Essential DS9 failings--Gorcey response
Charles Betz
From: Scott J Gorcey, v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Scott:
Let me first thank you for a very well-informed, if belated, response to
my first post. I assume that you have read my response to the first round
of comments. It!s clear that you are very well-informed (more so than I)
about the inner workings of the Trek universe. However, I don!t think
that that per se invalidates my points; just as you might criticize me
for being ill-informed (or out of the critical mainstream), I might argue
that you can!t see the forest for the trees.
I do wish to repeat myself from my previous response that I enjoy making
controversial statements (life is so boring sometimes) and that my tongue
was a little in cheek.
(my original deleted)
> I disagree--I think DS9 has much better writing, for one simple
> reason: their characters are actually allowed to get mad at each
> other.
This is a *big* improvement, I'll admit.
> On TNG, in order for two characters to end up fighting,
> at least one of them must be a guest character. The crew of the
> Enterprise, in case you had forgotten, "do have faults but not
> as many or as serious as the faults we deal with the 20th century."
Actually, I never knew.
> This is from the TNG series bible, and is precisely what caused
> so much horrific writing in the first and second seasons and
> engendered the remark that the writer's staff room had a
> revolving door for all the incomings and outgoings. The
> characters are not, and never have been, three dimensional because
> no matter what happens, they must return to the same place they
> started sooner or later--even if it takes a couple of seasons (i.e.,
> Worf being discommendated). The performances have grown better,
> the nuances have improved, but TNG characters are still largely
> interchangeable.
Now wait a minute here though: just because the characters can't go
through any major life changes because of the continuity problems doesn't
mean they are interchangeable. That's a non sequitur.
> Roddenberry insisted the series be written sand
> produced so the episodes could be shown in any order--and that's
> largely what's happened. Sure there are references to previous
> episodes, but LARGELY, it's still true that you could watch them
> in any order whatsoever. Back to front, even. And still not
> get confused.
Which is how I--and a lot of the other viewing public--wound up watching
them. I am one of those people who Roddenberry had in mind when he issued
his dictum about time-interchangeability. Due to years of TV-less-ness
and crazy schedules, I saw most of the first five years' worth in reruns
in four different geographic locales, which made a total hash out of my
sense of series continuity. The temporal interchangeability may be a bad
thing from a purely critical standpoint, but it was a good thing for me
at the time. I love continuous shows like Dr. Who, Hill Street, and the
rest--BUT I have had to abstain from them for long periods when my life
was unstable. A show which does not have a continuous plot is easier for
the casual viewer to latch on to, and perhaps grow into fandom. Such
accessibility is also a value, independent of the more high-level
dramatic criticisms you're levelling.
Let me point out that the acclaim of critics is hardly a guarantee of
popular success for any artistic endeavor (in some cases, it!s the kiss
of death), and that!s what spurred my initial posting. Critics like
certain things--variety, subtlety, idiosyncrasy, etc.--which all too
often are lost on the majority of the watching public. It's a tough
balance, and I don't think that Deep Space Nine is doing it right.
Clearly, they need to get rid of some of the TOS/TNG baggage, and go in
some new directions. But I think they're getting rid of the wrong stuff,
while still keeping other aspects of the Star Trek legacy which have
needed to be nailed into a coffin for a long time (more on this to
follow).
>
(my original deleted)
(lengthy tit-for-tat on TNG relationships deleted)
You have some very valid points. However, I think the place Star Trek has
had in my life gives me a different perspective. First, I don't key in on
things like "how have the characters evolved over seven years" because
that's not how I watched it. Second, I (mostly) watch Star Trek for
ESCAPE. There have been months at a time when I was working eighty-hour
weeks and TNG was my *only* release. The fact that the characters seemed
comfortable with each other and were largely self-consistent was not a
minus for me, although I know that dramatic red flags go up for those
attributes.
I!m also not convinced that knowing personal minutiae is the key to depth
of character. It!s less tangible than that, I think. The bottom line is I
warm to Troi and Riker as characters, and I don!t necessarily need to
know a lot about them. The characters have maintained a certain integrity
and consistency which I find appealing. And a word of defense for
Picard/Crusher, to repeat a previous post: I think that there has been
*great* erotic tension between the two characters from the first season,
and I'm glad that it *wasn't* consummated; I think that that was the less
predictable thing to do.
(And yes, after seven years it!s all beginning to get old. No argument
there.)
>
>>DS9--no such thing. The characters seem two-dimensional, immature, and
>>lacking in the crackling interpersonal chemistry which has come to be a
>>hallmark of TNG at its best.
>
>> Again, I don't know WHERE you get this. "Crackling interpersonal
> chemistry" is outlawed in the TNG format. Ask anyone who has ever
> written for or tried to write for the show. FORBIDDEN.
Unfortunately, I'm not as well-connnected as you. Neither are 99% of the
other Star Trek fans, apparently. On the relationships, let me quote
Ursula K. LeGuin from a recent TV guide article (which came out after my
original post):
"The cast was superb from the start. Gates McFadden, Marina Sirtis, and
Majel Barrett brought depth and complexity to . . . conventionally
feminine roles . . . The lead male characters, all impressive separately,
were also great team players, their characters changing and deepening in
relation to one another."
Now, you may disagree with Ms. LeGuin, but please don't ask "WHERE you
get this"? in such a condescending way, as if I'm completely beyond the
pale; thoughtful people may disagree on many things.
> Now, DS9 gets around this barrier due to its setting, its
> mixture of starfleet and non-starfleet characters, and as a
> result, we see the character developing--even now, at the
> end of the second season, the characters have ALL grown and
> changed since the pilot. New relationships have EVOLVED:
> Dax and Kira, Dax and Quark, Quark and Rom (which is one
> that grew more prominent than Mike Piller and Rick Berman
> ever expected, owing to the CRACKLING INTERPERSONAL CHEMISTRY
> between Shimerman and Grodenchick). Sisko and Dax, O'Brien
> and "Julian." Most recently, Sisko and Gul Dukat.
Well, let's take a look at some of these relationships. First, it's
simple logic that new relationships are going to EVOLVE on any TV show
where the writers are trying to do new things. Any possible twosome
should be explored, so let's not give them too much credit for the
basics. Second, I don't find Dax and Kira any better than your
characterization of Troi and Crusher. In both cases, it seems they're too
often talking about men. Yawn. I like Troi/Crusher better because both
characters seem more fully realized. Kira Naris is good in many ways (I
just don't like her vis-a-vis Sisko), but Dax? As much as I find Terry
Farrel physically attractive, she's having major problems creating the
character (although inadequate writing may also be a problem). Blood
Oath? Good, diverting . . . but ultimately, I just didn't buy it (or
her). Dax and Quark? When? Where? That's one duo I haven't seen more than
in passing, and I don't recall missing any shows (do set me straight if I
have missed something). I like everything that Quark does, but he's a
secondary character, period. Sisko and Dax? Unconvincing--a difficult
dramatic concept to pull off, perhaps. Gul Dukat/Sisko? GREAT stuff (I'm
with all the critics there) but for the character of Dukat as a
Cardassian to have any credibility for me he's going to have to get
bumped off or exiled damn soon--so, nothing to build on there. The more I
think about O'Brien/Bashir, the more I like the conflict there, but I
hope it goes somewhere. To my mind, the only thing more boring than
characters who predictably like each other is characters who predictably
dislike each other. Both are boring, but if I have to choose, I'll go for
the more positive scene.
> Yes, DS9 still relies too much on the status-quo, it is
> not in the vanguard of hourlong dramas like NYPD BLUE and
> old LA LAW in that regard, but it does allow for some (a lot
> compared to its sister series) organic plot development, and
> we've seen the allowence increasing exponentially this season,
> with many continuing over-plots like the dominion, the bajoran
> political situation, the cardassian political situation, the
> bajoran theological situation (search for new Kai), etc.
I love the detailed, intricate political stuff too. And here is perhaps
the fundamental problem with the Roddenberry approach: if you're going to
have characters playing out longer, more nuanced relationships, you must
go the route of (Hill Street Blues, LA Law, NYPD Blue) Stephen Bochco. Is
the Trek universe ready for that kind of series continuity? If not, then
they had better stick to characters painted with a broader brush.
>
(Agreement on Quark/Odo noted)
>
> Sisko and Gul Dukat had good
>>moments in "The Maquis I." But in general, the characters seem
>>dramatically exhausted and their relationships played out. Kira/Sisko? A
>>rebellious little girl vs. a father figure. Bashir/Dax? A frustrated
>>lover and an inaccessible woman. O'Brien/Bashir? A grunt and a pompous
>>know-it-all. Sisko/Dax? Contrived and unconvicing, due in large part to
>>the canonical inconsistencies and dramatic difficulties of the Trill
>>concept.
>
> What "canonical inconsistencies?"
Between TNG's "The Host" and DS9's Trill conception. Someone else pointed
out to me that the DS9 conception is self-consistent; fine.
In large measure, I don't
> agree--Kira and Sisko's relationship needs more exploration,
> that's true. Bashir and Dax don't have a relationship--he
> doesn't oggle her anymore, and she goes out to lunch with
> him once in a while. But isn't it interesting that we even
> KNOW all this about their personal lives? Can't say the same
> for TNG--all we know is that they play poker every week.
I think this is just unfair. We know much more about TNG characters than
that, and I'd rise to the defense of the poker sessions as exactly the
kind of interpersonal relations which have added spice to the series.
(my original deleted)
> Right--and that's what's wrong with them. Contemporary drama
> is NOT about archetypes. You can have STAR WARS, where the
> characters are archetypes, and it's wonderful: but you can't
> have that on a week by week basis becuase by the very definition
> of archetypes, they DON'T grow and change. They must remain
> true to their aspect, their center--and the center of Picard,
> to put it in your terms, is not "Picard," but "King."
Our definitions are different. To me, archetypal energy is something that
is ACCESSED, or MANIFESTED. It does not DEFINE identity. Again,
archetypes are not stereotypes. The Star Wars characters were *NOT*
archetypes by my definition, they were childish stereotypes engaged in a
simple black and white good vs. evil morality play.
>
(my original deleted)
>
> That they can so easily switch archetypal roles proves my argument:
> on DS9, as in life, no such thing can usually happen. And let's be
> clear here: you're not talking about characters, but PLOTS into which
> the characters can be inserted, in almost any way. In life, and in
> good, character-based drama, it just ain't so.
I don't think you're giving the archetypal approach sufficient credit, or
really engaging with it on its own terms. It's simply a tool for
analysis; I could also have used critical theory and picked the shows
apart along the axes of race, class, gender, and power relations. (Gentle
Readers should be glad i didn't . . :-)) Just because one uses a certain
tool to derive insights and points for discussion does not mean that one
has BECOME the tool, as too many of my distinguished respondents seem to
think.
(My original deleted)
> No, DS9's greatest strength is that the characters ARE NOT
> archetypes, in large part, but are fresh and new CHARACTERS,
> who will grow (and are growing) and change, and who we will
> get to know as PEOPLE, not as TYPES.
And I argue that this is far more difficult and risky than you seem to
think. When you don't recognize and allow for archetypes, you can easily
wind up conflating them in ways that are dramatically destructive. Case
in point: Kirk vs. Picard. Kirk was both King and Warrior, the one who
gave commands and "made them so." And in this collapse of roles was a
serious dramatic weakening. One of the great, defining moments of the
first season for me was when Riker beamed down in charge of the away team
into a dangerous situation, and Picard was left standing on the bridge.
Riker's often-repeated "responsibility for protecting the ship, including
the Captain" was a masterstroke in defining this classic King/Warrior
relationship. What do we have on DS9? Benjamin sisko doing the same
goddamnfool things as Kirk! And you call this a step forward? Bullshit.
You can't evade archetypes. You can differentiate them, seeking
ever-greater discrmination and subtlety in interpreting them in various
ways--but they're always there, and if you try to ignore them, the
characters just get muddled and the drama suffers.
>
> Whoa here. It seems like you are completely incapable or
> unwilling to look at these characters in any other way than
> archetypal. I don't know if someone told you all characters
> must be archetypes or something, but I'll tell you differently:
> archetypal characters are by their very definition
Not by my definition.
> limited and
> inorganic... that is, they are NOT EVEN CLOSE TO REAL PEOPLE,
> and as such, we have no way to identify with them (the main
> problem with TNG, as many of the series writers have complained:
> how do you make a perfect character, or rather, a paragon, or
> even, archetype, interesting? It's not possible, because we've
> seen it all before).
Ah--but not all archetypes are paragons. The Tragic Hero is not such. The
problem lay not in the fact of archetypes, but in the fact that the
darker ones were ruled out by the Disney-esque Roddenberry (at least as
protagonists).
> It is the dialectical CONFLICTS within, and around, a character
> that makes him or her interesting and believable as a real person.
> So we have Kira, bred to war but now destined to live in peacetime.
> We have Dax, a mid-20s young woman who is also a centuries old
> logical diplomat. We have Quark, a more-or-less honest Ferengi.
> Etc.
>
> These characters are not pure, they are not unified mytho-historical
> archetypes. They are messy. They are alive. And they're a hell
> of a lot more realistic than TNG (and it's a better acting ensemble,
> on the whole, to boot).
Flat disagreement there. No-one on TNG was ever as weak as Terry Farrel,
and no-one on DS9 is as good as Stewart or Spiner. Both at the extremes
and on average TNG has had the better actors. Maybe this will change;
maybe they'll improve--I don't like saying these things, and I wish DS9
all the best.
(my original deleted)
> Maybe that's your problem--no one ever told you that's what
> we were dealing with in DS9, you only got used to it in TNG.
> Most of us believe that it's a FLAW in TNG and we have seasons
> full of shitty episodes to back us up.
DS9 is not doing any better in my view.
>
(My original deleted)
>
> Again, why can't they be people? Why must they be archetypes?
> Why must a woman security officer, or a woman freedom fighter,
> be an amazon? That's BULLSHIT.
>
(My original deleted)
> Again, these archetypes are certainly persent on the metaphorical
> level, but must remain there, and the characters must be
> reimagined for CONTEMPORARY USE. STAR WARS is a contemporary
> transformation of several cultural archetypes--and because it
> was a movie, the archetypical characters need not grow beyond
> their boundaries, but make no mistake, those boundaries were
> reimagined first. For a tv series, characters, not archetypes,
> are the key.
>
(My original deleted)
>
> Again, BULLSHIT. The issue is irrelevant--what you are suggeting
> is that a woman in command must prove to the male establishment
> that she is capable of commanding by castration. If you need
> this kind of stuff, go see a Marlena Deitrich movie--I'd rather
> have good characters than tired archetypes we've seen thousands
> of times before.
>
This was my most tongue-in-cheek section (which reminds me of a great,
totally PC lesbian joke: How do lesbian carpenters build? All
tongue-in-groove, no studs.) What I was getting at here relates to what I
said above about the original Roddenberry vision only allowing for
Disneyesque characters. Since when is a strong lesbian a tired archetype?
I can count such TV characters on the thumbs of one foot. Castration is
of course excessive, but I was using it to make a point about a certain
type of Man-denying female energy which men find very threatening in this
day and age. I am just afraid we'll see the usual, STEREOTYPICAL,
*sexist* cop-out: she'll be a strong woman in command, but in bed she'll
be all subservient mistress to her MAN. Ugh.
(My original deleted)
>
> Yes, since the wormhole is nothing but a giant vulva in
> space,
Not "nothing but"--but only a fool would deny the erotic imagery of the
wormhole--"penetrate me and discover wondrous perils and delights"--Not
to mention the phallic symbolism of the Enterprise. Great Kali, where is
your sense of imagination?
there should be a woman, and don't forget to install
> a kitchen in the ready room. THIS IS COMPLETELY CHAUVANISTIC.
> I hope a few true feminists get wind of this.
Actually, it's kind of funny that the *only* people who have flamed me
for my observations on this particular issue were men. Before you call in
the "true feminists," let me point out to you that there is a deep divide
in contemporary feminism between what are called "social" feminists and
"essentialist" feminists. Have you not ever met the type of feminist who
is very into Goddess spirituality and such? Some dogmatic "social"
feminists would no doubt flame me hard for my discussions on this topic.
But "essentialist" feminists DO emphasize archetypes, and would at least
understand where I was coming from in invoking strong, AUTHENTIC female
archetypes (of which there have been a dearth on all the Treks). I think
that there is a far more pernicious and subtle sexism and racism in
"mainstreaming" women and people of color into positions which reek of
Anglo male energy. I support some of the people on this net who smell
something inauthentic and contrived about the succession of female
admirals and especially how they're portrayed. It's the classic debate
within the feminist movement--do you REALLY want equality on the system's
rotten terms? Do we REALLY advance the cause of liberation by showing
people bought into a hierarchical system? But that's another long
discussion . . . and as a refugee from the PC wars, I don't think I'll
get into it right now.
>>
> Granted. So the CONFLICT of putting a MAN, a single parent,
> into the situation is what makes Sisko so interesting as
> the leader of this domestic community.
>
(My original deleted)>
>
> Again, big shock, I completely disagree--I think Ds9 has
> created its own identity this season, distinct from TNG.
>
(my original deleted)
>
> Stereotype? You're the last one I'd expect to hear talking
> about stereotype. What do you think the entire cast of characters
> on TNG are? STEREOTYPES. It's a shame they didn't all grow past
> it (of course, Picard and Data did, but really, no one else).
Anyways, it's fun talking with you. Stay tuned for my next post, on the
militant struggle against rampant
classism/sexism/racism/authoritarianism/homophobia/ableism in the
Federation, with added bonus analysis on the political economy of Bajor
and the multipolar power struggle for interstellar dominance in that
sector.
As always,
Charlie
"The passing of time is only for the moment."
Todd Horowitz
>
>Flat disagreement there. No-one on TNG was ever as weak as Terry Farrel,
>and no-one on DS9 is as good as Stewart or Spiner. Both at the extremes
>and on average TNG has had the better actors. Maybe this will change;
>maybe they'll improve--I don't like saying these things, and I wish DS9
>all the best.
I'll have to chime in here, too. "No-one on TNG was ever as weak as
Terry Farrel"? Your LeGuin quote aside, Marina Sirtis' Troi was worse than
Farrel's Dax ever was. Can you even watch her in "Encounter at Farpoint"
without cringing? Both performances improved when the writers started to
get a handle on the characters. Unfortunately for Ms. Sirtis, it was several
seasons before the writers got a clue about Troi, and she didn't have a
standout episode until "Face of the Enemy."
Dax was extremely disappointing the first season. However, I think
they've started to catch on this season; much quicker than they did for
Troi. I think Dax in "Playing God" (an otherwise unmentionable episode) is
vital and believable.
-todd
Scott J Gorcey
>Subject: Re: Essential failings of Deep Space Nine
>From: Scott J Gorcey, v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
>
>Scott:
>
>Let me first thank you for a very well-informed, if belated, response to
>my first post. I assume that you have read my response to the first round
>of comments. It!s clear that you are very well-informed (more so than I)
>about the inner workings of the Trek universe. However, I don!t think
>that that per se invalidates my points; just as you might criticize me
>for being ill-informed (or out of the critical mainstream), I might argue
>that you can!t see the forest for the trees.
That's a very ambiguous argument. If you mean to argue that
archetypal analysis represents the unified whole of Star
Trek, to which all other modes of reading in service, I
defy you to produce one shred of "evidence" that makes
what is, essentially, YOUR PREFERRED WAY of reading Star
Trek into THE ONLY WAY TO read Star Trek.
As with all other cultural-literary works, no exceptions,
Star Trek is illuminated through a myriad of approaches,
from classical to new critical, and all the sub-categories
under them. Femminist analysis is especially intriguing, as
VOYAGER gears up with its woman captain, given the previous
roles for women in Star Trek.
>> On TNG, in order for two characters to end up fighting,
>> at least one of them must be a guest character. The crew of the
>> Enterprise, in case you had forgotten, "do have faults but not
>> as many or as serious as the faults we deal with the 20th century."
>Actually, I never knew.
As a dramatic prime-directive, so to speak, knowing this
should prove essential to you in reading Star Trek.
>> This is from the TNG series bible, and is precisely what caused
>> so much horrific writing in the first and second seasons and
>> engendered the remark that the writer's staff room had a
>> revolving door for all the incomings and outgoings. The
>> characters are not, and never have been, three dimensional because
>> no matter what happens, they must return to the same place they
>> started sooner or later--even if it takes a couple of seasons (i.e.,
>> Worf being discommendated). The performances have grown better,
>> the nuances have improved, but TNG characters are still largely
>> interchangeable.
>
>Now wait a minute here though: just because the characters can't go
>through any major life changes because of the continuity problems doesn't
>mean they are interchangeable. That's a non sequitur.
Sure it does. The fact that the characters "can't go through
any major life changes" or, rather, must remain essentially
the same at the end of the last episode as at the beginning
of the first, makes them GENERIC, and being generic makes them
interchangeable. Troi's scenes were interchanged with Guinan's
routinely, depending on the availability of Goldberg. If
Goldberg was suddenly available for a few days, all Troi's scenes
in a given episode would be given to her. And if a role for
Guinan was written but Goldberg proved unavailable, the reverse.
Picard and Riker are interchangeable in many scenarios. And
of course, every TNG cast member is interchangeable with his
or her opposite number in TOS, if not on all levels, certainly
on many.
>> Roddenberry insisted the series be written sand
>> produced so the episodes could be shown in any order--and that's
>> largely what's happened. Sure there are references to previous
>> episodes, but LARGELY, it's still true that you could watch them
>> in any order whatsoever. Back to front, even. And still not
>> get confused.
>
>Which is how I--and a lot of the other viewing public--wound up watching
>them. I am one of those people who Roddenberry had in mind when he issued
>his dictum about time-interchangeability. Due to years of TV-less-ness
>and crazy schedules, I saw most of the first five years' worth in reruns
>in four different geographic locales, which made a total hash out of my
>sense of series continuity. The temporal interchangeability may be a bad
>thing from a purely critical standpoint, but it was a good thing for me
>at the time. I love continuous shows like Dr. Who, Hill Street, and the
>rest--BUT I have had to abstain from them for long periods when my life
>was unstable. A show which does not have a continuous plot is easier for
>the casual viewer to latch on to
The casual viewer can follow NYPD BLUE, yet it suffers from
none of the major TNG flaws we've been talking about. LA
LAW is/was strictly episodic, yet the lives of its characters
are/were continuous, realistic, changing, multi-dimensional,
etc. Viewing the series in order enhances the experience,
but is not per se required. Same for TNG, in the cases where
multi-episodic continuity was experimented with. Series
like thirtysomething have taken the episodic concept as
far as it's been taken (imo). Thirtysomething was
strictly episodic, each episode with a beginning, middle,
and end, internal thematic structures, the works, but
thirtysomething also operated on story arcs, which saw
individual episodes fleshing out nuances in the over-theme,
which you did not have to know about to enjoy the individual
episodes. If you watch the four seasons in order, you will
see an undeniably realistic (but somehow epic in that realism)
movement from episode 1 to episode [z]. Unified, thirtysomething
is one story, but individually (as with life) it is many.
The point is, this over-story is inaccessible to the casual
viewer. Does that make it irrelevant? No way--it's amazing,
a realistic drama about life's movements, in which we see our
own lives reflected at almost every turn.
I think most of the Star Trek audience would welcome the
infusion of such energy into DS9 and VOYAGER. Critical
viewing (which is what we all do, whether it's to deconstruct
texts as we are doing or to simply say "it sucked!") should
be better rewarded than it currently is in Star Trek--and I'd
wager that every Star Trek fan, casual or die-hard, would
agree with that. Now that you have pieced the continuity of
TNG together, do you agree, that as someone who initially
watched only casually, you'd have enjoyed seeing an epic,
over-story develop, whether you had discover it piece-meal
or not? Again, its existence would not effect your casual
viewing--only enhance it.
and perhaps grow into fandom. Such
>accessibility is also a value, independent of the more high-level
>dramatic criticisms you're levelling.
Such accessibility is not by definition outlawed by the
"high level dramatic criticisms" I'm leveling.
>Let me point out that the acclaim of critics is hardly a guarantee of
>popular success for any artistic endeavor (in some cases, it!s the kiss
>of death), and that!s what spurred my initial posting. Critics like
>certain things--variety, subtlety, idiosyncrasy, etc.--which all too
>often are lost on the majority of the watching public. It's a tough
>balance, and I don't think that Deep Space Nine is doing it right.
It's a tough balance handling variety, subtelty and
idiosyncrasy (I doubt, btw, that any critic enjoys indiosyncrasy--
that's more something to accuse a work of harboring)? I don't
quite get what you mean.
>Clearly, they need to get rid of some of the TOS/TNG baggage, and go in
>some new directions. But I think they're getting rid of the wrong stuff,
>while still keeping other aspects of the Star Trek legacy which have
>needed to be nailed into a coffin for a long time (more on this to
>follow).
Okay. What things?
>(my original deleted)
>
>(lengthy tit-for-tat on TNG relationships deleted)
>
>You have some very valid points. However, I think the place Star Trek has
>had in my life gives me a different perspective. First, I don't key in on
>things like "how have the characters evolved over seven years" because
>that's not how I watched it. Second, I (mostly) watch Star Trek for
>ESCAPE.
If that were true, you'd hardly be so actively deconstructing
it now. That argument simply doesn't hold water in the
context of this discussion.
There have been months at a time when I was working eighty-hour
>weeks and TNG was my *only* release. The fact that the characters seemed
>comfortable with each other and were largely self-consistent was not a
>minus for me, although I know that dramatic red flags go up for those
>attributes.
There's a difference, I'd argue, between vicariously KNOWING
how characters are going to act and react because you are so
familiar with them, and knowing how characters are going to
act because plots are predictible. I'm arguing that the
former is where TNG should have gone, but didn't. I can't see
why anyone would argue for the latter.
>I!m also not convinced that knowing personal minutiae is the key to depth
>of character. It!s less tangible than that, I think. The bottom line is I
>warm to Troi and Riker as characters, and I don!t necessarily need to
>know a lot about them.
That's good, because there's not much TO KNOW. After seven
years, when I think of these characters, I feel unrewarded.
The fact that I accept them more now than during the first
season, that I "warm" to them more now than then, has everything
to do with the familiarity of seeing them every week for
seven years and nothing whatsoever (in most cases) to do with
me KNOWING them better. (Picard and Data, and to some degree,
even Worf, are excluded from this--they have grown, changed,
and the fact that they are intensely popular characters and
the three best actors on the show, must have quite a bit to
do with this).
"Personal minuatiae?" Come on. No one is arguing that
the key to knowing Troi is to know what kind of shampoo she
uses, but it might be nice to see her washing her hair once
in a while. It might be nice to know more about HER, the
relevant and important things, her career ambitions, her
education and training, her childhood, Betazed culture, etc.
The characters have maintained a certain integrity
>and consistency which I find appealing.
You like them because they never change. Okay, I can see
that--it's very formalist. But even the formalists argue
that there's a better kind of familiarity, one which comes
from vicariously getting to know the characters on-screen
and knowing them so well that they seem like friends; or
like people you wouldn't want to know but feel, because
they are so realistically drawn and multi dimensional, that
they could or DO exist in the real world.
And a word of defense for
>Picard/Crusher, to repeat a previous post: I think that there has been
>*great* erotic tension between the two characters from the first season,
>and I'm glad that it *wasn't* consummated; I think that that was the less
>predictable thing to do.
In this context, the context of paralysing and unchanging
status quo makes it the PREDICTIBLE thing to do--don't do
it. Don't change. That's been the party line for seven years.
And if you think there was erotic tension... I guess you must
have a different definition of it than I do.
>(And yes, after seven years it!s all beginning to get old. No argument
>there.)
>>
>>>DS9--no such thing. The characters seem two-dimensional, immature, and
>>>lacking in the crackling interpersonal chemistry which has come to be a
>>>hallmark of TNG at its best.
>>
>>> Again, I don't know WHERE you get this. "Crackling interpersonal
>> chemistry" is outlawed in the TNG format. Ask anyone who has ever
>> written for or tried to write for the show. FORBIDDEN.
>
>Unfortunately, I'm not as well-connnected as you. Neither are 99% of the
>other Star Trek fans, apparently. On the relationships, let me quote
>Ursula K. LeGuin from a recent TV guide article (which came out after my
>original post):
Okay, I read this, and its gushy inaccuracies made me
nauseous then...
>"The cast was superb from the start. Gates McFadden, Marina Sirtis, and
>Majel Barrett brought depth and complexity to . . . conventionally
>feminine roles . . . The lead male characters, all impressive separately,
>were also great team players, their characters changing and deepening in
>relation to one another."
Now the question is, do you BUY what she is saying, having
seen every single episode? I don't . Not for a second.
>Now, you may disagree with Ms. LeGuin, but please don't ask "WHERE you
>get this"? in such a condescending way, as if I'm completely beyond the
>pale; thoughtful people may disagree on many things.
Sure, okay. I wonder how many people would agree with me
that there have been no sparks in the interpersonal chemistry
between any of these characters. By definition of the status
quo rule on interpersonal relationships, and the overall premise,
on TNG, their relationships are and always have been PLACID,
STATIC, and unchanging. My opinion.
>> Now, DS9 gets around this barrier due to its setting, its
>> mixture of starfleet and non-starfleet characters, and as a
>> result, we see the character developing--even now, at the
>> end of the second season, the characters have ALL grown and
>> changed since the pilot. New relationships have EVOLVED:
>> Dax and Kira, Dax and Quark, Quark and Rom (which is one
>> that grew more prominent than Mike Piller and Rick Berman
>> ever expected, owing to the CRACKLING INTERPERSONAL CHEMISTRY
>> between Shimerman and Grodenchick). Sisko and Dax, O'Brien
>> and "Julian." Most recently, Sisko and Gul Dukat.
>
>Well, let's take a look at some of these relationships. First, it's
>simple logic that new relationships are going to EVOLVE on any TV show
>where the writers are trying to do new things.
Agreed. And it's NOT going to happen on shows where the
writers are CONSTRAINED by policy from "trying new
things," i.e., TNG.
Any possible twosome
>should be explored, so let's not give them too much credit for the
>basics.f
I wouldn't, if we were talking about DS9 independantly. But
comparatively, to praise the spin-off for achieving what its
parent series never had seems very relevant.
Second, I don't find Dax and Kira any better than your
>characterization of Troi and Crusher. In both cases, it seems they're too
>often talking about men.
They do talk about men some of the time--but it's interesting that
while Troi and Crusher gush on about how WONDERFUL Boyfriend X is,
Kira and Dax talk about men in relation to THEMSELVES, their
likes and dislikes, their personal TASTES--in other words,
characterization and depth is occuring in DS9, and not in TNG,
when discussing the women.
Yawn. I like Troi/Crusher better because both
>characters seem more fully realized.
Again, I'd argue it's your familiarity with their images, and
all that implies, that makes you like them better--how could it
be anything else? There's nothing else present, typically. (And,
imo, it's certainly not their ACTING).
Kira Naris is good in many ways (I
>just don't like her vis-a-vis Sisko), but Dax? As much as I find Terry
>Farrel physically attractive, she's having major problems creating the
>character (although inadequate writing may also be a problem).
I have a greater problem with Kira than with Dax. I like her
wryness, her irony, her subtelty--she does with one smile what
it would take Worf eight paragraphs to accomplish, and this is
better writing, better acting, no question. I agree that most
of the Dax episodes haven't been that great, but I still enjoy
the character, and the actor, and physical attractiveness doesn't
enter into it. As for Kira... she whines. I don't like her
body language--she strikes me as too much of a sophisticate,
hands-on-hips, like she's an uptown chick (which the actress
is), more than a poor Bajoran who grew up in refugee camps and
spent her first 27 years as a terrorist. She complains obnoxiously,
instead of expositing economically and realistically, about everything
Bajoran, ad nauseum. I think some refining is called for--I liked
her much better in the pilot.
Blood
>Oath? Good, diverting . . . but ultimately, I just didn't buy it (or
>her). Dax and Quark? When? Where? That's one duo I haven't seen more than
>in passing, and I don't recall missing any shows (do set me straight if I
>have missed something).
Dax likes Ferengis, and Quark in particular. She plays
some Ferengi card game with Quark, Rom and the other
Ferengi on the station--it was an episode earlier this
season.
I like everything that Quark does, but he's a
>secondary character, period.
So? And he's a good one. So are Garak, Jake, Nog... Keiko is
another story. The series does have a strong, differentiated
guest cast (including Bareil, Wynn, Opaka, Dukat, etc) in its
second season--stronger than the supporting players of TNG
at any one point, or altogether, in seven seasons.
Sisko and Dax? Unconvincing--a difficult
>dramatic concept to pull off, perhaps. Gul Dukat/Sisko? GREAT stuff (I'm
>with all the critics there) but for the character of Dukat as a
>Cardassian to have any credibility for me he's going to have to get
>bumped off or exiled damn soon--so, nothing to build on there.
That's your opinion. Kai Opaka returns next week--and she's
dead. (Or sort of dead). As for Sisko and Dax, I like a lot
of what's been done, just not the plots of the episodes in
which it was accomplished.
The more I
>think about O'Brien/Bashir, the more I like the conflict there, but I
>hope it goes somewhere. To my mind, the only thing more boring than
>characters who predictably like each other is characters who predictably
>dislike each other. Both are boring, but if I have to choose, I'll go for
>the more positive scene.
You don't have to choose. No one is forcing you to like predictibility.
>> Yes, DS9 still relies too much on the status-quo, it is
>> not in the vanguard of hourlong dramas like NYPD BLUE and
>> old LA LAW in that regard, but it does allow for some (a lot
>> compared to its sister series) organic plot development, and
>> we've seen the allowence increasing exponentially this season,
>> with many continuing over-plots like the dominion, the bajoran
>> political situation, the cardassian political situation, the
>> bajoran theological situation (search for new Kai), etc.
>
>I love the detailed, intricate political stuff too. And here is perhaps
>the fundamental problem with the Roddenberry approach: if you're going to
>have characters playing out longer, more nuanced relationships, you must
>go the route of (Hill Street Blues, LA Law, NYPD Blue) Stephen Bochco. Is
>the Trek universe ready for that kind of series continuity? If not, then
>they had better stick to characters painted with a broader brush.
That's the point. I'd argue that it is ready, and it is necessary
if the franchise doesn't want to lose its viewers as they grow up
and expect more than they're getting now. More than cool effects
and nasty aliens. There's a reason Star Trek's demographics are
so strong with children--and I'd argue it's both possible to
upgrade the concept to Bochco's level without losing the kids.
TNG has approached the concept before--"Q Who?" "BOBW1" DS9's
pilot comes closest--"Emissary" truly represented cutting edge
television, cutting edge SF television.
>(Agreement on Quark/Odo noted)
>>
>> Sisko and Gul Dukat had good
>>>moments in "The Maquis I." But in general, the characters seem
>>>dramatically exhausted and their relationships played out. Kira/Sisko? A
>>>rebellious little girl vs. a father figure. Bashir/Dax? A frustrated
>>>lover and an inaccessible woman. O'Brien/Bashir? A grunt and a pompous
>>>know-it-all. Sisko/Dax? Contrived and unconvicing, due in large part to
>>>the canonical inconsistencies and dramatic difficulties of the Trill
>>>concept.
>>
>> What "canonical inconsistencies?"
>Between TNG's "The Host" and DS9's Trill conception. Someone else pointed
>out to me that the DS9 conception is self-consistent; fine.
Oh, so the whole character doesn't work for you because Odan couldn't
be beamed and Dax can? I assume you accept nothing of O'Brien the
enlisted man because of similar, and must more convoluted,
inconsistencies in O'Brien's rank over the years on TNG? Even
LA LAW at its best had inconsistencies, although not as many or
as noticeable as on TNG. It happens--it's a MISTAKE. You don't
need to rationalize the mistake, just accept it for what it is
and move on. They're not going to CORRECT it, they're going to
go with the most recent version of history and forget the
inconsistency.
>In large measure, I don't
>> agree--Kira and Sisko's relationship needs more exploration,
>> that's true. Bashir and Dax don't have a relationship--he
>> doesn't oggle her anymore, and she goes out to lunch with
>> him once in a while. But isn't it interesting that we even
>> KNOW all this about their personal lives? Can't say the same
>> for TNG--all we know is that they play poker every week.
>
>I think this is just unfair. We know much more about TNG characters than
>that, and I'd rise to the defense of the poker sessions as exactly the
>kind of interpersonal relations which have added spice to the series.
The poker sessions are THE ONLY KIND OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
off-hours we've seen regularly on the series. A huge criticism
of the early seasons, and a correct one in my view:
Although they protested to love one another as a
family from the time they were relative strangers forward,
the TNG characters never FELT like they knew each other,
it was as though they all beamed home at night to their
respective, and non-overlapping lives, whatever THoSE
were, and kept the whole thing a secret from their
fellow officers, who they thought of as "family."
The criticism, as far as I'm concerned, hits home with early
seasons, and equally later on if you look at it from the
viewpoint of OUR relationship to THEM. Now it's more plausible,
because of our familiarity with them, to accept that they know
each other very well and there are scenes and subplots occasionally
which further this belief, but WE remain still relatively
uninformed about them. WHO is Geordi? WE DON'T HAVE THE
FIRST CLUE. We only just got let in on some family background
earlier THIS season. To this point, we knew two things about
Geordi: he strikes out with the ladies, and he loves the
engines like you'd love your car. Now we know THREE things
about Geordi. Are you going to argue that we KNOW this character
as a real, three-dimensional person?
> (my original deleted)
>
>> Right--and that's what's wrong with them. Contemporary drama
>> is NOT about archetypes. You can have STAR WARS, where the
>> characters are archetypes, and it's wonderful: but you can't
>> have that on a week by week basis becuase by the very definition
>> of archetypes, they DON'T grow and change. They must remain
>> true to their aspect, their center--and the center of Picard,
>> to put it in your terms, is not "Picard," but "King."
>
>Our definitions are different. To me, archetypal energy is something that
>is ACCESSED, or MANIFESTED. It does not DEFINE identity. Again,
>archetypes are not stereotypes. The Star Wars characters were *NOT*
>archetypes by my definition, they were childish stereotypes engaged in a
>simple black and white good vs. evil morality play.
This would be a good definition if you were dealing with fantasy
or fairy tales, but this is neither, it's TELEVISION in the
latter half of the 20th century--it doesn't apply. The contemporary
definition of archetypes is the one which I'm using.
>(my original deleted)
>>
>> That they can so easily switch archetypal roles proves my argument:
>> on DS9, as in life, no such thing can usually happen. And let's be
>> clear here: you're not talking about characters, but PLOTS into which
>> the characters can be inserted, in almost any way. In life, and in
>> good, character-based drama, it just ain't so.
>
>I don't think you're giving the archetypal approach sufficient credit, or
>really engaging with it on its own terms. It's simply a tool for
>analysis; I could also have used critical theory and picked the shows
>apart along the axes of race, class, gender, and power relations. (Gentle
>Readers should be glad i didn't . . :-)) Just because one uses a certain
>tool to derive insights and points for discussion does not mean that one
>has BECOME the tool, as too many of my distinguished respondents seem to
>think.
Perhaps we think you've become the tool because you hinge
everything on this one tool, instead of acknowledging that
reading Star Trek, or any text, requires a multiplicity of
approaches--yours is certainly one to consider, as I said
before, but as one of many which informs. You have provided
no evidence except your say so that archetypal analysis is
THE most important way to read Star Trek, yet you insist
that it is so.
>(My original deleted)
>
>> No, DS9's greatest strength is that the characters ARE NOT
>> archetypes, in large part, but are fresh and new CHARACTERS,
>> who will grow (and are growing) and change, and who we will
>> get to know as PEOPLE, not as TYPES.
>And I argue that this is far more difficult and risky than you seem to
>think.
I know it's hard, but why are you defending mediocrity?
When you don't recognize and allow for archetypes, you can easily
>wind up conflating them in ways that are dramatically destructive. Case
>in point: Kirk vs. Picard. Kirk was both King and Warrior, the one who
>gave commands and "made them so." And in this collapse of roles was a
>serious dramatic weakening. One of the great, defining moments of the
>first season for me was when Riker beamed down in charge of the away team
>into a dangerous situation, and Picard was left standing on the bridge.
>Riker's often-repeated "responsibility for protecting the ship, including
>the Captain" was a masterstroke in defining this classic King/Warrior
>relationship. What do we have on DS9? Benjamin sisko doing the same
>goddamnfool things as Kirk! And you call this a step forward? Bullshit.
>You can't evade archetypes. You can differentiate them, seeking
>ever-greater discrmination and subtlety in interpreting them in various
>ways--but they're always there, and if you try to ignore them, the
>characters just get muddled and the drama suffers.
I think you are taking an analytical tool and making it into
a dramatic maxim, while, in fact, contemporary texts are hardly
concerned on surface levels, or even metaphoric ones, with
archetypes. Star Trek more than most, granted--there is certainly
something to be said for this approach to Star Trek. But it is
of neither concrete, surface level importance to the action nor
(9 times out of 10) of crucial importance to the thematic-metaphoric
level. You are insisting that archetypical figures be dealt with
on surface levels, when surface levels are reserved for CHARACTER.
People do not have their "aspects" come down upon them, as in
fantasy fiction, or tap into the force for some archetypal
guidance--these are NOT THE RULES IN TELEVISION, or in non-fantasy
fiction as a whole.
>> Whoa here. It seems like you are completely incapable or
>> unwilling to look at these characters in any other way than
>> archetypal. I don't know if someone told you all characters
>> must be archetypes or something, but I'll tell you differently:
>> archetypal characters are by their very definition
>
>Not by my definition.
You made up your definition!!!!! The only cases where the
archetypal figures are rigidly defined and must follow rules
of type are a) classical texts--the epics, principally, and
religious texts (which they all were); b) fairy tales
and c) contemporary fantasy.
>> limited and
>> inorganic... that is, they are NOT EVEN CLOSE TO REAL PEOPLE,
>> and as such, we have no way to identify with them (the main
>> problem with TNG, as many of the series writers have complained:
>> how do you make a perfect character, or rather, a paragon, or
>> even, archetype, interesting? It's not possible, because we've
>> seen it all before).
>
>Ah--but not all archetypes are paragons. The Tragic Hero is not such.
Bullshit. He's the archetype of tragic heroism and he goes back
5,000 years.
The
>problem lay not in the fact of archetypes, but in the fact that the
>darker ones were ruled out by the Disney-esque Roddenberry (at least as
>protagonists).
If that were so, you'd like DS9. But because even the darker
archetypes are not pure on that level, you don't? I think you
contradict yourself.
>> It is the dialectical CONFLICTS within, and around, a character
>> that makes him or her interesting and believable as a real person.
>> So we have Kira, bred to war but now destined to live in peacetime.
>> We have Dax, a mid-20s young woman who is also a centuries old
>> logical diplomat. We have Quark, a more-or-less honest Ferengi.
>> Etc.
>>
>> These characters are not pure, they are not unified mytho-historical
>> archetypes. They are messy. They are alive. And they're a hell
>> of a lot more realistic than TNG (and it's a better acting ensemble,
>> on the whole, to boot).
>
>Flat disagreement there. No-one on TNG was ever as weak as Terry Farrel,
>and no-one on DS9 is as good as Stewart or Spiner. Both at the extremes
>and on average TNG has had the better actors. Maybe this will change;
>maybe they'll improve--I don't like saying these things, and I wish DS9
>all the best.
Okay. So we disagree. True, there's no Stewart or Spiner on DS9,
but neither are there any Denise Crosbys or Marina Sirtises. As
an ensemble, and as individuals, I think each actor and character
has potential--and that's never been the case with TNG. Certain
characters and certain actors--and often, they aren't one in
the same--have had potential, and some have at least partially
fulfilled it, whether the actor or character wasn't up to snuff.
But you didn't address my point about the realism.
>(my original deleted)
>
>> Maybe that's your problem--no one ever told you that's what
>> we were dealing with in DS9, you only got used to it in TNG.
>> Most of us believe that it's a FLAW in TNG and we have seasons
>> full of shitty episodes to back us up.
>
>DS9 is not doing any better in my view.
In mine, it's doing a helluva lot better. DS9 has something
already to its credit that TNG never has: more consistent quality.
A strong lesbian is not an archetype. An amazon is an archetype.
A strong lesbian is a stereotype and I wouldn't trust any of these
people to write a realistic one. Hopefully, with Voyager, that
will change--I mean, that the women will be fully realized,
developed characters, not what men think women are like.
Besides, what you argued was that a strong woman character
must by definition be a lesbian, because archetypically strong
women must be LESBIANS, must be tapped into masculine energy
to be strong and therefore must love women as men do?
>I can count such TV characters on the thumbs of one foot. Castration is
>of course excessive, but I was using it to make a point about a certain
>type of Man-denying female energy which men find very threatening in this
>day and age. I am just afraid we'll see the usual, STEREOTYPICAL,
>*sexist* cop-out: she'll be a strong woman in command, but in bed she'll
>be all subservient mistress to her MAN. Ugh.
So you'd rather she was cut from the mold of the sexist,
stereotypically MALE assumption that any strong woman must
be a lesbian? You're vacillating between extremes--real life
takes place somewhere in the middle.
>(My original deleted)
>>
>> Yes, since the wormhole is nothing but a giant vulva in
>> space,
>
>Not "nothing but"--but only a fool would deny the erotic imagery of the
>wormhole--"penetrate me and discover wondrous perils and delights"--Not
>to mention the phallic symbolism of the Enterprise. Great Kali, where is
>your sense of imagination?
>
>there should be a woman, and don't forget to install
>> a kitchen in the ready room. THIS IS COMPLETELY CHAUVANISTIC.
>> I hope a few true feminists get wind of this.
>
>Actually, it's kind of funny that the *only* people who have flamed me
>for my observations on this particular issue were men. Before you call in
>the "true feminists," let me point out to you that there is a deep divide
>in contemporary feminism between what are called "social" feminists and
>"essentialist" feminists. Have you not ever met the type of feminist who
>is very into Goddess spirituality and such?
Yes, I certainly have, and she was straight, as it happens.
But that's neither here nor there.
Some dogmatic "social"
>feminists would no doubt flame me hard for my discussions on this topic.
>But "essentialist" feminists DO emphasize archetypes, and would at least
>understand where I was coming from in invoking strong, AUTHENTIC female
>archetypes (of which there have been a dearth on all the Treks).
Instead, how about some strong, authentic female PEOPLE? I
think that would be much preferrable. You are not an archetype,
after all--neither am I. Why must they be?
I think
>that there is a far more pernicious and subtle sexism and racism in
>"mainstreaming" women and people of color into positions which reek of
>Anglo male energy.
There is certainly something to that--but the answer is not
to embrace stereotypes with archetypes and force every black
man to be a Zulu warrior, or an "uppity nigger," and the
answer is not to make every woman a housewife or a castrating
lesbian.
If anyone else is reading this drawn out nonsense--please chime
in!
Scott Gorcey
Todd Horowitz
Scott J Gorcey <v075...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
[Does the episodic nature of TNG create interchangeable characters?]
>
> Sure it does. The fact that the characters "can't go through
> any major life changes" or, rather, must remain essentially
> the same at the end of the last episode as at the beginning
> of the first, makes them GENERIC, and being generic makes them
> interchangeable. Troi's scenes were interchanged with Guinan's
> routinely, depending on the availability of Goldberg. If
> Goldberg was suddenly available for a few days, all Troi's scenes
> in a given episode would be given to her. And if a role for
> Guinan was written but Goldberg proved unavailable, the reverse.
> Picard and Riker are interchangeable in many scenarios. And
> of course, every TNG cast member is interchangeable with his
> or her opposite number in TOS, if not on all levels, certainly
> on many.
While I agree with Scott on pretty much everything in his post, I
have to quibble here. Some characters may be interchangeable with other
characters. Guinan for Troi and vice versa and ocasionally Riker for Picard,
though not in all circumstances. This does not mean that ALL the characters
are interchangeable with one another. Furthermore, this interchangeability
is not a function of the encapsulated nature of the episodes. Characters
could develop and grow from one episode to the next and still be in this
limited sense interchangeable. On the other hand, the show could easily
feature a number of characters who were sufficiently distinctly drawn so
as not to be interchangeable, yet be shoehorned into the purely episodic
format.
-todd
jero...@news.delphi.com
version) whenever I can I must watch these episodes witouot seeing the
previous ones I find that I can usuaoly follow the plots.