve into BSG angst-a-thon territory. I'd stop well short of that. But with more teeth than we saw from ENT. Basically, DS9 would be my model in terms of darkness.

 

[Guy Gardener]

You're forgetting how Henry as of season four (Cold Station 12 I think?) suddenly had a degenerative brain disease which caused dementia and ranting, killing pappy Archer shortly before Johns was 13th birthday? Johnny was taught hate by a crazy person more than a bigot.

 

[commodore64]

I never got the sense Daddy Archer was crazy enough to diss the Vulcans. In Broken Bow, he corrects his son who calls Soval "Ambassador Pointy." And if Broken Bow shows real time, then his father perishes within a couple of years at most.

I think the hatred comes from Jon seeing his father's dreams perish because of some slow-moving (tool-like) Vulcans, and his father dies along with his dreams (a double death). Jon blames the Vulcans for his father's death (as per T'Pol's comments in Impulse) -- not that they murdered him, but they hurried an end to his life through their unwillingness to help in any way. (It's why I think showing Daddy's Archer's death and the impact it had would've helped the audience. Kinda like showing Trip's sister's death's impact and results.) Personally, I thought Trip's sister's death was like an anvil, but many of the audience seemed to feel sorry for him. Maybe the same would've happened for Archer.

 

[bluedana]

This is a terrific discussion question, JiNX. I agree with your re-write, mostly, but I'm in Hopeful's court regarding the whys and wherefores. I think in the background of the story, there was a real struggle to come to the right decision. (And, I think that this was the right decision, so I wouldn't change that at all - but we've been through that on another thread.)

Archer's anger in that last scene could be interpreted, not as heartlessness, but as disappointment from a man who is full of heart. It reminded me of a man who felt let down by his younger brother, as well as a captain let down by his officer. It could be that Archer expected more from Trip, and yes, felt responsible ("I guess I haven't been very successful at getting through to you"), and so was all the more disappointed. I'd been wondering whether their personal and professional relationships would ever collide, and kapow, this was the episode where they did, for me anyway.

This reaction is a pretty standard Archer-ism. Take a look at Shockwave, Pt1, when Archer tells Trip and T'Pol that their mission's been cancelled. He can't face them, and seems abrupt and angry, finally turning just enough to snap, "I said you're dismissed!" I think it's pretty clear that he's disappointed, sad, and a hundred other things, but the way he expresses it is harsh. People do that all the time. Another example is in Stigma, when he tells T'Pol that the Vulcans won't help her. He says it as if he's just angry with the Vulcans, but you hear in his voice that he's disappointed and upset on her behalf. That's his go-to reaction, and it's consistent throughout the 4 seasons, really.

I agree also with Commie64: I would have liked more backstory about Henry and the Vulcans. It was such an important plot point that even having Archer relate some anecdote that would form the basis for his dislike/distrust of the Vulcans would have been helpful.

I would re-write the end of Similitude to show Archer giving Sim support in his last moments, something more than letting Sim spend quiet time with Porthos. You can't really tell whether Archer was there at the end or not. [HR wrote a nice little add-on about this...]

I would also add something at the end of Shockwave pt2 about the dead colonists. The ep showed us Archer's depression about the accident, then his relief that they didn't cause it, and later that they would be able to continue the mission thanks to T'Pol, but there was no re-visit of the fact that 3,000 people were still dead. For a person whose compassion was often nearly his downfall, those two instances seem really out of character for me.

 

[JiNX-01]

Actually, this sounds like Archer interfering--

Let's examine the record up to the point of Cogenitor...

These all appear to be different premises than Cogenitor, so to me, this is like comparing apples and oranges, rather than making a structural choice based on character precedent. Enterprise had been sent to solve the mystery of the (human) colonists in Terra Nova; the landing party got guns shoved up their noses by Andorians within a few minutes of arriving in Andorian Incident; Archer did provide medical aid after being asked in Dear Doctor (Phlox explained the rest better than me); Archer had doubts about Zobral in Desert Crossing because Zobral significantly misrepresented himself and admitted he was a rebel only when his hand was forced; T'Pol agreed with Archer's desire to help the miners in Marauders, and the miners changed their minds about not wanting to defend themselves. And yeah, maybe the Klingons didn't need that deuterium so much after all. But greedy people aren't necessarily brainy.

Terra Nova: They were instructed to check on the colony. The Novans (who appeared to me to be adults) didn't want help. Archer had to talk them into accepting it (as Trip had to talk the cogenitor into learning to read).
The Andorian Incident: T'Pol remarks that the monk they they meet is behaving oddly; the entry is a mess. Does Archer mind his own business despite having just been invited to leave? No. He strolls around the room and spots a blue skinned alien's reflection in a shiny bowl. Signals Trip and they both try to tackle the guy. That's when the guns are drawn.
Dear Doctor: Archer and Phlox end up leaving the Valakians with a palliative. Not the cure they had asked for.
Desert Crossing: No, in spite of the misrepresentation, Archer doesn't have doubts about Zobral. In fact, after Zobral leaves, Archer sadly admits he believes his cause is just.
Marauders: T'Pol approves and that makes Archer right? T'Pol should have reminded him that these are Klingons. They live for battle. And any day is a good day to die. And the miners didn't "change their minds." Archer had to talk their leader into it. If this ridiculous episode had played out with the Klingons behaving like Klingons (and needing or not needing deuterium wouldn't have been the only issue for them; they were beaten by a bunch of weaklings! No semi-self-respecting Klingon would have allowed that to stand) ... Did anybody on the miners/Enterprise side even get hurt? This plot worked well for Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen, but here the writing was so convenient, it became preposterous!

And he went back, and Enterprise almost got all of its people brain-sucked too. Another great dilemma about how to juggle principles and ship safety and know when to step away--all at once. Very compelling.

Yes, if only he had actually learned his lesson!

No no, those principles aren't bull! They're human. The cogenitor is Vissian. Applying human moral principles to Vissians wouldn't make sense to them, any more than Klingons forcing their moral value system on humans would make sense to us.

I'm not suggesting that the Vissian captain should have been forced to listen with a phaser to his head. But Archer spent three solid days in a stratopod with this guy and now all of a sudden he would be imposing human values if he tries to explain where Trip was coming from when he did this? Archer doesn't have to sanction Trip's actions to share our values. This is who we are. What the heck is wrong with telling them that?

I can see it now...more claims that "super-Archer" sweeps in at the last minute, shoulders that screw-up Trip aside, makes a speech to Charles about taking charge of its life, and Charles starts the Vissian suffrage movement. Um, given the perspectives of the other Vissians, even Drennik, I don't think the cogenitor would have gotten very far if it had tried to change its status. (Who knows--maybe it did try, and its efforts were summarily rejected. Thus, suicide.) I can see it now...more claims that Archer makes yet another ghastly mistake because of his well-meaning but impulsive speechifying, leading to an innocent's death...

Oh, please don't be silly. Charles would have kill itself half-way through the speech! But Archer is the one saying no to asylum. A few kind words of encouragement not to give up would not have been out of line.

As I noted above, Archer has not been true at all to any such policy and he won't be in the future, either.

If the point is to write Archer well, then forget about the inconsistent writing in other episodes. The question is about this Archer in this episode.

Yes, the question is about the Archer in this episode. Trip was absolutely right. He was following in the footsteps of his captain. His captain reaches out to help the weak, the helpless. He's done it repeatedly. And, then when his friend (who looks up to him) attempts to emulate him, he tears into him. And does he do it because he respects the Vissian social structure? He doesn't say that. He points to their technology. What's a little discrimination (heck, it's only 3 percent of their population anyway) when we could learn how to build a stratopod? Beef up our warp power?

Does he behave like a commander, a leader, aware of the big picture? Does he take responsibility for what has happened even as he holds Trip responsible? Do we see his compassion--for the cogenitor, for Trip--even in the midst of this tragedy? (You may have other criteria for a well-written Archer; this is just off the top of my head.)

Based on Archer's own words, the big picture is Vissian technology.
Does he take responsibility? In the final analysis, not really.
Do we see his compassion? Well, he does look like he feels kind of bad when he enters Trip's quarters to give Charles the bad news. But at the end, when we really should be seeing compassion, sadness. Not so much.

No. 1. However badly Trip might have screwed up, he was the only person on the ship who actually liked and cared about Charles, so I would have toned down the anger to deliver the news of its suicide.
No. 2. Disappointment has a different voice from anger.

It would be interesting to see any stage directions from the script for this scene, if anyone has it.

Well, it just so happens:

Trip enters:
T: You wanted to see me, captain?
A: I was just told that the Vissian cogenitor died.
T: What? How?
A: Suicide, Trip. She killed herself.

Trip is stunned -- he doesn't know what to say.
T (in shock): That can't be. ... why would...
(then)
It's my fault. I'm responsible.
A: You're damn right you are!
(barely controlled anger)
And it's not just her. There's a child that won't be conceived becauseof this... at least not for a long while.
(beat)
It's time you learned to weigh the possible repercussions of your actions. You've always been impulsive... maybe this will teach you a lesson.
T: I understand.
A: Do you? I not so sure you do.
(anger rising)
You knew you had no business interfering with those people. But you couldn't just let it alone.
(beat)
You thought you were doing the right thing? I might agree if this was Florida or Singapore... but it's not, is it? You're in deep space and a person is dead. A person who'd be alive if we hadn't made First Contact (sic).
(beat)
Obviously I haven't done my job too well. If I had, you'dve thought a lot harder before doing what you did.
T: You're not responsible.
A: Dismissed.
T (imploring): Captain...
Archer turns back to the window, A long painful beat, Trip turns and exits.
Off Archer... fade out.
(fyi: there isn't even a cut scene where Archer considers the question. But is there is a (cut) scene where Malcolm walks his lady friend to the airlock ... )

Trip was the only human we saw who interacted with Charles. There might have been lots of people who had opinions about the Vissian social system, but kept their opinions to themselves, or debated it in private, i.e., didn't interfere or make judgments.
As for disappointment vs. anger, different people express themselves in different ways. The scene worked for some viewers, not for others.

I checked the script, no hint that anyone outside Trip, T'Pol and Archer even knew it existed.

This is a fascinating discussion.

Yeah, but my intent was to see how people would prefer to have seen Archer characterized by the writers.