Episode of the Week: Hide and Q

[T'Girl]

One example of Riker's misuse of his newly given powers was with Worf's "gift."

What happen there? Was the Klingon women a pre-existing person who Riker brought to the Enterprise to give to Worf as a possession? Okay that's slavery.

Or did Riker's new powers enable him to create an entirely original sapient being, a real Klingon female, who after Worf rejected her, Riker summarily killed? She ceased to exist at Riker whim.

Once she was brought into existence, she was a individual. Riker's actions would have been murder.

There is a third possibility, that there was no person inside of the body. "She" was nothing more than something off the holodeck.

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Just a further example of how weak the writing was on that episode. If the Klingon woman wasn't both real and new, I hardly see the point of the application of Q powers. I believe we were supposed to assume that RiQer had created a new sentient being who was attracted to Worf.

[Captrek]

The simulated Klingon woman on the bridge was a preview of the sentient Klingon woman RiQer was offering to summon or create. Pretty straightforward. You're inventing problems.

[CorporalCaptain]

captrek wrote:

---

The simulated Klingon woman on the bridge was a preview of the sentient Klingon woman RiQer was offering to summon or create. Pretty straightforward. You're just inventing problems to complain about.

Was Geordi's eyesight simulated? Was Wesley's adulthood simulated? It all seemed like it was all supposed to be real to me. It may have been an unearned reality acquired without personal growth to accompany its acquisition, which was the point that Geordi, Data, and Wesley made, but I didn't see anything in the episode to suggest that the "gifts" were just simulations. Why would one gift be a simulation but not others?

[Captrek]

Conscious Circuits wrote:

---

Why would one gift be a simulation but not others?

For the very reason you pointed out: creating a sentient being, only to destroy her if she gets rejected, seems pretty insane. So why assume it's what happened? Presume Riker did it the sane way. I don't consider it necessary for the episode to spell out all those little details explicitly.

[Jeyl]

Trannie~sylvania wrote:

---

One example of Riker's misuse of his newly given powers was with Worf's "gift."

All of what you said plus this. Does Riker not even care about this thing called "Privacy"? Riker decides that Worf's gift should be a Klingon woman to be intimate with, but thinks that the best place to start this intimate relationship is ON THE BRIDGE when everyone is on duty.

[CorporalCaptain]

captrek wrote:

---

Presume Riker did it the sane way.

Why? He was already being corrupted by his power. He thought demonstrating what he could do was the right thing. All the other gifts were real. He wasn't tempting Worf with a sex toy, but with sex itself. Worf even said so explicitly: "This is sex." The dialog tells us that we are supposed to assume that she was real. She was liveware or the temptation was meaningless.

[Captrek]

If you're arguing that such behavior follows logically from character and situation, then it doesn't really qualify as a writing weakness, does it?

[CorporalCaptain]

captrek wrote:

---

If you're arguing that such behavior follows logically from character and situation, then it doesn't really qualify as a writing weakness, does it?

I believe it's been made clear that the weakness was failing to follow the story's own premise to its logical conclusion. Q might feel nothing when he creates and destroys his little pocket universes, and the beings in them, but that doesn't mean that Riker should feel nothing when consigning his own creation to oblivion (assuming she was created out of nothing). 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. I think it's a sharp observation on her part.

[R. Star]

Actually it's not inventing a problem... life has a right to exist no matter how it's created.

[Captrek]

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.

[CorporalCaptain]

A couple of things here then I'm dropping it.

captrek wrote:

---

That logic is not as compelling as you’re pretending.

I'm "pretending" nothing. It's one thing to disagree with my position, but it's another to accuse me of being disingenuous. You've done the latter.

Explore them both see which works better for you.

I did.

[Captrek]

I apologize. I did not intend to offend you or accuse you of dishonesty. I chose my words poorly. I should have said something like “claiming,” “saying” or “arguing” instead of “pretending.” Any of those would have been a more accurate expression of my intent.

[CorporalCaptain]

captrek wrote:

---

I apologize. I did not intend to offend you or accuse you of dishonesty. I chose my words poorly. I should have said something like “claiming,” “saying” or “arguing” instead of “pretending.” Any of those would have been a more accurate expression of my intent.

Appreciated and accepted. Thanks.