[DS9] Lynch's Spoiler Review: "For the Cause"
Timothy W. Lynch
WARNING: You have your duty, and I have mine. Mine is to write
a review of DS9's "For the Cause"; yours is to avoid spoilers for the
show if you so desire.
In brief: Nice work. A few rough spots, but some hard choices and
nice feints.
======
Written by: Ronald D. Moore (teleplay); Mark Gehred O'Connell
(story)
Directed by: James L. Conway
Brief summary: As new Maquis activity threatens to affect a shipment
coming through the station, Sisko is given evidence that his
companion Kasidy Yates may be a Maquis smuggler.
======
I've always liked the Maquis.
Oh, I'm not sure I agree with everyone they do or think -- but
dramatically, they're far more interesting to me than the Klingons, the
Borg, or (by far) the Dominion. They're not villains you have to
outwit; they're people that have to be out-justified. They're a
challenge to Sisko and company's ideals and beliefs, not to their
weaponry. That is the sort of thing I watch DS9 for, not technical
challenges. That makes a show like "For the Cause" an interesting
show to examine -- despite the fact that much of it *doesn't* fit the
scenario I just described.
Most of the show, in fact, dealt with a far more personal issue: the
collision between Sisko's private life and his public duty. While that
sort of show's isn't uncommon, it's rarely been used for Sisko -- and
it's also rare to have the person under suspicion be a reasonably long-
term character. I remember having some suspicions about Kasidy
Yates as far back as the start of this season -- but most of them were
more glum suspicions that she'd turn out to be a Changeling, or
something else more prosaic. I would have been bored by that; it's a
more obvious tactic, and it implies an undue interest in Sisko on the
part of the Dominion. Having Kasidy turn out to be a Maquis agent
(and a low-level one at that) is far more fitting; independent ship
captains and traders strike me as the sort of people who would be
likely to sympathize with the Maquis's views about their homes, and
she didn't seem to be targeting Sisko in any particular way. (Her
superiors did ... but that's a story for later on.)
I think Sisko's early reactions were a bit overplayed -- not necessarily
his easily-understood outburst to Odo and Eddington, but more his
"curiosity" about the routes Kasidy used to go on her "rounds". I
don't always act like the most subtle person in the world (as virtually
anyone who knows me can attest), but heavens, I could have done
better than that. Given Sisko's emotional state at the time, I can
certainly accept that he'd be a bit on the clumsy side -- but *that*
clumsy strikes me as overkill. (This may also be part of a growing
sense I've had for half a season that Avery Brooks has moved from
underplaying Sisko a bit to overplaying him quite a bit. Maybe not.)
It certainly didn't mar the episode to any significant degree, especially
since Kasidy did eventually catch on that Sisko probably knew
something -- but it was one of the few notes to ring a little false.
Everything else, to paraphrase Sisko, continued building on itself
extremely well until the pieces were all in place. The "health
inspection" ploy and the way Sisko managed to get Kasidy out while
still keeping tabs worked well, right down to Sisko's "do you have
something to say?" to Eddington right before explaining himself.
Sisko's snapping at Jake was entirely natural and understandable
under the circumstances -- a combination of Sisko's worry and Jake's
unwise hey-let's-joke-with-the-old-man-about-his-sex-life
conversation. (If I ever have a kid and he/she does that, remind me to
kill him/her at once. :-) ) And Eddington's semi-awkward request to
be left behind on the station felt right for Eddington, or for almost
anyone else; I know *I* wouldn't want to be the one stuck with the
risk of accidentally killing my commander's girlfriend. Everything
was set up quite nicely, both emotionally and strategically.
That brings me to the big turnaround of the show: the theft of the
replicators. I liked the way this was done an awful lot -- partly
because it didn't turn out that Kasidy was squeaky-clean, but mostly
because I was totally fooled as well. Eddington was a beautiful choice
for a Maquis agent: his straight-ahead by-the-book manner in
previous episodes has lent him a certain air of being above the fray,
his role in Starfleet security makes him an obvious choice for
recruitment, and his lack of serious opinion about anything other than
his job made even his "I have no opinions about the Maquis" plea
have a certain ring of plausibility to it, when it should have been
sending up warning flares. I did wonder about that statement just for
a second, but only for a second -- I felt as though I knew Eddington
well enough that it wasn't a sensible suspicion. This is the benefit of
having a long-term character play a role like this -- unlike "Star Trek
VI", when Valeris's very existence pointed a very large neon finger at
her as the spy. I was suckered, and I haven't enjoyed being suckered
that much in a very long time. (My thought when Sisko was
wondering what was going on was that the Maquis simply wanted
*Sisko*, not caring about the station one way or the other. The way
they filmed worked better.) Eddington strikes me, quite frankly, as
probably the best Trek "betrayer" character I've come across.
The aftermath of Eddington's betrayal was interesting -- and given the
statements I made at the start of the review, you can probably guess
that I enjoyed Eddington's closing speech a *lot*. His sneering
insistence that the Maquis is targeted because "*nobody* leaves
Paradise" and gets away with it isn't a viewpoint I entirely agree with
-- but given some of the people we've seen high up in Starfleet, I can't
totally discount it, either. It was a challenge of a very different type
from "how can we defeat the shapeshifter" -- it's an idea that must be
refuted, not suppressed. That gave me a new insight into the Maquis,
and does a nice job of setting up future Maquis stories if they are to
occur (yes, yes, yes, yes, yes -- please, sirs, I want some more) -- I
couldn't ask for more than that. (Sisko's retaliatory threat wasn't bad,
either.)
The personal aftermath of Sisko's decision didn't hit me as hard as the
Sisko/Eddington exchange did, but it was necessary for closure.
What would have really made things work here was one extra scene --
showing not Sisko's reaction, but Jake's. Jake's the one who set his
father up with Kasidy in the first place, after all -- and he's been
pushing for the two of them to get together for about a year. Between
his experience in "Shattered Mirror" and here, he should have some
really interesting reactions to mother-figures; I wish we'd gotten to see
them.
That just leaves the "B" story, that of Garak and Ziyal. This felt a bit
like filler to me, if interesting filler. It'll certainly make things more
interesting when and if Dukat ever returns, but the main thing it had to
distinguish itself was a lot of sparkling dialogue. (The elevator scene
was great.) Apart from that, and Quark doing a nice job making
Garak paranoid, this was more of a distraction than anything else.
Some short takes, then:
-- It was a pity to see Jake asking writing questions so quickly. After
the events of "The Muse", I figured he'd wait a while.
-- Sisko's "I am a Starfleet officer, a paragon of virtue" was cute in
itself in the teaser, but took on a whole new meaning later in light of
Eddington's rant.
-- I also liked Kira's annoyance at Cardassia getting more replicators
than Bajor got. The reason given for why was certainly valid, but it's
just the sort of thing that ought to bug her.
-- I also liked the "come away with me to Riisa" scene a great deal.
Lots of subtext, and everyone there knew it.
That about covers it. "For the Cause" wasn't quite top-flight, but it
was pretty close; almost at the level of "The Visitor" or "Hard Time",
and certainly up with other Maquis-heavy shows like "The Maquis".
Here's hoping there are more to come.
So, to close:
Writing: Hard choices, great dialogue, and nice twists. Can't argue
with that.
Directing: Riveting.
Acting: Neither Penny Johnson (Kasidy Yates) nor Tracy Middendorf
(Ziyal) were stellar, but both were good. Kenneth Marshall
(Eddington) and Andrew Robinson were terrific, as were the
regulars.
OVERALL: 9. Quite nice.
NEXT WEEK:
A battle with the Jem'Hadar.
Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
tly...@alumni.caltech.edu <*>
"Starships chase us through the Badlands, and our supporters are
harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've *left* the Federation,
and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves Paradise."
- Eddington
--
Copyright 1996, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
This article is explicitly prohibited from being used in any off-net
compilation without due attribution and *express written consent of the
author*. Walnut Creek and other CD-ROM distributors, take note.
Tony Murray
In <4n3chd$l...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
I found myself in agreement with most of Tim's review, and while this
doesn't *really* contain spoilers, I'll leave in the protection (assuming
this works!)...
>I've always liked the Maquis.
>Oh, I'm not sure I agree with everyone they do or think -- but
>dramatically, they're far more interesting to me than the Klingons, the
>Borg, or (by far) the Dominion. They're not villains you have to
>outwit; they're people that have to be out-justified. They're a
>challenge to Sisko and company's ideals and beliefs, not to their
>weaponry.
[snip]
>and does a nice job of setting up future Maquis stories if they are to
>occur (yes, yes, yes, yes, yes -- please, sirs, I want some more) -- I
>couldn't ask for more than that.
These days, my only real problem with the Maquis is that we
have not heard word one as to *why* they exist. If, as was
suggested at the end of the last season and the start of this
one, a civilian government is now running Cardassia and the
military hoodlums who were in power are no longer (ref. Gul
Dukat serving as military advisor to the civ. government
before the Klingons attacked) -- And more imporantly, if
the Federation is on good enough terms with Cardassia that
they are giving them technology, why, oh why would it be
plausible that Cardassians are still harrassing former-Federation
citizens in the border regions?
I agree with Tim that the Maquis stories are generally interesting,
but I really would like to see mention of the current status out
there, and I'd like it to be plausible given the current political
situation. Heck, it could remain the same as it was, as long as
the situation is explained in enough detail for it to make sense.
--Tony Murray (tmu...@nova.umuc.edu)
Victor W. Wong
Tony Murray (tmu...@nova.umuc.edu) writes:
> These days, my only real problem with the Maquis is that we
> have not heard word one as to *why* they exist. If, as was
> suggested at the end of the last season and the start of this
> one, a civilian government is now running Cardassia and the
> military hoodlums who were in power are no longer (ref. Gul
> Dukat serving as military advisor to the civ. government
> before the Klingons attacked) -- And more imporantly, if
> the Federation is on good enough terms with Cardassia that
> they are giving them technology, why, oh why would it be
> plausible that Cardassians are still harrassing former-Federation
> citizens in the border regions?
There are two main reasons for the Maquis' existence:
1. A "defense force" for the former Federation colonies, since the
original Cardassian administration either would not or could not help them
meet legitimate defense/public security requirements;
2. An organization which refuses to admit that the Federation-Cardassian
conflict is over and which uses Bajoran terrorist and guerilla tactics in
the hope of getting Cardassia to withdraw their jurisdictional power--and
presence--from the DMZ.
Which one applies depends on a given situation--and the way an individual
Maquis sees him/herself. The time may come when the two definitions will
come into conflict, since they imply different mandates and goals.
>
> I agree with Tim that the Maquis stories are generally interesting,
> but I really would like to see mention of the current status out
> there, and I'd like it to be plausible given the current political
> situation. Heck, it could remain the same as it was, as long as
> the situation is explained in enough detail for it to make sense.
>
> --Tony Murray (tmu...@nova.umuc.edu)
>
>
Here's one to throw at you:
Suppose a Jem'Hadar force began attacking Cardassian colonies in the DMZ.
Which side do you think the Maquis will be on?
==============================================================
USS BLACK ADDER--Defiant Class "That horrid little ship!"
--------------------------------------------------------------
_________//------------------------/__________
/| || || NCC-1431456========= / oo | oo \_____
\|___||___|| ==================@ |_______|_______) `\
\\____________________/ `-------------'
Victor Wong, commanding ah...@freenet.carleton.ca
==============================================================
--
Copyright (C) 1996 Victor W. Wong. All rights reserved.
Rich Kelley
Tim,
I really liked this episode too, for the reason's you've outlined.
However, a couple of things that do bug me:
1) Why do the Maquis still exists? With the (assumed) pacification
(that is a word, isn't it?) of the Cardasians, where's the big
need for the Maquis?
I'd like some kind of explanation of this in the show like:
- The Cardasians are still threatening the DMZ even though
they now have a civilian gov't.
- There is some other threat that now justifies the Maquis'
existence
- Now that the Maquis movement has started, it hard to stop
even though the need is gone (this is interesting since it
would create internal conflict with in the Maquis).
2) While I agree with everything that you said about Edington,
it still bugs me that when I think about his behavior and
actions over the last season and a half that I can think of
nothing that would indicate that he was an unhappy space
camper. There should have been someting, at least in retro-
spect, that made the loyal viewer say, "oh ya, that's right.
Edington did X and that seemed a little strange at the time
but now makes total sense." or "Oh ya, I remember Edington
talking in the bar with someone expressing some dissatisfaction
with Starfleet".
What this seems like more than brilliant writing is a happy
accident. They've had this character bouncing around for
the last season and a half, occasionally causing trouble,
occasionally being helpful, usually just not around much.
Then someone gets the idea for the May sweeps that we need
betrayal, some interpersonal conflict. Hey, let's use
Edington. He's been around awhile so no one will suspect
him; he's been protrayed as the loyal-to-the-core Starfleet
officer. He's not real popular, like Dukat or Garek, so
we'll him for this one time thing and if he never shows
up again, so what.
This was almost as bad as the thing with Rom a last season.
First he's written as a complete moron. Then, all of a sudden,
he's this misunderstood technical genius that is being forced
by his society to fill a role (of making profit) to which
he is ill suited. Did the two completely conflict? No, but
the technical genius stuff was never even hinted at until
it became a prime motivator for Nog to want to get into Starfleet.
It would have made a lot more impact if hints had been dropped
along the way. As it was, it felt like (and probably was) a
change from out of the blue.
3) Sisko let a whole Maquis crew go. He was only able to arrest the
captain of the vessel because she returned of her own free will.
From a dramatic standpoint I understand why the writers wanted
Cassidy to make the decision to return. It shows what she
really feels. But a real officer in Sisko's situation would
not, could not have done what he did. He would have been relieved
of his command. The writers should have found another way
to let Cassidy still make the decision to stay, yet not make
Sisko do something so unrealistic to allow her that choice.
Rich Kelley
Michael Allan Thomson
> 2) While I agree with everything that you said about Edington,
> it still bugs me that when I think about his behavior and
> actions over the last season and a half that I can think of
> nothing that would indicate that he was an unhappy space
> camper. There should have been someting, at least in retro-
> spect, that made the loyal viewer say, "oh ya, that's right.
> Edington did X and that seemed a little strange at the time
> but now makes total sense." or "Oh ya, I remember Edington
> talking in the bar with someone expressing some dissatisfaction
> with Starfleet".
>
> What this seems like more than brilliant writing is a happy
> accident. They've had this character bouncing around for
> the last season and a half, occasionally causing trouble,
> occasionally being helpful, usually just not around much.
> Then someone gets the idea for the May sweeps that we need
> betrayal, some interpersonal conflict. Hey, let's use
> Edington. He's been around awhile so no one will suspect
> him; he's been protrayed as the loyal-to-the-core Starfleet
> officer. He's not real popular, like Dukat or Garek, so
> we'll him for this one time thing and if he never shows
> up again, so what.
>
show.. he remained ambigious, aloof..and then totaly helpful. I actually started to
like him.. and BOOM! He's a MAQUIS Spy.
Real spys are like that.. "WHAT? Out of nowhere... he's a spy? I don't believe it!"
Or just like a murderer, "he was a nice, quiet man.."
Mike
Rich Kelley
Michael Allan Thomson (jat...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
: > 2) While I agree with everything that you said about Edington,
: Mike
Mike,
I understand what you are saying. The moment I (and everyone else) realized that
Edington was a spy, it was really powerful. He was the perfect
spy from the standpoints that he did just kind of blend in and nothing he did
during this episode conflicted with anything he had done before (that I can think
of).
My gripe is that nothing he did in this episode (relative to being a spy)
really tied in to anything he had done before either. Since it's not realistic
to believe that Edington became a spy the day before he stole the replicators,
we have to suspect that he's been a spy for some time. Was he a spy when
he first showed up last season? Who knows. But it had to have happened sometime
before.
Once he became a spy, he would have started helping the Maquis, some how.
If he was really good, he'd find ways to help the Maquis and not raise
any suspicions (sp?).
Now, if the writers wanted Edington's betrayal of Starfleet to be a surprise,
great. Don't "tell" me he's a spy (i.e. don't show him doing obvious spy
stuff). But Edington had to, at the very least, be in communication with
the Maquis. Maybe the plan was not to risk using him on small stuff, but
to wait for the big score. Again, fine. But show me something! Make
him late for a couple of meetings, have him going on patrol in the badlands
once in awhile, have him make some off-handed comment about Starfleet a couple
of times, have him do something.
Otherwise, I felt like I had just been lied to. It took any staying power away from
the impact for me.
Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Rich Kelley
David Mears
Rich Kelley (rke...@vcd.hp.com) wrote:
> 1) Why do the Maquis still exists? With the (assumed) pacification
> (that is a word, isn't it?) of the Cardasians, where's the big
> need for the Maquis?
> - Now that the Maquis movement has started, it hard to stop
> even though the need is gone (this is interesting since it
> would create internal conflict with in the Maquis).
This is the most likely reason to me. Once you have a group formed
that gets a taste of power, it's awfully hard for them to give it up
even if their original goals are met.
> 2) While I agree with everything that you said about Edington,
> it still bugs me that when I think about his behavior and
> actions over the last season and a half that I can think of
> nothing that would indicate that he was an unhappy space
> camper.
I find it amusing that so many people thought Eddington was a Founder
for awhile. Once that (at least appeared to be) dismissed, we find
out he really is a spy after all, but for a different group.
> This was almost as bad as the thing with Rom a last season.
> First he's written as a complete moron. Then, all of a sudden,
> he's this misunderstood technical genius that is being forced
> by his society to fill a role (of making profit) to which
> he is ill suited.
I don't think it was quite so sudden. I think it worked quite well.
Our original view that ``Rom's an idiot'' was based on Quark's view,
backed up by Odo, but Odo most likely was heavily influenced by
Quark. I remember one episode where Rom was the one to break into
the locked establishment, mildly surprising Quark. Quark dismissed
it at the time as being lucky, but it did set a basis for Rom being
smarter than Quark ever imagined.
> 3) Sisko let a whole Maquis crew go. He was only able to arrest the
> captain of the vessel because she returned of her own free will.
Look at Sisko's position. He had to make a choice between arresting
Cassidy and her crew out there in the Badlands, or hightailing it back
to DS9 to try to thwart the theft of the replicators. Sisko felt the
replicators, and Eddington, were more important and was thus willing
to give up Yates and her crew, who were most likely only Maquis
helpers anyway, and not really Maquis. The fact that Sisko turned
out to be too late to stop Eddington was only an unhappy fortune, and
was certainly not predictable to Sisko at the time. I think he made
the only decision he could have at the time.
David B. Mears
Hewlett-Packard
Cupertino CA
me...@cup.hp.com
David Thiel
In article <4nadnd$t...@hpindda.cup.hp.com> me...@cup.hp.com (David Mears) writes:
<spoiler protection>
>I find it amusing that so many people thought Eddington was a Founder
>for awhile. Once that (at least appeared to be) dismissed, we find
>out he really is a spy after all, but for a different group.
Yeah, this is how I was bamboozled. I had Eddington pegged as a Founder from
about midway through season three, but when we got to "The Adversary," I
decided he was just a big red herring. Hence, I was totally fooled by his
about-face in "For the Cause," while my wife, who wouldn't know Eddington from
Zefram Cochrane, thought it was painfully obvious.
I *love* being suckered! Kudos to DS9!
David Thiel / Champaign, Illinois 1:1
E-mail: d-t...@uiuc.edu
Homepage: http://www.prairienet.org/~drthiel/homepage.html
Eric West
In article <4na79m$2...@news.vcd.hp.com>, Rich Kelley wrote:
>
>Now, if the writers wanted Edington's betrayal of Starfleet to be a surprise,
>great. Don't "tell" me he's a spy (i.e. don't show him doing obvious spy
>stuff). But Edington had to, at the very least, be in communication with
>the Maquis. Maybe the plan was not to risk using him on small stuff, but
>to wait for the big score. Again, fine. But show me something! Make
>him late for a couple of meetings, have him going on patrol in the badlands
>once in awhile, have him make some off-handed comment about Starfleet a couple
>of times, have him do something.
For goodness' sake! Eddington did none of those things because he was
a GOOD spy. (Not to mention a successful one.) If he *had* been late
for a couple of meetings, or if he had been making "anti-Starfleet"
comments before, that would have just made Sisko et al. look even
dumber than they did for letting Eddington get away with it. Why must
the audience always be omniscient?
>Otherwise, I felt like I had just been lied to. It took any staying
>power away from the impact for me.
You *were* lied to. By Eddington. We all were. If I had known
beforehand that he was a spy, there would have been no impact to the
episode at all. It would be like a "Murder, She Wrote" in which we
know the killer from the beginning. If that is your idea of
satisfactory writing, then my mileage definitely does vary.
Todd Horowitz
spoiler space:
In article <4nb2cq$l...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Eric West <fi...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4na79m$2...@news.vcd.hp.com>, Rich Kelley wrote:
>>Now, if the writers wanted Edington's betrayal of Starfleet to be a surprise,
>>great. Don't "tell" me he's a spy (i.e. don't show him doing obvious spy
>>stuff). But Edington had to, at the very least, be in communication with
>>the Maquis. Maybe the plan was not to risk using him on small stuff, but
>>to wait for the big score. Again, fine. But show me something! Make
>>him late for a couple of meetings, have him going on patrol in the badlands
>>once in awhile, have him make some off-handed comment about Starfleet a couple
>>of times, have him do something.
>For goodness' sake! Eddington did none of those things because he was
>a GOOD spy. (Not to mention a successful one.) If he *had* been late
>for a couple of meetings, or if he had been making "anti-Starfleet"
>comments before, that would have just made Sisko et al. look even
>dumber than they did for letting Eddington get away with it. Why must
>the audience always be omniscient?
Agreed. There's a line between foreshadowing stuff for the audience
and making it implausible that Sisko & co. wouldn't have caught on by now
(assuming that the DS9 crew are somewhat brighter than the CIA :)).
I prefer them to stick to the safe side of that line. Eddington was clearly
a "mole". It happens all the time in the real world. It was clearly imp-
ortant for the Maquis to have a high-level operative on DS9, so it's unlikely
that they would risk his cover by having him run off to the badlands. And HE
would be unlikely to telegraph his discontents. As Tim points out, his very
LACK of opinions should have set off alarm bells in our heads, at least.
The curious thing is why they thought that the replicators were so
important as to be worth losing such a highly placed contact.
Todd
Perrin
In article <4n7ohu$s...@news.vcd.hp.com>,
Rich Kelley <rke...@vcd.hp.com> wrote:
(SPOILERS)
>3) Sisko let a whole Maquis crew go. He was only able to arrest the
> captain of the vessel because she returned of her own free will.
> From a dramatic standpoint I understand why the writers wanted
> Cassidy to make the decision to return. It shows what she
> really feels. But a real officer in Sisko's situation would
> not, could not have done what he did. He would have been relieved
> of his command. The writers should have found another way
> to let Cassidy still make the decision to stay, yet not make
> Sisko do something so unrealistic to allow her that choice.
Sisko and co. had to get back to DS9 and try to stop
Eddington; that took major precedence over taking a few prisoners
(which would have taken too much time). Plus it was obvious that
Cassidy and her crew were duped and not high-level Maquis officers;
taking them in would not have been a big deterrent to Maquis
activities. Plus I got the impression (which may be wrong) that
Cassidy was more of a Maquis sympathizer than an actual Maquis; she
was delivering food and medical supplies, but that could just be a
humanitarian mission. I could be wrong, and it might in fact be hard
to make a clear distinction between Maquis and Maquis sympathizer. Ah
well.
/
:@-) Scott
\
Timothy W. Lynch
tmu...@nova.umuc.edu (Tony Murray) writes:
>In <4n3chd$l...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>I found myself in agreement with most of Tim's review, and while this
>doesn't *really* contain spoilers, I'll leave in the protection (assuming
>this works!)...
>>I've always liked the Maquis.
[snip]
>These days, my only real problem with the Maquis is that we
>have not heard word one as to *why* they exist.
My suspicion is "inertia". That, and the fact that the fringes of
the Cardassian Union may not be so fond of the civilian government.
At this point, I doubt many Maquis members care whether the
Cardassians are actively a problem or not -- they'd just like them
gone, thank you, and gone immediately and permanently.
That's my take on it, at any rate.
Tim Lynch
Todd Horowitz
In article <4nr5lo$m...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
I think that Eddington's little speech indicates that the Maquis
now exist for their own sake. Having sturggled on their own for years,
they're not about to rejoin a Federation that they feel has abandoned them,
nor do they wish to be part of Cardassia, however reformed. It sounds like
they've simply evolved into a separatist group, which is perfectly
plausible.
Todd
Andrew T. Kim
>>>>> Thus spake tly...@alumnae.caltech.edu(Timothy W Lynch):
> tmu...@nova.umuc.edu (Tony Murray) writes:
>> In <4n3chd$l...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> tly...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>> I found myself in agreement with most of Tim's review, and while this
>> doesn't *really* contain spoilers, I'll leave in the protection (assuming
>> this works!)...
>
>>> I've always liked the Maquis.
> [snip]
>> These days, my only real problem with the Maquis is that we
>> have not heard word one as to *why* they exist.
> My suspicion is "inertia". That, and the fact that the fringes of
> the Cardassian Union may not be so fond of the civilian government.
> At this point, I doubt many Maquis members care whether the
> Cardassians are actively a problem or not -- they'd just like them
> gone, thank you, and gone immediately and permanently.
> That's my take on it, at any rate.
> Tim Lynch
I could be mistaken, but my impression was that Maquis are
renegades from planets Cardassians colonized, fighting to get their
homelands back. It appears that Bajor was a big part of Maquis, but not
necessarily the only one. Although Cardassians returned Bajor, I don't
think it was established that they returned any other colonies to their own
people, even with the internal problems in Cardassia. Thus, Maquis still
have the cause to fight Cardassians, and its ideology is gathering
significant followings from outside (like Eddington) in the process.
MHO.
-ak
--
Andrew T. Kim | I only speak for myself. My opinion does not reflect
and...@panix.com | that of my employer's.
nny...@ubss.com |
212-821-6959(W) |If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets. - Gurney Halleck
Todd Horowitz
In article <NNYKIA.96M...@ubss.com>,
Andrew T. Kim <nny...@ubss.com> wrote:
> I could be mistaken, but my impression was that Maquis are
>renegades from planets Cardassians colonized, fighting to get their
>homelands back. It appears that Bajor was a big part of Maquis, but not
>necessarily the only one. Although Cardassians returned Bajor, I don't
>think it was established that they returned any other colonies to their own
>people, even with the internal problems in Cardassia. Thus, Maquis still
>have the cause to fight Cardassians, and its ideology is gathering
>significant followings from outside (like Eddington) in the process.
You are mistaken. The Bajorans were never Maquis.
At issue during the Federation's war with Cardassia was a sector of
space including both Cardassian and Federation colonies. The peace treaty
declared this are a "demilitarized zone" and dealt half the planets to the
Cardassians and half to the Federation (which of course makes sense only
with 2D surface territories and not with planets separated by lightyears in
3D, but never mind). This meant that some Federation colonies ended up
under Cardassian rule (and presumably some Cardassian colonies under
Federation rule, though nobody ever talks about them). The Federation citizens
who ended up under the Cardassians were not particularly happy about this,
and some formed an armed resistance group, named for the French resistance
in WWII, the Maquis. Of course, one man's "resistance group" is another man's
"terrorist organization", so both the Cardassians and the Federation have been
trying to shut down Maquis operations. Some Starfleet officers are sympathetic
to the Maquis cause, and some have left Starfleet to join them, notably
Eddington ("For the Cause"), Ro ("Preemptive Strike"), and Bernie Casey's
character ("The Maquis"). Not to mention half the crew of Voyager ("The
Caretaker").
The problem is this: The Maquis were formed to fight the oppressive
Cardassian occupation. However, the Cardassian military dictatorship has
collapsed and been replaced by a civilian government which is both friendly to
the Federation and under severe outside military threats. Why haven't they
resolved the DMZ situation? While the Federation dislikes the Maquis, you
would think that they would use their new leverage over the Cardassians to
pry some ex-Fed colonies out of their hands, while the non-military government
should be both less concerned with territorial disputes and more concerned
with fighting the Klingons. Even when the military was more powerful, the
civillian government was able to effect a withdrawal from Bajor, in part
motivated by the high cost of occupation. Why haven't they issued a similar
withdrawal from the DMZ?
Todd