Was James Holden a coward?

James Holden in The Expanse

As science-fiction series The Expanse closes on its sixth and final episode of the supposedly final season of the show, one man seems to be held up as a kind of reluctant hero: James Holden.

He is, after all, the independent Earther who, across the six series, remains true to his convictions. He saw the gray, blurry lines in-between the black and white political and strategic thinking around him. Holden understood that in order to introduce peace to the universe, people needed to move beyond the story of where they came from and instead to look at where they’re going.

There was, however, one action in the final series that makes me wonder whether James Holden was a man of his convictions, or a coward who sometimes hid behind others in order not to make the difficult decisions in wartime.

This article contains spoilers for Season 6 of The Expanse. Please do not continue reading it if you haven’t seen yet seen Season 6.

.

.

.

.

Holden’s Deactivation of the Missile

After disabling their ship in season six’s episode 3, Holden gives the enemy, Marco Inaros, the honorable choice to surrender. When faced with inevitable defeat, people of honor in war typically choose surrender over destruction to save the lives of their crew, if for no other reason. Inaros declines the offer, instead preferring destruction over surrender.

Bobbie Draper, whose sole mission it is to help find and cause Inaros’ surrender (or destruction), fires a missile that will destroy Inaros’ ship. At the very last minute, without telling anyone, Holden disarms and deactivates the warhead in the missile, causing it to simply lodge harmlessly in the ship. He does this because he sees Naomi’s son Filip on a screen, showing him to be on the targeted ship. (Naomi Nagata is Holden’s romantic partner.)

Everyone chalks it up as a dud, and Holden doesn’t correct them. It takes a fair amount of time before Holden owns up to his action.

Sacrifice of One for the Many

In war, casualties are inevitable. But wartime leaders understand that making a decision that results in the least amount of casualties while achieving an objective is nearly always preferred.

Holden is a wartime leader, whether he likes it or not. He commands one of the allies’ most formidable ships going up against the Free Navy. The choices impact not only him, his crew, and his loved ones, but the entire allied forces.

Yes, I get that he did it to save his partner’s son. Which would have made sense, and in its own way, be an incredibly brave (if not foolish and selfish) decision. Except for one thing.

Naomi Forced to Kill Her Own Son

All Holden did was put off the inevitable. As long as Filip remained on Inaros’ ship, he was bound to be destroyed. That Holden couldn’t be the cause of his partner’s son’s destruction is, on a human level, completely understandable. If we were in his shoes, it’s probably a choice many of us would have made.

However, it was ultimately the wrong selfish decision. Holden is the only person who saw and knew definitively that Filip was on that ship when the missile was flying toward it.

Later, by episode 6, everyone is agreed that Inaros’ ship needs to be destroyed in an all-out battle. That’s a conclusion I think most people reached somewhere around episode 1. And even Amos Burton, the ship’s engineer, wonders out loud if this time they’re really going after Inaros to kill him.

When the opportunity once again presents Holden’s crew with a way to destroy Inaros’ ship, they take it. The bitter irony is that it is Naomi that designs the plan that will ultimately result in her own son’s destruction. Holden put off the decision only to have it fall on the very woman he was trying to protect.

Countless Lives Lost

Had Holden destroyed Inaros’ ship when he had the chance, he likely would’ve hastened the end of the war. With their leader dead and their flagship destroyed, the Free Navy would’ve likely come to their senses sooner rather than later. Indeed, it often seemed like it was Inaros who was not only driving their use of proto-molecule technology (through his secret, temporary alliance with Laconia), but also their overarching strategy and battle planning.

Dozens of ships and hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives, would’ve been saved. Instead, Holden put the value of one life over the value of those thousands of lives.

A Cheap Parting Shot

It’s natural this whole sequence of events didn’t sit well with the writers — having Naomi be responsible for her son’s death rather than Holden.

Filip, unseen (and I guess nobody notices a mech leaving the ship?), runs off before Inaros’ ship can transit through the ring. This seems like a strange turn of behavior for Filip who was passionately singing Inaros’ praises just a few hours before.

This cheap plot device allows Filip to remain alive and to help soften the blow of the terrible Sophie’s choice-type of moment Naomi just lived through (even though Naomi doesn’t know Filip left moments before). It takes away from Naomi’s ultimate sacrifice and offers a muted justification for Holden’s original decision. Had Holden simply done nothing and let the missile hit Inaros’ ship, Filip would indeed be dead.

James Holden: Hero and Coward?

There’s no clear answer here. Holden’s actions were certainly understandable and perhaps even justifiable had they not been in an active war. In wartime, hard decisions are made to save lives and to achieve an objective. Here Holden and his crew had the chance to cause significant damage to the enemy by taking out their leader, his number two, and his flagship. It likely would’ve saved thousands of lives and ended the war earlier.

Instead, he chose not to do that, in order to save his partner the pain of losing her son. But in a war, isn’t it inevitable that if you want to win, the enemy’s leader’s ship will be destroyed by someone? If not Holden, then who?

As we found out, it wasn’t some nameless other person in the fleet.

I’m not sure if that makes him an honorable hero or a selfish coward. What I do know is that he seemed to choose a path that appeared easier to navigate in the short-term without really thinking through the long-term consequences of his decision.