Deranged Nasat wrote:
A very good chapter, Rush
. The back-and-forth between Bowers and T'Latrek, then Bowers and Gleer, was very engaging. It raised some engrossing questions and left me anticipating the answers as a study of Bowers' (and by extention Dax's) character, as well as revealing more about the unfortunate situation that's prompted this whole affair. This is a rewarding answer to the question of how you'd reconcile your usual character-centred approach with a story of galactic scope.
I found the testimony engaging in and of itself, not just as a means of progressing the plot. Well done!
Also, I particularly liked the examination of General Order 12 and the questions it raises regarding possible conflict with other regulations. Which helps demonstrate the difficulties Starfleet captains must face, balancing so many potentially contradictory directives. This story is really doing a good job of demonstrating how hard the job must be, and what extraordinary character a successful captain must possess. Navigating the right path, carrying out their duties both personal and legal in the face of so many potentially conflicting responsibilities - in Ezri's case here: to her crew, to those on the colony who might be at risk, to the crew of the presumably hostile ship, to the wider Federation both in terms of upholding its laws, its reputation and its political sensibilities...it seems an almost impossible task. This story is doing a good job of examining the pressures that a Starfleet captain faces in a crisis situation.
Thank you, Nasat
! It's always a pleasure to read your reviews of my writing.
BTW, for the continuity hounds out there...the full text of the "communications not established" clause of General Order 12 comes straight from the TOS novel Rules of Engagement
--which established that Order 12 isn't limited to the clause Saavik quoted in TWOK alone...but is in fact the Starfleet Rules of Engagement.
The Badger wrote:
An excellent read. The cross examination is reminiscent of Kirk and McCoy's trial in TUC. Deliberate homage or happy serendipity? The discussion about how to define 'hostile intent' reminds me of the arguments surrounding the sinking of the General Belgrano. And the earlier scenes with Section 31 had a bit of a Tom Clancy feel to them.
Well, I actually based the confrontation between Bowers and Gleer loosely off of the clash between Jack Bauer and the senator in the first episode of the Seventh Season of 24
. Still...I could easily see where one could find the similarities you noted.
Glad you like it!
One personal bug-bear. I'm sure I remember Sloan, in his first appearance, claiming that his organisation had gone through many names over the years, and that 'Section 31' was just what they were using at the time. So surely they should be calling themselves something else by now?
Well, Sloan said, "Our official designation is Section 31." As the novels indicate, agents tend to refer to it as "the Bureau". So...I just use both, but I try my best to use "the Bureau" more, in the solely "31" scenes....
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."