RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,205
Posts: 5,437,143
Members: 24,951
Currently online: 669
Newest member: Zaminhon

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

View Poll Results: Rate Plagues of Night.
Outstanding 58 52.25%
Above Average 35 31.53%
Average 11 9.91%
Below Average 5 4.50%
Poor 2 1.80%
Voters: 111. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 27 2012, 12:41 AM   #106
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

I wish people would stop using the lie that Sisko "abandoned" his child. If a soldier went overseas and was away from his family for years in order to defend them, no honest or fair person could call that abandonment. One can quibble over whether Sisko made the right choice, but it should be indisputable that he believed he was acting for the protection of his family. Calling it abandonment is a straw man and it corrupts any meaningful critique of the novel.

And that goes doubly for the use of the term "deadbeat." That term refers to someone who avoids paying debts, or to a sponger or idler. It makes absolutely no sense to apply it in this context. It's not like the Siskos live on 20th-century Earth where the family depends on the father's income for survival. They're in a moneyless economy. Sisko doesn't owe his family any financial debts; the only thing that's at stake is whether they have his presence and companionship. So "deadbeat" is an anachronistic term and a ridiculous one to use in this context. It's as absurd as calling him a Bolshevik or a Mugwump.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 12:43 AM   #107
Sjaddix
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Even if he believed that. His execution of said separation was absolutely horrible. No discussion where he clearly explained his position and a long distance divorce. If anything that did as much damage to the character if not more.

SO JD, you seem to be a Spider-man fan. Can I get your opinion on Spider-man and his deal with the devil?
Sjaddix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 12:48 AM   #108
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

I agree that Sisko handled the situation poorly. But there's a difference between a legitimate critique of his actions and the kind of lies and distortions and illegitimate straw men that some critics of the book choose to employ. We seem to live in a time when people think it's justifiable to misrepresent the things they disagree with, to distort the facts or lie outright to score points in an argument, and people need to stand up and denounce that practice. It is possible to disagree with a thing while still being fair toward it.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 12:53 AM   #109
Sjaddix
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Well Christopher I agree with you but I hope your directing efforts into targeting and arguing against those practices in politics because the lies and distortions in that arena have a much bigger impact then that behavior in fandoms. Well at least in America, I hear things area bit different across the Pond. Although I suppose it might have the same root.
Sjaddix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 01:07 AM   #110
Kestrel
Vice Admiral
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Location: East Tennessee
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Christopher wrote: View Post
I wish people would stop using the lie that Sisko "abandoned" his child. If a soldier went overseas and was away from his family for years in order to defend them, no honest or fair person could call that abandonment. One can quibble over whether Sisko made the right choice, but it should be indisputable that he believed he was acting for the protection of his family. Calling it abandonment is a straw man and it corrupts any meaningful critique of the novel.
Of course it's abandonment. He might believe
that he needed to abandon them to protect them, but that doesn't make his actions any less abandonment. It wasn't just a matter of going away for years
, it was a matter of cutting himself off from them, not communicating with them, and ultimately deciding to unilaterally excise himself from their lives. How is that anything but abandonment?

Fair point about "deadbeat," though it's used colloquially to mean much the same thing as "ababdoner" in my experience.

__________________
"If Romeo had just masturbated a couple of times a week he would have saved both those nice families a heap of trouble."
Kestrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 01:15 AM   #111
George Steinbrenner
Fleet Admiral
 
George Steinbrenner's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View George Steinbrenner's Twitter Profile
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

So I take it that Shon's "spoiler" isn't real, then?
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
George Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 01:21 AM   #112
Kestrel
Vice Admiral
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Location: East Tennessee
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Yeah, buuuut....

__________________
"If Romeo had just masturbated a couple of times a week he would have saved both those nice families a heap of trouble."
Kestrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 01:22 AM   #113
George Steinbrenner
Fleet Admiral
 
George Steinbrenner's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View George Steinbrenner's Twitter Profile
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

^ That one's not surprising. Isn't there a past indication of a "thing" between those two?
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
George Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 01:38 AM   #114
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Kestrel wrote: View Post
Of course it's abandonment. He might believe ... that he needed to abandon them to protect them, but that doesn't make his actions any less abandonment.
It may feel like that to them, but that wasn't his intent. The word "abandon" means to give up all concern or responsibility for a thing. Sisko did nothing of the kind. He believed that the only way he could fulfill his responsibility to the family he loved was to leave them. They may feel abandoned, but that does not mean that he actually abandoned them. It would be more accurate to say he renounced his ties to them.

Again, frankly, it's pretty anachronistic to say that they were "abandoned" just because the man of the house left. That implies that Kasidy is some helpless waif who can't survive without her husband. She's always been quite capable of taking care of herself. If anything, Benjamin's probably the one who's worse off for being separated, given how emotionally dependent he's always been on his family ties. What he did was to sacrifice his own happiness for his family's sake. Yes, he knew it would cost them happiness too, but he figures they'll be better off in the long run. Talking about him as an "abandoner" or a "deadbeat" is implying that he ran off to Risa to have a great time while his poor fragile wifey pined away. It's ridiculous. It's got jack-all to do with this universe or these characters.


It wasn't just a matter of going away for years ..., it was a matter of cutting himself off from them, not communicating with them, and ultimately deciding to unilaterally excise himself from their lives. How is that anything but abandonment?
How do you not already know the answer to that, after all the dozens of times this argument has been rehashed on this board? Because he was absolutely convinced that they would suffer or die if he didn't leave them. You know that.

How many stories have there been about characters who sacrificed their lives to save their families, or who voluntarily accepted imprisonment to protect their loved ones from persecution? Fiction and life are full of stories where people left their loved ones forever in order to protect them.


Fair point about "deadbeat," though it's used colloquially to mean much the same thing as "ababdoner" in my experience.
That's because your experience is of life in 20th- and 21st-century America, a society where families need monetary income to survive and thus abandonment and failure to pay child support go hand in hand. It doesn't follow that the same equivalence would apply in a moneyless society centuries in the future.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 03:09 AM   #115
Kestrel
Vice Admiral
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Location: East Tennessee
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
^ That one's not surprising. Isn't there a past indication of a "thing" between those two?
Yup, there's some cute moments and even a genuine "D'aww..." moment from Ro's end.

Christopher wrote: View Post
It may feel like that to them, but that wasn't his intent. The word "abandon" means to give up all concern or responsibility for a thing. Sisko did nothing of the kind. He believed that the only way he could fulfill his responsibility to the family he loved was to leave them. They may feel abandoned, but that does not mean that he actually abandoned them. It would be more accurate to say he renounced his ties to them.
Generally speaking I tend to agree with Kant too, but in this case the way he went about it and the effect it would have (and as we see later, did have) on them is more important I think. He didn't even renounce his ties to them for an entire year, leaving Kasidy twisting in the wind.

Christopher wrote: View Post
Again, frankly, it's pretty anachronistic to say that they were "abandoned" just because the man of the house left. That implies that Kasidy is some helpless waif who can't survive without her husband.
Err... that might be the implication you get from it, but I don't think it's at all what anybody else means; certainly I don't. In fact, as wee see in Plagues of Night,
. And Ben's not the first father to leave his family because "they're better off without me."

Christopher wrote: View Post
How do you not already know the answer to that, after all the dozens of times this argument has been rehashed on this board? Because he was absolutely convinced that they would suffer or die if he didn't leave them. You know that.

How many stories have there been about characters who sacrificed their lives to save their families, or who voluntarily accepted imprisonment to protect their loved ones from persecution? Fiction and life are full of stories where people left their loved ones forever in order to protect them.
See, the difference in those latter situations is that they're dealing with an actual, legitimate threat and not a vague sense of "threat" possibly brought about by depression and deepened with self-justification. What's more, those characters whose family member sacrificed their lives or freedom to protect them usually understand or have it explained to them why - whereas Sisko, for his first year, didn't even do that much.

Fundamentally I find Sisko's logic in Rough Beasts utterly flawed on the face of it because the prophecy that keeps getting quoted ("you will know only sorrow") isn't just vague, it's patently untrue because of the birth of his daughter and the first few years of her life which are described as very happy, good years. Alternately, it's an axiomatic truth that's meaningless, because having people in our lives that are important will ultimately lead to sorrow - at the very least when they die.

But even aside from that, accepting he "feels like he's doing the right thing," the way he set about it was just terrible because he didn't communicate with them for a year specifically because he feared confronting Kasidy because she might convince him he's wrong. What's more, and this is from Plagues to be fair,


Christopher wrote: View Post
That's because your experience is of life in 20th- and 21st-century America, a society where families need monetary income to survive and thus abandonment and failure to pay child support go hand in hand. It doesn't follow that the same equivalence would apply in a moneyless society centuries in the future.
... alright, fine then. I've never meant it in the financial sense for the reasons you note since it has shades of meaning even today, but it's not at all worth arguing about.
__________________
"If Romeo had just masturbated a couple of times a week he would have saved both those nice families a heap of trouble."
Kestrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 03:26 AM   #116
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Kestrel wrote: View Post
See, the difference in those latter situations is that they're dealing with an actual, legitimate threat and not a vague sense of "threat" possibly brought about by depression and deepened with self-justification.
I'm confused that this misunderstanding persists. It's not a "vague sense" of anything. Sisko lived with beings who existed in the future. Who didn't just have a sense of what the future might hold, but who directly experienced what actually would happen. While he lived with the Prophets, he saw the future too. And while he doesn't remember specifics, he remembers knowing for a fact that they'd be in danger if he stayed. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? It was spelled out quite clearly in the book, I thought.


What's more, those characters whose family member sacrificed their lives or freedom to protect them usually understand or have it explained to them why - whereas Sisko, for his first year, didn't even do that much.
Maybe he didn't, but that's not the issue. The key question isn't whether what Sisko did was right. Well-drawn characters are allowed to make mistakes, and that's part of what makes them interesting. The issue at the core of these persistent and very repetitive BBS debates is whether Sisko's actions were in character for him -- whether it was believable that a Ben Sisko in the circumstances he was placed in, with the knowledge and convictions that he had, would have chosen that course of action, right or wrong. So the key question here is about his motives, because that's what's being attacked and misrepresented in these debates. I'm far from convinced that he did the right thing, but I think that under the circumstances, he acted in character and in what he believed was good faith. He chose to sacrifice himself out of his love for his family. Nobody's saying that what he did was nice and beautiful and satisfying. But he was convinced it was the lesser of two evils, that the alternative was even worse.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 05:53 AM   #117
JD
Admiral
 
JD's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona, USA
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

^Exactly, I'm not defending what he did. I don't think it was the right choice, a good thing, and it is not what I would have done with the character if I were writing a novel about him. However, I do think that the way it was presented in the book and the reasons for it were perfectly in character, and made perfect sense given Sisko's past behavior and the situation he was in.
Sjaddix wrote: View Post
SO JD, you seem to be a Spider-man fan. Can I get your opinion on Spider-man and his deal with the devil?
I haven't read the story arc in question myself, but I do think it was a bad choice on the creator's part, much like I do with the current Sisko arc. In story though, and given both the situation and the previous behavior and characterization of Peter Parker/Spider-Man I think it makes sense that the character did what he did, much like with Sisko. Just because it's not the way we would have done things, doesn't mean a story is bad. We can disagree with the way a story played out, but still be able to enjoy it as a well written, interesting story.
__________________
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 07:30 AM   #118
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Christopher wrote: View Post
Kestrel wrote: View Post
See, the difference in those latter situations is that they're dealing with an actual, legitimate threat and not a vague sense of "threat" possibly brought about by depression and deepened with self-justification.
I'm confused that this misunderstanding persists. It's not a "vague sense" of anything. Sisko lived with beings who existed in the future. Who didn't just have a sense of what the future might hold, but who directly experienced what actually would happen. While he lived with the Prophets, he saw the future too. And while he doesn't remember specifics, he remembers knowing for a fact that they'd be in danger if he stayed. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? It was spelled out quite clearly in the book, I thought.
In RBoE, there is no affirmation - or implication - that Sisko knew anything beyond 'You will know only sorrow'. Every time his motivation is brought up, it's always only this prophecy; there's not a trace of anything related to Sisko's stay in the wormhole (or any other source of information - unless you count depression and paranoia as such).

The 'Sisko knew more' is a forum theory, transparently meant to excuse Sisko, unsupported by RBoE.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 10:32 AM   #119
Mage
Commodore
 
Mage's Avatar
 
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
Kestrel wrote: View Post
See, the difference in those latter situations is that they're dealing with an actual, legitimate threat and not a vague sense of "threat" possibly brought about by depression and deepened with self-justification.
I'm confused that this misunderstanding persists. It's not a "vague sense" of anything. Sisko lived with beings who existed in the future. Who didn't just have a sense of what the future might hold, but who directly experienced what actually would happen. While he lived with the Prophets, he saw the future too. And while he doesn't remember specifics, he remembers knowing for a fact that they'd be in danger if he stayed. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? It was spelled out quite clearly in the book, I thought.
In RBoE, there is no affirmation - or implication - that Sisko knew anything beyond 'You will know only sorrow'. Every time his motivation is brought up, it's always only this prophecy; there's not a trace of anything related to Sisko's stay in the wormhole (or any other source of information - unless you count depression and paranoia as such).

The 'Sisko knew more' is a forum theory, transparently meant to excuse Sisko, unsupported by RBoE.
But if you read Fearfull Symetry and The Soul Key, you would know yourself that it's NOT a forum theory, but from the novels. People seem to completely forget those two novels, where Sisko meets his counterparts from other universes, and things about what is to come are revealed to him.

So yes, Sisko DOES know more. Sisko already starts in this downward spiral, when he is forced to use Elias by lying to him to accomplish a goal in the Mirror Universe. He does this, as stated in the one of the last chapters in The Soul Key, for Them. The Prophets.
Now, if you we can believe the tidbits from RBoE, a lot has happened during the 4 year gap, that forced Sisko to make decisions for Them, because he believed it was all for the greater good. In the meantime, a lot of his friends and family were put into danger and got hurt or almost hurt.

Now, for those of us paying attention, here's the kicker!!! The writers appereantly decided that this is where the warning from the Sarah Prophet comes in (if you marry her, you will know nothing but sorrow). After all this, he feels (perhaps not rightly so, but still, this is Sisko's point of view) that his existince alone is already hurting the people around him. So, he feels that he can better protect them by removing himself from their lives.
Wether or not this is the right choice, is left open to debate (funny how we are actually doing that now, huh?).

My point is, the path Sisko is taking now, was probably part of the longer story-line for DS9. However, since we never got those novels (thanks for that btw, Pocket Books), we are left with interpreting events from a few sketchy descriptions from RBoE sofar. I don't know yet if the same can be said for Plagues, haven't read it yet. So people fill in their own gaps. Some logically, some with emotions of hatred and anger because they feel betrayed by DRGIII for doing something awfull to Sisko. Something that probably would have made a lot more sense if the DS9 novels were left to continue instead of being forced to move along with the rest of TrekLit.
__________________
Niner. Lurker. Browncoat.
Mage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2012, 11:08 AM   #120
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Typhon Pact: Plagues of Night by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Mage wrote: View Post
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post

I'm confused that this misunderstanding persists. It's not a "vague sense" of anything. Sisko lived with beings who existed in the future. Who didn't just have a sense of what the future might hold, but who directly experienced what actually would happen. While he lived with the Prophets, he saw the future too. And while he doesn't remember specifics, he remembers knowing for a fact that they'd be in danger if he stayed. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? It was spelled out quite clearly in the book, I thought.
In RBoE, there is no affirmation - or implication - that Sisko knew anything beyond 'You will know only sorrow'. Every time his motivation is brought up, it's always only this prophecy; there's not a trace of anything related to Sisko's stay in the wormhole (or any other source of information - unless you count depression and paranoia as such).

The 'Sisko knew more' is a forum theory, transparently meant to excuse Sisko, unsupported by RBoE.
But if you read Fearfull Symetry and The Soul Key, you would know yourself that it's NOT a forum theory, but from the novels. People seem to completely forget those two novels, where Sisko meets his counterparts from other universes, and things about what is to come are revealed to him.
I have read the books you name, Mage.

In those books it's shown Sisko knows of a prophets' meta-plan for a number of quantum universes, NOT anything relating to his personal life or future misery.

The book that confirms this is RBoE - by certifying that, regarding the 'only misery' prophecy, Sisko knew nothing beyond the prophecy from 'What you leave behind'. All his decisions are based on those words only, with no further knowledge (and we were privy to his thoughts).


The apologist argument - which REMAINS a theory from this forum - goes something like:
~'So what if his thoughts revealed no further knowledge? In his subconscious, he knew more - never mind the fact that this is nowhere established/hinted at in RBoE'.
The very definition of apologist fanwank - convoluted, unsupported arguments, disregarding authorial intent in a game to play 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' because one doesn't like what was established.


PS - If RBoE isn't enough for you:
DRG3 discussed RBoE on this forum, bickering about Sisko's development. Feel free to read the thread yourself - and see how he didn't intend for Sisko to have information beyond the prophecy.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton

Last edited by Edit_XYZ; May 27 2012 at 11:22 AM.
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
reviewpoll_v1

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.