DS9 Spoiler: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "If Wishes Were Horses"
Tim Lynch
Review by Tim Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu>
===============================================
WARNING: This article contains spoilers for "If Wishes Were Horses", the
latest episode from DS9. If your wishes do not involve spoilers at this time
(horses being somewhat irrelevant), then avoid the article.
Well ... not bad, but uninspired -- and way too much time spent on a
cheap-laughs plot.
That plot, of course, is the "Dueling Daxes" bit that we got a great deal of,
and was by far the least successful element of "If Wishes Were Horses". What
elements of it did work were almost entirely due to Bashir's reactions to the
situation. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
"If Wishes Were Horses" was, I'd have to say, a surprisingly _routine_ outing
for DS9. Given that the entire story involves imagination turning into
reality, you'd tend to expect that the crafting of the show might have a
little more imagination than it seemed to to me. I didn't dislike it by any
means, but it didn't really fire up my enthusiasm, either.
The obvious comparison, I think, is to elements of TNG's "Where No One Has
Gone Before", which also had a strong imagination-vs-reality issue involved.
However, there were two differences:
-- WNOHGB got the crew into it by their own efforts, and
-- WNOHGB didn't have an induced "jeopardy" angle to create suspense.
"If Wishes Were Horses" had such a plot, and also had no _responsibility_ for
the situation on the part of the characters. All they got to do was react
and attempt to figure things out. Now, it's to the show's credit that they
*did* figure things out on their own, rather than having the aliens simply
wave everything away as all better later. It is also _very_ much to the
show's credit that the jeopardy was merely another illusion created by the
crew itself, although the aliens did in fact give it form.
Despite doing good things with both of those weaknesses, though, they still
felt like weaknesses.
The storyline involving the "figments" as actual explorers was an interesting
twist, and I think I'd have enjoyed it more had the explorers themselves been
a little more interesting. I've already mentioned (though not yet in detail)
my distaste for the alternate Dax, and "Buck Bokai" didn't do much for me
either. In fact, I was somewhat surprised to see that the observer I liked
the most was Rumpelstiltskin, though with Michael John Anderson playing him I
probably shouldn't have been so surprised. Rumpelstiltskin was far more
sinister than I expected him to be, which probably helped a great deal.
Part of the problem I had with "If Wishes Were Horses" is that it never quite
seemed to settle on what it wanted to do as an episode. Was it going to be a
lighthearted look at the characters, a la "The Naked Whichever"? Was it
going to be working on the dangers and the strengths of imagination? Was it
a standard "the station's in danger from an outside force" show?
I think it tried to be several things at once, and as such didn't quite
manage to be successful at any of them. The first two both worked up to a
point, but only a point -- and much of the third didn't work at all, except
for the ending.
The problem with the "lighthearted" end is that at times the characters were
simply being used *as* jokes rather than having humor come *from* them. Odo
is one example. Although his imagining Quark in jail worked just fine, his
chasing everything and anything around the Promenade didn't, and his request
to "refrain from using your imaginations" _really_ didn't.
Then, there's the "dueling Daxes". What little of this worked worked because
we were seeing Bashir's reactions to his fantasy actually coming to life.
Dax and alternate-Dax themselves did not. That's a pity, because with Dax's
_already_ dual nature, there could have been a nice Dax-as-Dax vs.
Dax-as-Jadzia conflict here. Instead, the impression I got was
Dax-as-repressed vs. Dax-as-sex-kitten, which is far better than the
character deserves.
Terry Farrell had a lot of work to do here, but I don't quite think she
pulled it off. She did a very good job of showing the *contrast* between the
two Daxes when playing the Dax-figment, but at the cost of making the normal
Dax far too aloof and prickly. I didn't buy the reaction to the "cold fish"
barb one bit -- even given that Dax has bad memories of Curzon Dax's amorous
adventures, the _way_ she reacted to it just didn't ring true at all.
The bits of the Dax/Dax/Bashir issue that worked for me were in Bashir's
reactions to having this intensely private fantasy spring full-blown into his
life. Even beforehand, El Fadil was having a lot of fun this week -- his
reaction to being called a good "friend" epitomized the reaction of every
single male friend (and many female friends as well) I've ever had to hearing
the infamous "let's just be friends". Later, when Dax-figment shows up in
his bed, his act of being "suayve and de-bon-er" evaporated into the mist and
he became a babbling idiot, as I think most people would have in that
situation. (To his credit, he kept enough of his wits about him that he
thought something was wrong with her and checked it out, something which I
think a lot of people would *not* do in that situation. His findings may not
have been enough, but they were a good start.) And in the end, "why am I
fighting this? Why _am_ I fighting this?" was just plain funny. :-)
The Sisko/Bokai relationship was interesting, but just didn't quite grab me.
Part of it might be that I was never much of a baseball fan. Brooks and
Keone Young certainly played off each other well, so that's not it, although
there were times when I thought Young sounded too forced in the baseball
chatter. In fact, I think that's it -- I liked it whenever we got to see
Bokai the *person*, but far more often we saw Bokai the *ballplayer*, which
simply failed to draw me in. (The extended epitaph for baseball _must_ have
been Michael Piller's idea, given his love of the sport. Unfortunately, for
me all it did was stop the show dead for about a minute.)
That leaves O'Brien and Rumpelstiltskin, which worked the best of the three
for getting across the power of imagination. Firstly, O'Brien's
salt-of-the-earth type of attitude suggests someone who doesn't have a whole
lot of use for imagination (which certainly lent itself well to elements of
"The Storyteller"). I'm not sure I'd have taken it to the point of him being
*afraid* of imagination, though -- I'd have put him with Odo as considering
it a waste of time. (I also suspect that O'Brien had to read
"Rumpelstiltskin" the story a _lot_ of times before he could do it that well.
He doesn't strike me as the type to improvise much.) I also rather enjoyed
this because we finally got to see O'Brien as a family man in a way that
_worked_, and in a way that called up Rumpelstiltskin naturally and easily.
I do have to wonder why both Rumpelstiltskin (aside: I'm getting *really*
tired of having to type that all the time :-) ) and Bokai were so insistent
that they were linked to the *adult* Sisko and O'Brien. Given that Bokai
turned real while playing with Jake, and that Rumpelstiltskin didn't show up
until O'Brien had *left* the room, I'd have bet more that they were products
of Jake and Molly, not Ben and Miles.
I have to say again that I very much *liked* the fact that the "jeopardy"
angle was in fact a false one, tied into their own imaginations. Lisa
guessed about two-thirds of the way in that the whole problem was Dax's
imagination, and it's a testament either to how well they covered their
tracks or to how unthinking I was earlier in the week that I said that it
couldn't be that. Sigh. :-)
That ending also gave Sisko a chance to truly shine in a command role, which
he did in spades. I'm a little skeptical that a mere *four* people suddenly
believing there was no rift actually got rid of the thing -- couldn't anyone
else see it? -- but in terms of dramatic potential right that second, it was
terrific.
Finally (at least in main points), I think the technobabble level was set a
bit too high this week, primarily when dealing with the rift. The entire
conference about what to do against it struck me as "a tech-created solution
to a tech-created problem". There wasn't a whole lot of material there to
get the spirit going, y'know?
That's about that. Now, some shorter points:
-- Yet another Stephen Donaldson thought: the figment aliens struck me as
very similar to Donaldson's Elohim in some ways, particularly given that they
had to turn themselves into things like snow, fire, and that rift itself.
-- Much of the direction didn't quite do it for me (particularly the very
opening scene -- almost no camera motion at all), but Legato must've had fun
with the emus. Two emus walk offstage, and Quark's two trollops walk
onstage. If the term's still used in Britain, the phrase "birds" is suddenly
far more appropriate. :-)
-- Quark's opportunity made me think immediately of the Universal Studios
tour. Just a thought.
That should about do it. I'll add that I may feel better about the show come
summer, when I have more imagination to spare myself about it. Right now,
though, I'd say it was a reasonably-done show that could've been much more.
So, numbers time:
Plot: Solid, if not entirely riveting. Call it an 8.
Plot Handling: 5. Mostly okay, with a few good bits and a few really
disappointing bits (like the baseball epitaph and dueling Daxes)
Characterization: 7. It could've been much more if Bokai and Dax had
been better.
OVERALL: 6.5. Not bad, but not great.
NEXT WEEK:
Circumstances drive Odo to melt in Lwaxana's arms.
Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
BITNET: tlynch@citjulie
INTERNET: tly...@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.ca...@hamlet.caltech.edu
"He followed me home from the holosuite."
-- Jake
--
Copyright 1993, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
Louise Mahoney
>That leaves O'Brien and Rumpelstiltskin, which worked the best of the three
>for getting across the power of imagination. Firstly, O'Brien's
>salt-of-the-earth type of attitude suggests someone who doesn't have a whole
>lot of use for imagination (which certainly lent itself well to elements of
>"The Storyteller"). I'm not sure I'd have taken it to the point of him being
>*afraid* of imagination, though -- I'd have put him with Odo as considering
>it a waste of time.
The point was not that O'Brien was afaid of imagination. O'Brien
was clearly afraid that Rumpelstiltskin was going to steal Molly
(which of course is the choice that was presented to him by Rumpelstiltskin
near the end of the episode).
Did anybody else catch the "What does that mean?" statement
by Kira after a "tech is teching tech" line while they are
testing the weapon agains the rip. Maybe the Paramount
writers do read this net.
In case they do, an episode where Dr. Bashir's clothes melt off would go
over pretty well.
Louise Mahoney
Committee for the Liberation and Integration of
Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation
Into Society
SEFEB
JOHN HEIM
>>Review by Tim Lynch <tly...@juliet.caltech.edu>
>>===============================================
>>
>>WARNING: This article contains spoilers for "If Wishes Were Horses", the
>>latest episode from DS9. If your wishes do not involve spoilers at this time
>>(horses being somewhat irrelevant), then avoid the article.
>>Terry Farrell had a lot of work to do here, but I don't quite think she
>>pulled it off. She did a very good job of showing the *contrast* between the
>>two Daxes when playing the Dax-figment, but at the cost of making the normal
>>Dax far too aloof and prickly. I didn't buy the reaction to the "cold fish"
>>barb one bit -- even given that Dax has bad memories of Curzon Dax's amorous
>>adventures, the _way_ she reacted to it just didn't ring true at all.
>
> Well, the "Dax-as-Dax" character is still developing in a big way,
>and I don't get the sense from the episodes we've seen that this reaction
>is not like her. The "not ringing true" argument doesn't quite fly with
>me...we don't know her well enough to say.
>
> I saw this as a development of Dax's character...the calm,
>sedate, experienced Dax actually *worrying* about how she is perceived.
>A side to her we haven't seen much of...maybe it's the younger Jazdia side.
I thought this was a particularly good moment for the character.
Without thinking about it I expected a bigger reaction. When this
didn't happen, it reminded me that this is someone who has the
emotional experience of several lifetimes.
If Dax *wasn't* -- well, not exactly calm and sedate -- more like
patient, it wouldn't ring true. Patience comes with age (usually).
JGH
ph9991...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
for "If Wishes Were Horses"
>
> for DS9. Given that the entire story involves imagination turning into
> reality, you'd tend to expect that the crafting of the show might have a
> little more imagination than it seemed to to me. I didn't dislike it by any
> means, but it didn't really fire up my enthusiasm, either.
>
> The obvious comparison, I think, is to elements of TNG's "Where No One Has
> Gone Before", which also had a strong imagination-vs-reality issue involved.
> However, there were two differences:
>
> -- WNOHGB got the crew into it by their own efforts, and
> -- WNOHGB didn't have an induced "jeopardy" angle to create suspense.
Wrong Tim. WNOHGB got the crew into it by the efforts of the Traveller,
and it also certainly did have an induced jeopardy angle to create suspense:
the crew's imaginations getting out of control.
While watching this episode, I was afraid that we were going to get the
Where No One treatment all over again, and that turned out to not be the
case. I enjoyed it for that.
> "If Wishes Were Horses" had such a plot, and also had no _responsibility_ for
> the situation on the part of the characters. All they got to do was react
> and attempt to figure things out. Now, it's to the show's credit that they
> *did* figure things out on their own, rather than having the aliens simply
> wave everything away as all better later. It is also _very_ much to the
> show's credit that the jeopardy was merely another illusion created by the
> crew itself, although the aliens did in fact give it form.
I need to go after the first sentence. Why is it so bad that the crew
had no responsibility for the situation? Do we criticize "Best of Both
Worlds" just beacause the Federation doesn't invite the Borg to come and
attack them?
>
> Despite doing good things with both of those weaknesses, though, they still
> felt like weaknesses.
"On the contrary, it is a strength."
>
> Part of the problem I had with "If Wishes Were Horses" is that it never quite
> seemed to settle on what it wanted to do as an episode. Was it going to be a
> lighthearted look at the characters, a la "The Naked Whichever"? Was it
> going to be working on the dangers and the strengths of imagination? Was it
> a standard "the station's in danger from an outside force" show?
>
> I think it tried to be several things at once, and as such didn't quite
> manage to be successful at any of them. The first two both worked up to a
> point, but only a point -- and much of the third didn't work at all, except
> for the ending.
I don't think it did any such thing. It tried to explore all aspects of
imagination, and it did very well at that. O'Brien's fear, Bashir's
confronting his own desires, Sisko's admiration, and everyone's paranoia
(starting with Dax) about the vortex.
>
> The problem with the "lighthearted" end is that at times the characters were
> simply being used *as* jokes rather than having humor come *from* them. Odo
> is one example. Although his imagining Quark in jail worked just fine, his
> chasing everything and anything around the Promenade didn't, and his request
> to "refrain from using your imaginations" _really_ didn't.
We disagree again. That line was one of the best in the series to date.
>
> Then, there's the "dueling Daxes". What little of this worked worked because
> we were seeing Bashir's reactions to his fantasy actually coming to life.
> Dax and alternate-Dax themselves did not. That's a pity, because with Dax's
> _already_ dual nature, there could have been a nice Dax-as-Dax vs.
> Dax-as-Jadzia conflict here. Instead, the impression I got was
> Dax-as-repressed vs. Dax-as-sex-kitten, which is far better than the
> character deserves.
Tim, how in time and space could the argument you wanted to occur have
happened in this context? The "Dax-as-sex-kitten" was not created merely
as a joke. It was created because it was the most likely thing to come
out of Bashir's imagination. The conflict you wanted to see is in YOUR
imagination, not in any of the characters, therefore it is unjustified
for that to happen.
I think this was one of the best looks at Dax we've seen yet, not because
of the sex kitten, but rather because for the first time we've seen Dax
get ticked off. Cracking down the serenity of a three-centuries-old
character is going to be inherently dangerous for anyone near that
character, and I want to see more of it.
>
> Terry Farrell had a lot of work to do here, but I don't quite think she
> pulled it off. She did a very good job of showing the *contrast* between the
> two Daxes when playing the Dax-figment, but at the cost of making the normal
> Dax far too aloof and prickly. I didn't buy the reaction to the "cold fish"
> barb one bit -- even given that Dax has bad memories of Curzon Dax's amorous
> adventures, the _way_ she reacted to it just didn't ring true at all.
Why? Why? Why? Justify the above please. You say you didn't buy these
things. Why?
>
> The Sisko/Bokai relationship was interesting, but just didn't quite grab me.
> Part of it might be that I was never much of a baseball fan. Brooks and
> Keone Young certainly played off each other well, so that's not it, although
> there were times when I thought Young sounded too forced in the baseball
> chatter. In fact, I think that's it -- I liked it whenever we got to see
> Bokai the *person*, but far more often we saw Bokai the *ballplayer*, which
> simply failed to draw me in. (The extended epitaph for baseball _must_ have
> been Michael Piller's idea, given his love of the sport. Unfortunately, for
> me all it did was stop the show dead for about a minute.)
That's the kind of mentality that really is going to kill baseball,
but that's rather irrelevant to say here, isn't it?
>
> I have to say again that I very much *liked* the fact that the "jeopardy"
> angle was in fact a false one, tied into their own imaginations. Lisa
> guessed about two-thirds of the way in that the whole problem was Dax's
> imagination, and it's a testament either to how well they covered their
> tracks or to how unthinking I was earlier in the week that I said that it
> couldn't be that. Sigh. :-)
Enlightenment dawns.
>
> That ending also gave Sisko a chance to truly shine in a command role, which
> he did in spades. I'm a little skeptical that a mere *four* people suddenly
> believing there was no rift actually got rid of the thing -- couldn't anyone
> else see it? -- but in terms of dramatic potential right that second, it was
> terrific.
Nope. Nobody else has the Ops viewscreen to look at. A window wouldn't
cut it because the image needed to be magnified.
> Finally (at least in main points), I think the technobabble level was set a
> bit too high this week, primarily when dealing with the rift. The entire
> conference about what to do against it struck me as "a tech-created solution
> to a tech-created problem". There wasn't a whole lot of material there to
> get the spirit going, y'know?
Until the rift turned out to be imaginary, I was agreeing with this. When
it did, I said, "OK. Good play."
> tour. Just a thought.
>
> That should about do it. I'll add that I may feel better about the show come
> summer, when I have more imagination to spare myself about it. Right now,
> though, I'd say it was a reasonably-done show that could've been much more.
I'd say it was a very nicely-done show that was enough to make me like it.
I think you missed the pitch this week, Tim. Sorry to flame you a little,
but I think you were too hard on this offering.
Steven.K.Manfred
Thor Iverson
>for "If Wishes Were Horses"
>> -- WNOHGB didn't have an induced "jeopardy" angle to create suspense.
>
>Wrong Tim. WNOHGB got the crew into it by the efforts of the Traveller,
>and it also certainly did have an induced jeopardy angle to create suspense:
>the crew's imaginations getting out of control.
Don't forget the induced "jeopardy" of the estimated return time to their
galaxy.
>The Sisko/Bokai relationship was interesting, but just didn't quite grab me.
>Part of it might be that I was never much of a baseball fan.
Many of us would say _all_ of it...the phrase, "you just don't understand"
comes to mind. I think any focus on an activity with limited appeal...lets
say, for instance, science fiction...will always bore some people and excite
others. I thought the relationship was perfectly written and acted.
Thor
Timothy W. Lynch
>[I write]
Spoilers for "If Wishes Were Horses":
>> The obvious comparison, I think, is to elements of TNG's "Where No One Has
>> Gone Before", which also had a strong imagination-vs-reality issue involved.
>> However, there were two differences:
>>
>> -- WNOHGB got the crew into it by their own efforts, and
>> -- WNOHGB didn't have an induced "jeopardy" angle to create suspense.
>Wrong Tim. WNOHGB got the crew into it by the efforts of the Traveller,
Directly, yes. Indirectly, the crew _chose_ to allow Kosinski on board and
to let him continue his experiments -- and Wes was peripherally involved
in the Traveller's dealings as well. Here, the reason it happened is because
the aliens showed up and decided to play around.
>and it also certainly did have an induced jeopardy angle to create suspense:
>the crew's imaginations getting out of control.
No more so than here -- and here we had the added (or at least, so it seemed
until the end) one of "oh, no, the station's going to be destroyed". _That_
is an induced jeopardy plot.
>While watching this episode, I was afraid that we were going to get the
>Where No One treatment all over again, and that turned out to not be the
>case. I enjoyed it for that.
You're clearly not alone. I thought WNOHGB was lovely, and didn't care much
for this. Different squids and all that.
>>"If Wishes Were Horses" had such a plot, and also had no _responsibility_ for
>> the situation on the part of the characters. All they got to do was react
>> and attempt to figure things out. Now, it's to the show's credit that they
>> *did* figure things out on their own, rather than having the aliens simply
>> wave everything away as all better later. It is also _very_ much to the
>> show's credit that the jeopardy was merely another illusion created by the
>> crew itself, although the aliens did in fact give it form.
>I need to go after the first sentence. Why is it so bad that the crew
>had no responsibility for the situation?
Because if it's just something that happens to them that they have no control
over, we have less of a reason to get involved. That's obviously not a hard
and fast rule, but in this case I think it qualifies.
>Do we criticize "Best of Both
>Worlds" just beacause the Federation doesn't invite the Borg to come and
>attack them?
1) Why not? I thought one of BOBW1's strengths was the Riker/career issue,
which didn't involve the Borg at all.
2) It's _very_ arguable that the Federation is not an innocent victim.
Picard ticked off Q to get them to J25 in the first place, and decided to
hang around when everyone with any knowledge was suggesting a hasty retreat.
They bear some measure of responsibility.
>> Despite doing good things with both of those weaknesses, though, they still
>> felt like weaknesses.
>"On the contrary, it is a strength.
Having aliens show up and manipulate everyone out of the blue is a strength?
News to me. I prefer a little more motivation to sink my teeth into.
>>Part of the problem I had with "If Wishes Were Horses" is that it never quite
>>seemed to settle on what it wanted to do as an episode. Was it going to be a
>>lighthearted look at the characters, a la "The Naked Whichever"? Was it
>>going to be working on the dangers and the strengths of imagination? Was it
>>a standard "the station's in danger from an outside force" show?
>>
>>I think it tried to be several things at once, and as such didn't quite
>>manage to be successful at any of them. The first two both worked up to a
>>point, but only a point -- and much of the third didn't work at all, except
>>for the ending.
>I don't think it did any such thing. It tried to explore all aspects of
>imagination, and it did very well at that. O'Brien's fear, Bashir's
>confronting his own desires, Sisko's admiration, and everyone's paranoia
>(starting with Dax) about the vortex.
They did a lot of that, and as I say above some of it worked. They went for
a lot of cheap laughs with the dueling Daxes, as I said -- and I don't think
that worked. And you're still ignoring the fact that, even given the resolu-
tion of it, the vortex was there to add some jeopardy to the station that
IMO was utterly superfluous.
>> The problem with the "lighthearted" end is that at times the characters were
>> simply being used *as* jokes rather than having humor come *from* them. Odo
>> is one example. Although his imagining Quark in jail worked just fine, his
>> chasing everything and anything around the Promenade didn't, and his request
>> to "refrain from using your imaginations" _really_ didn't.
>We disagree again. That line was one of the best in the series to date.
Suit y'rself.
>>Then, there's the "dueling Daxes". What little of this worked worked because
>>we were seeing Bashir's reactions to his fantasy actually coming to life.
>>Dax and alternate-Dax themselves did not. That's a pity, because with Dax's
>>_already_ dual nature, there could have been a nice Dax-as-Dax vs.
>>Dax-as-Jadzia conflict here. Instead, the impression I got was
>>Dax-as-repressed vs. Dax-as-sex-kitten, which is far better than the
>>character deserves.
>Tim, how in time and space could the argument you wanted to occur have
>happened in this context?
You don't think Dax has occasionally thought about her former hosts?
And you're missing the point. If "this context" can only create a conflict
that was, to me, this unsuccessful, then the context needs to be changed, and
not used as an excuse.
>The "Dax-as-sex-kitten" was not created merely
>as a joke.
Perhaps not, but IMO that's how it got used.
>It was created because it was the most likely thing to come
>out of Bashir's imagination.
And as I said in the review, what little in it worked for me came out of
Bashir's responses to that very point. Justified or not by the context, the
rest of the plot did not work for me.
>The conflict you wanted to see is in YOUR
>imagination, not in any of the characters,
Pardon me, but that's nonsense. Dax doesn't have any internal conflict between
the slug half and the woman half? You can say that after having seen "Dax"?
Argue all you like, but don't stretch the truth to make your points.
>I think this was one of the best looks at Dax we've seen yet, not because
>of the sex kitten, but rather because for the first time we've seen Dax
>get ticked off.
I like the idea of something ticking her off, but so far as my reactions
were concerned this wasn't the way, both due to the writing and due to
Farrell. I'm sorry, but when her serenity breaks she's not going to get
catty, she's going to get _pissed_.
>Cracking down the serenity of a three-centuries-old
>character is going to be inherently dangerous for anyone near that
>character, and I want to see more of it.
So do I -- done properly.
>> Terry Farrell had a lot of work to do here, but I don't quite think she
>> pulled it off. She did a very good job of showing the *contrast* between the
>> two Daxes when playing the Dax-figment, but at the cost of making the normal
>> Dax far too aloof and prickly. I didn't buy the reaction to the "cold fish"
>> barb one bit -- even given that Dax has bad memories of Curzon Dax's amorous
>> adventures, the _way_ she reacted to it just didn't ring true at all.
>Why? Why? Why? Justify the above please. You say you didn't buy these
>things. Why?
Because they felt untrue to the character. My statements above this paragraph
may help clarify things a bit, but if not...well, to be blunt, too bad.
These are my _reactions_, after all, not a scientific treatise.
[flamebait deleted]
>> That ending also gave Sisko a chance to truly shine in a command role, which
>> he did in spades. I'm a little skeptical that a mere *four* people suddenly
>> believing there was no rift actually got rid of the thing -- couldn't anyone
>> else see it? -- but in terms of dramatic potential right that second, it was
>> terrific.
>Nope. Nobody else has the Ops viewscreen to look at. A window wouldn't
>cut it because the image needed to be magnified.
Good point. I'd forgotten about that -- makes sense to me.
>> Finally (at least in main points), I think the technobabble level was set a
>> bit too high this week, primarily when dealing with the rift. The entire
>> conference about what to do against it struck me as "a tech-created solution
>> to a tech-created problem". There wasn't a whole lot of material there to
>> get the spirit going, y'know?
>Until the rift turned out to be imaginary, I was agreeing with this. When
>it did, I said, "OK. Good play."
Agreed on the last, and that's why the ending worked well for me. It doesn't
change the fact that the conference scene was a snoozer.
>> That should about do it. I'll add that I may feel better about the show come
>> summer, when I have more imagination to spare myself about it. Right now,
>> though, I'd say it was a reasonably-done show that could've been much more.
>I'd say it was a very nicely-done show that was enough to make me like it.
Glad to hear it. Let's hope this is still a world where we can both be right.
>I think you missed the pitch this week, Tim. Sorry to flame you a little,
>but I think you were too hard on this offering.
The debate is welcome (if time-consuming :-) ), but next time I'd appreciate
the lack of flames. Despite 90% of the evidence of the net, is _is_ possible
to have a civil argument.
Tim Lynch
Janis Maria C. C. Cortese
>ph9991...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu writes:
>>[I write]
>
>Spoilers for "If Wishes Were Horses":
>
>>>I think it tried to be several things at once, and as such didn't quite
>>>manage to be successful at any of them. The first two both worked up to a
>>>point, but only a point -- and much of the third didn't work at all, except
>>>for the ending.
>
>>I don't think it did any such thing. It tried to explore all aspects of
>>imagination, and it did very well at that. O'Brien's fear, Bashir's
>>confronting his own desires, Sisko's admiration, and everyone's paranoia
>>(starting with Dax) about the vortex.
>
>They did a lot of that, and as I say above some of it worked. They went for
>a lot of cheap laughs with the dueling Daxes,
Dueling? Where? Is this just your reading something into this that
wasn't there? Are you remembering this correctly, Tim? Dueling? I saw
one pliant irritant, one massively embarrassed man, and one amused but
understanding woman -- no scratch fights here. No tossing hair or
stomping out of the room with little arms crossed over huffy little
chests. Why are you so intent on seeing the two Daxes as "dueling?"
Did you watch Cheers right before this or something? This sounds like
something Sam Malone would say.
>as I said -- and I don't think
>that worked. And you're still ignoring the fact that, even given the resolu-
>tion of it, the vortex was there to add some jeopardy to the station that
>IMO was utterly superfluous.
I didn't see any cheap laughs here. Sorry. I think that the idea of
this might just fall into what many viewers would regard as cheap laughs
so they shoehorn this instant into that box as well. (Pardon the mixed
metaphor.) But, I saw no instances of cheap laughs here. It seemed to
me that Julian's discomfort was not cheap or sleazy; he was someone who,
as Dax said, had his own privacy invaded. He was also someone who
needed a whap on the head to help him grow up -- he got both. I saw no
cheapness at all.
I HAVE seen this plot done for cheap laughs -- maybe it's just been done
so often with the women in question getting into their little tizzies or
slap fights so often that we're incapable of seeing it any other way.
>You don't think Dax has occasionally thought about her former hosts?
>
>And you're missing the point. If "this context" can only create a conflict
>that was, to me, this unsuccessful, then the context needs to be changed, and
>not used as an excuse.
The conflict was NOT between the Daxes in question; the real Dax just
didn't seem to give a shit about the existence of the other one. She
seemed far more concerned about Julian's embarrassment than feeling any
of her own.
>>The "Dax-as-sex-kitten" was not created merely
>>as a joke.
>
>Perhaps not, but IMO that's how it got used.
Not IMO.
>>It was created because it was the most likely thing to come
>>out of Bashir's imagination.
At the time. Remember that he WAS sleeping.
>And as I said in the review, what little in it worked for me came out of
>Bashir's responses to that very point. Justified or not by the context, the
>rest of the plot did not work for me.
There WAS no "rest of the plot." Bashir's own reactions to this WERE
the plot. The whole driving force was his having his very personal
fantasy come to life (and not even a waking fantasy but a dreaming one;
had she been created out of a waking fantasy, she would have been far
less pliant IMO) and his fear that this would hurt his relationship with
the real person, who he genuinely liked.
He's not going to play sex-toy with women after this. This was a
pivotal moment for the character.
Are you just trying to FORCE a conflict between the Daxes into this --
one that did not exist -- because of a subtle expectation of seeing two
women scratching eyes and pulling hair over some squirming guy? I'm not
asking this to be facetious, although the way I'm asking the question
may seem like it. I'm asking this seriously, Tim. Are you seeing
something that was not there? because of a subtle expectation that two
women fighting over a man is some uproariously funny catfight thing?
>>The conflict you wanted to see is in YOUR
>>imagination, not in any of the characters,
>
>Pardon me, but that's nonsense. Dax doesn't have any internal conflict between
>the slug half and the woman half? You can say that after having seen "Dax"?
>Argue all you like, but don't stretch the truth to make your points.
Sorry, Tim, but you're stretching the truth. I don't see how you
saw much of ANYTHING in "Dax." As many people have remarked, the ep
that focused on the character forced her to emote minimally. It was
almost like she wasn't there half the time; where do you see the inner
turmoil you hint at in that ep?
I think her split nature was illustrated quite well by her conversation
with the penitent and very embarrassed Julian. She was understanding,
but still miffed.
>>I think this was one of the best looks at Dax we've seen yet, not because
>>of the sex kitten, but rather because for the first time we've seen Dax
>>get ticked off.
>
>I like the idea of something ticking her off, but so far as my reactions
>were concerned this wasn't the way, both due to the writing and due to
>Farrell. I'm sorry, but when her serenity breaks she's not going to get
>catty, she's going to get _pissed_.
Catty? I saw no cattiness. I saw someone who asked, "Geez, Julian.
Did she have to be THAT submissive?" I think you may be reading
cattiness into the situation that didn't exist. I'm not trying to
give out flamebait, but are you sure you aren't automatically casting Dax
here in the role of catfighter precisely because this situation has been
overdone in other instances in just that fashion, and you may think
that any woman character in such a situation is being catty? She didn't
say, "But couldn't you have done anything else with her hair, Julian?"
or say thing ONE to the other Dax except, "Cold fish?" Had she said
something like, "Well, at least I'm not some fantasy SEX TOY," with her
hands on her hips, THAT would have been catty. I saw no cattiness
whatsoever here.
Again, Tim, I'm not trying to feed you flamebait; I just think you may
honestly be so intent on seeing this as two women in their little tizzy
over a womanizing guy and not what it was -- one man having a very
personal fantasy come to life and wake him up, and one woman who was
very understanding and pleasant about it -- but still not exactly
PLEASED. If you can bring up ONE instance of ANYTHING that smacks of
"dueling" or "cattiness" in Dax's behavior (not the alter-Dax, who could
arguably be said to have been trying to provoke a reaction out of Dax
for study purposes), I'd be pleased to hear it.
And, I'm sorry but I don't think that one miffed, "Cold fish?" or one
"Julian, did you have to make her so submissive?" counts as catty.
Sorry. No slap fights or scratching eyes here.
Regards,
Janis the net.proud.hussy
Janis Cortese || President and Founder: SEFEB, and The ||
cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu || Society of People Who Would Love to ||
UCIrvine Linguistics, || Shove a Stick Up Rush Limbaugh's Ass; ||
for a while more anyway || and Member of The Star Trek Ladies' ||
Irvine, California || Auxiliary and Embroidery/Baking Society ||
====================================================================||
I used to be a bitch and just thought it was my problem. ||
Now, I've learned to make it everyone else's problem, too. ||
====================================================================||
Timothy W. Lynch
>In article <1tuf7...@gap.caltech.edu> tly...@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>ph9991...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu writes:
>>>[I write]
>>
>>Spoilers for "If Wishes Were Horses":
>>They did a lot of that, and as I say above some of it worked. They went for
>>a lot of cheap laughs with the dueling Daxes,
>Dueling? Where? Is this just your reading something into this that
>wasn't there?
This is primarily me enjoying a bit of alliteration, actually. :-) With all
respect, I think your intentness to jump on the word "dueling" is a trifle...
er...oversensitive.
>Are you remembering this correctly, Tim? Dueling? I saw
>one pliant irritant, one massively embarrassed man, and one amused but
>understanding woman -- no scratch fights here.
Duels need not be physical, but in any event the term is not meant entirely
literally. (Hell, I've seen a pair of comedians talk about "dueling Sean
Connerys", and nobody takes _them_ to task for it. :-) )
>No tossing hair or
>stomping out of the room with little arms crossed over huffy little
>chests. Why are you so intent on seeing the two Daxes as "dueling?"
>Did you watch Cheers right before this or something? This sounds like
>something Sam Malone would say.
Um, Janis, pardon me for saying so, but I think that remark's a little out of
line. I'd prefer to be asked and allowed to answer _before_ I'm attacked,
thankee much. (To answer your latter question, though, no; I haven't
watched "Cheers" in years, though I have to get around to watching the
ending.)
>I didn't see any cheap laughs here. Sorry. I think that the idea of
>this might just fall into what many viewers would regard as cheap laughs
>so they shoehorn this instant into that box as well.
That could be true to a certain extent here, but you, like Steven, are
concentrating on Bashir's actions rather than Dax's. That's appropriate
in many ways, since he was supposed to be the focal part of that section of
the plot, but it sidesteps the issue of my impression of the Daxes.
>(Pardon the mixed
>metaphor.) But, I saw no instances of cheap laughs here.
I'm afraid I did. "I'm not submissive! Am I?" is the example that leaps to
mind most clearly -- I saw the punchline coming from decade-old memories of
"Three's Company", which is my standard for _really_ cheap laughs. :-)
>It seemed to
>me that Julian's discomfort was not cheap or sleazy; he was someone who,
>as Dax said, had his own privacy invaded. He was also someone who
>needed a whap on the head to help him grow up -- he got both. I saw no
>cheapness at all.
Nor did I *on the part of Bashir*. It was the interactions between the two
Daxes that caused me trouble; why is it that no one's addressing them?
>I HAVE seen this plot done for cheap laughs -- maybe it's just been done
>so often with the women in question getting into their little tizzies or
>slap fights so often that we're incapable of seeing it any other way.
Again, that's certainly possible up to a point, although I strongly doubt
that it's the only reason.
>>You don't think Dax has occasionally thought about her former hosts?
>>
>>And you're missing the point. If "this context" can only create a conflict
>>that was, to me, this unsuccessful, then the context needs to be changed, and
>>not used as an excuse.
>The conflict was NOT between the Daxes in question;
The scene in the lab _did_ suggest such a conflict, and it's that scene
that is the primary reason I was so dissatisfied with the plot. Most of the
rest of it was fine, honest.
>>>The "Dax-as-sex-kitten" was not created merely
>>>as a joke.
>>
>>Perhaps not, but IMO that's how it got used.
>Not IMO.
No problem here.
>>And as I said in the review, what little in it worked for me came out of
>>Bashir's responses to that very point. Justified or not by the context, the
>>rest of the plot did not work for me.
>There WAS no "rest of the plot."
I disagree, and I think the lab scene (which tried to get more into Dax's
reactions) also disagrees with you. Once both Daxes were in the room at
once, the only bit of Bashir's reactions we saw for a minute or two was the
final, "oh, thank God" or whatever it was. We were seeing the two Daxes
relate, and IMO it didn't come off the way you saw it.
>The whole driving force was his having his very personal
>fantasy come to life (and not even a waking fantasy but a dreaming one;
>had she been created out of a waking fantasy, she would have been far
>less pliant IMO) and his fear that this would hurt his relationship with
>the real person, who he genuinely liked.
The "whole driving force" is not the same as the whole _story_.
>He's not going to play sex-toy with women after this. This was a
>pivotal moment for the character.
I'll wait and see about that prediction. If so, then I suspect my opinion
of the plot will be improved by it.
>Are you just trying to FORCE a conflict between the Daxes into this --
>one that did not exist -- because of a subtle expectation of seeing two
>women scratching eyes and pulling hair over some squirming guy? I'm not
>asking this to be facetious, although the way I'm asking the question
>may seem like it.
Actually, it's seeming more as flamebait than facetiousness, but in any
case...
No, I don't think I'm trying to force a conflict between the Daxes. The one
large scene with both of them interacting appeared to be showing a conflict
between them -- not "fighting over a man" [which is a bit of added baggage
you're piling onto my complaints], but certainly conflict.
I don't think I'm seeing something that wasn't there. I think I'm seeing
something that _shouldn't_ have been there, but was.
>>>The conflict you wanted to see is in YOUR
>>>imagination, not in any of the characters,
>>
>>Pardon me, but that's nonsense. Dax doesn't have any internal conflict
>>between the slug half and the woman half? You can say that after having
>>seen "Dax"? Argue all you like, but don't stretch the truth to make your
>>points.
>Sorry, Tim, but you're stretching the truth. I don't see how you
>saw much of ANYTHING in "Dax."
Go back and look at her reluctance to talk to Sisko about _anything_ as soon
as he started arguing "Jadzia" and "Dax" were two different beings. Look
at her reaction as soon as he brings up the argument initially. That may not
be outright conflict between the two halves, but it definitely was an anger
brought about as a direct result of her duality.
I saw plenty in "Dax".
>>I like the idea of something ticking her off, but so far as my reactions
>>were concerned this wasn't the way, both due to the writing and due to
>>Farrell. I'm sorry, but when her serenity breaks she's not going to get
>>catty, she's going to get _pissed_.
>Catty? I saw no cattiness. I saw someone who asked, "Geez, Julian.
>Did she have to be THAT submissive?"
That's not the line I'm thinking about. Her "discussion" with the Dax-figment
shortly thereafter, however, is.
>I think you may be reading
>cattiness into the situation that didn't exist. I'm not trying to
>give out flamebait, but are you sure you aren't automatically casting Dax
>here in the role of catfighter precisely because this situation has been
>overdone in other instances in just that fashion, and you may think
>that any woman character in such a situation is being catty?
I'd like to think I can recognize a catty tone of voice when I hear one. IMO,
I heard one there. You've got a good point in that a lot of it was from the
_alternate_ Dax, which is a very key difference in terms of character issues;
but it's no difference at all in terms of what it did to the scene.
>She didn't
>say, "But couldn't you have done anything else with her hair, Julian?"
>or say thing ONE to the other Dax except, "Cold fish?"
And "repressed longings" or somesuch, with a tone of voice that seemed
extremely catty to me.
>Had she said
>something like, "Well, at least I'm not some fantasy SEX TOY," with her
>hands on her hips, THAT would have been catty. I saw no cattiness
>whatsoever here.
That would have been extremely catty, yes. This wasn't down on that level
by any means, but it was enough to trigger my reaction to that kind of
cattiness, which was "faugh".
>Again, Tim, I'm not trying to feed you flamebait; I just think you may
>honestly be so intent on seeing this as two women in their little tizzy
>over a womanizing guy
Again, I'd like to point out that you're the one who decided my impression
was of them fighting over Bashir. I never said a word about it -- or got
that impression, for that matter.
>If you can bring up ONE instance of ANYTHING that smacks of
>"dueling" or "cattiness" in Dax's behavior (not the alter-Dax, who could
>arguably be said to have been trying to provoke a reaction out of Dax
>for study purposes), I'd be pleased to hear it.
I have, above. If you're going to dismiss all of them as not cattiness by
your definition, then we're simply talking past each other.
Quite honestly, I think you're making an awfully large mountain out of a
molehill here. It is definitely testament to DS9's strength, however, that
you and Steven feel it so necessary to argue with me on the show...
Tim Lynch
Janis Maria C. C. Cortese
I goofed, Tim. I *still* think you were reading too much into that
subplot, but I failed to make my point without letting my . . . aah
. . . strident tendencies overwhelm it.
Sowwie.
ph9991...@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
>
>
> to let him continue his experiments -- and Wes was peripherally involved
> in the Traveller's dealings as well. Here, the reason it happened is because
> the aliens showed up and decided to play around.
I could say the same thing about the DS9 crew. They are equally indirectly
responsible because they are there.
>
>>and it also certainly did have an induced jeopardy angle to create suspense:
>>the crew's imaginations getting out of control.
>
> No more so than here -- and here we had the added (or at least, so it seemed
> until the end) one of "oh, no, the station's going to be destroyed". _That_
> is an induced jeopardy plot.
But you see, it wasn't really an induced jeopardy plot. As soon as we find
out the jeopardy wasn't real, that complaint should go out the window,
at least for me. Obviously, it still bothers you a bit.
>
>>While watching this episode, I was afraid that we were going to get the
>>Where No One treatment all over again, and that turned out to not be the
>>case. I enjoyed it for that.
>
> You're clearly not alone. I thought WNOHGB was lovely, and didn't care much
> for this. Different squids and all that.
I liked WNOHGB too, which is why I was happy this turned out to _not_ be
a carbon copy.
>
>>I need to go after the first sentence. Why is it so bad that the crew
>>had no responsibility for the situation?
>
> Because if it's just something that happens to them that they have no control
> over, we have less of a reason to get involved. That's obviously not a hard
> and fast rule, but in this case I think it qualifies.
Perhaps that is true, but I think the benefit of presenting a real world
situation (where sometimes things happen to you rather than you initiating
everything) greatly outweighs that possible weakness.
>
>>Do we criticize "Best of Both
>>Worlds" just beacause the Federation doesn't invite the Borg to come and
>>attack them?
>
> 1) Why not? I thought one of BOBW1's strengths was the Riker/career issue,
> which didn't involve the Borg at all.
>
That was a strength of the plot, certainly, but I still find the "good
old-fashioned alien invasion" story to be much more fun.
> 2) It's _very_ arguable that the Federation is not an innocent victim.
> Picard ticked off Q to get them to J25 in the first place, and decided to
> hang around when everyone with any knowledge was suggesting a hasty retreat.
> They bear some measure of responsibility.
I can't accept that. Q decides when Q will get ticked off. Q is the
one who is responsible for getting them into this mess. You're saying
that the police are the ones responsible if the hostage taker kills the
hostages. Sorry. I don't think like that. To me, the guy holding the
gun on the innocent people is the villain.
>
>>"On the contrary, it is a strength.
>
> Having aliens show up and manipulate everyone out of the blue is a strength?
> News to me. I prefer a little more motivation to sink my teeth into.
They were investigating out of the blue, not manipulating for manipulation's
sake. It's the same thing the Enterprise crew do when they go into orbit
around a new planet.
>
>>I don't think it did any such thing. It tried to explore all aspects of
>>imagination, and it did very well at that. O'Brien's fear, Bashir's
>>confronting his own desires, Sisko's admiration, and everyone's paranoia
>>(starting with Dax) about the vortex.
>
> They did a lot of that, and as I say above some of it worked. They went for
> a lot of cheap laughs with the dueling Daxes, as I said -- and I don't think
> that worked. And you're still ignoring the fact that, even given the resolu-
> tion of it, the vortex was there to add some jeopardy to the station that
> IMO was utterly superfluous.
You're still ignoring the fact that the jeopardy was revealed to be
superfluous. It's a double negative, making it a positive.
>
>>Tim, how in time and space could the argument you wanted to occur have
>>happened in this context?
>
> You don't think Dax has occasionally thought about her former hosts?
Yes, she has, but that is not "imagination." That is plain and simple
memory, or history. The aliens were only interested in imagination.
>
>>The conflict you wanted to see is in YOUR
>>imagination, not in any of the characters,
>
> Pardon me, but that's nonsense. Dax doesn't have any internal conflict between
> the slug half and the woman half? You can say that after having seen "Dax"?
> Argue all you like, but don't stretch the truth to make your points.
Yes, she has internal conflict, but that is not part of the concept of
imagination. I can't see her imagining up another Dax for her to gave
imaginary arguments with. Imagination needs some visual image to imagine,
usually, and certainly in these cases.
>
> I like the idea of something ticking her off, but so far as my reactions
> were concerned this wasn't the way, both due to the writing and due to
> Farrell. I'm sorry, but when her serenity breaks she's not going to get
> catty, she's going to get _pissed_.
She wasn't "catty," she was angry. If she was "catty" I'd expect to see
her directly take on the figment-Dax, which she never did.
>
>>Why? Why? Why? Justify the above please. You say you didn't buy these
>>things. Why?
>
> Because they felt untrue to the character. My statements above this paragraph
> may help clarify things a bit, but if not...well, to be blunt, too bad.
> These are my _reactions_, after all, not a scientific treatise.
Why did they feel untrue to the character to you? Define the character.
The internal conflict material is irrelevant in this context because this
was not about that. This was about imagination, therefore it is confined
to exploring only topics about imagination.
Perhaps if you ask yourself the question, "Why did this feel untrue to
the character?" you may discover you've missed something. Knee-jerk
reactions are not always correct.
>
>>I'd say it was a very nicely-done show that was enough to make me like it.
>
> Glad to hear it. Let's hope this is still a world where we can both be right.
>
>>I think you missed the pitch this week, Tim. Sorry to flame you a little,
>>but I think you were too hard on this offering.
>
> The debate is welcome (if time-consuming :-) ), but next time I'd appreciate
> the lack of flames. Despite 90% of the evidence of the net, is _is_ possible
> to have a civil argument.
I tried to tone it down a little this time. I hope it was enough for you.
> Tim Lynch
Steven.K.Manfred
dc...@rob.raleigh.ibm.com
>In article <lmaho...@chemdept.chem.ncsu.edu> lmah...@chemdept.chem.ncsu.edu (Louise Mahoney) writes:
>>
>>Did anybody else catch the "What does that mean?" statement
>I believe she actually said "What the hell does that mean?" in a very
>exasperated tone of voice. We got a laugh out of that--her
>exasperation was right in character.
>>by Kira after a "tech is teching tech" line while they are
>>testing the weapon agains the rip. Maybe the Paramount
>>writers do read this net.
Maybe. Or maybe they just realize how some of the technobabble sounds. My
thoughts were that Kira's statement was not only in character for Kira, but
at the same time the writers were poking fun at themselves for all the
technobabble they normally use. That's why I thought it was so hilarious.
Dave Barnhart email: 70672...@Compuserve.com
Please do not email to the address in the header; it's just a news server.