Picard Season 2: Kirk and Picard

"Is there any value in reading Star Trek: Picard's development of Jean Luc's intervening career and retirement as a contrast to Kirk's?"

I hadn't thought about it. Kirk joined Starfleet out of personal ambition, attained great heights, found it lacking, then gave those heights up for his friends/family. He retired but still believed that being a Starfleet captain was a way to make a difference.

Picard had always wanted to be a Starfleet captain. Initially, we understand his motives to be noble and principled, but we understand that they're somehow more vainglorious than Kirk's. Kirk wants to get power and validation. Ultimately those things are hollow and unsatisfying so Kirk gave them up for what really mattered.

Now, clearly, there's no reason for Picard to take Kirk's advice any more heavily than advice from anyone else he's encountered. But maybe 'mythical Starfleet captain trapped in time like the King Arthur of space,' does beat the bell curve, and if Lower Decks is any indication of how the universe works...

Let's say he internalized Kirk's advice about being a captain as a way to make a difference. Picard still made the conscious choice to become an admiral because he thought Kirk was wrong or because making a difference wasn't as big a deal to him as being seen as the guy who made a difference.

Kirk actually no shit became friends with his crew and retired because Starfleet didn't satisfy him any more. The guy who almost destroyed Earth in TMP because he wanted to get back into space just...outgrew it.

Picard was told "no" because he couldn't or wouldn't read the political situation of Space 9/11 plus The Romulan Dunkirk and ragequit Starfleet before sulking in his tent for 15 years like Achilles with a news allergy. 15 years later, he has no knowledge of the status of Romulan refugees he personally knew and helped resettle.

His connections to the universe and other people are contingent on him getting something out of it. When his ego is bruised he instantly drops the facade and quits. You can read Picard as having that kind of thin-skinned pomposity (not "pompacity"?), but you don't have to and it's a choice in aid of no good story.

The first season had a storyline which included his brain defect that came up in "All Good Things," which gets resolved. It's crazy; every line talking about Season 1 kinda leads to a digression. They all but blame that defect for his OOC behavior during the movies and we settle in for the rest of the season with just a shrug about how Picard maybe isn't "Picard" but we're doing this none the less.

In Season Two, there's definitely moments where you see the Picard you're used to. I think it was in 2x02 where they're in the evil alternate universe and he gives everyone quick, sotto voce orders that feels very Picard. In Season 2, he's back to being Picard in the way that Picard is Picard, complete with the way he's kind of always stupid and aggro when Q shows up.

I'm not even sure what Picard's arc is in Season 2, even though there's two or three storylines which intersect directly with his past trauma. In theory, he's overcome his inability to deal with personal loss that we see in "Lessons" and Generations because he accepts his past and loss as a part of his identity.

As far as I'm concerned, Picard's overall arc mirror's Kirks and ends with "All Good Things." It replaces Kirk's menial ambition with a principled drive to improve the galaxy, which makes the 'prioritize your friends' lesson a bit more menial itself, but it's good. Insurrection backs that lesson up while Generations, First Contact, and Nemesis are all a bit more about leaving the past than loving the now.

So if Season Three is just him being good friends with the old TNG crew or healing his relationship with them, then that's on theme. As far as arcs, he's the guy who gives advice, not receives it. He's Papa Picard. I don't see a 100-year old Starfleet captain and icon needing an arc without unraveling all the learning he's done. Also known as the "Season 6 John Dorian Dilemma."

There could be a cogent arc and/or a consistent theme. The weird thing is that it's probably going to be a story series of events about how millions of lives are at stake surrounded by a mystery box that fizzles out with no clarifying resolution at the end. In theory, when you rewatch a good mystery box story, you get the subtle details about what's really important and what's not. When you watch a bad one, you just have more questions.

But season three could have an arc and theme, but probably not one for me. The finale of season two explicitly acknowledged everything about season one I hated and which season two had dialed down. Then it jammed all of those things inartfully into the rest of the season's runtime.

To be shit because you think it's good is one thing. You did your best.

To be shit because you're making something not for me is another. Not everything is for me.

To be shit because you know what's bad and you say it's bad and then you do it anyway...I can't even fathom it. My brain can't analyze or opine on that because what the fuck?