Conscious Circuits wrote:
As already stated clearly by T'Girl, the example of writing weakness under discussion was in the story's treatment of the Klingon female as an object, when according to the story's own logic she should have been a being in her own right.
That logic is not as compelling as you’re pretending. It’s perfectly reasonable to see the scene on the bridge as a mere preview of what Riker is offering Worf. That’s how I’ve always seen it. You’re choosing to interpret it another way and complaining about the odiousness of your chosen interpretation as a weakness of the script. If you feel that way, then there’s no reason to choose that interpretation unless you draw satisfaction from the complaint. I cannot agree with your claim that the episode forces that interpretation on the viewer.
Let’s discuss your earlier question of whether the other gifts were illusions.
Data never receives his gift, so there’s no actual question there (though he opines that it would be mere illusion).
With Geordi, the question of whether he has sight or the illusion of sight strikes me as meaningless. For a few moments he sees the world the way we see it. He can accept the gift and continue to see that way for the rest of his life or decline the gift and continue to see with the VISOR, and he chooses the latter.
Wesley’s gift raises some interesting questions. When he decides to return the gift, is that decision dictated by the values, hopes and fears of a 15-year-old boy, or is it guided by the wisdom and life experiences of a man nearly twice his age? (If he does have another ten years of life experience, what could those experiences possibly be? Maybe the Q power makes it possible to sort out such paradoxes.)
The episode doesn’t openly address that question. When Wesley says that he’d “rather get there on my own,” his word choice of “there” rather than “here” suggests that he has the mind of a boy in the body of a man. Will Wheaton’s vocal performance and William Wallace’s physical performance also point in that direction. Nonetheless, I think either interpretation is viable. Explore them both see which works better for you.