• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDANCE!

Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

I would say that in this particular case the morality of the action could be determined by how the target of the action felt about it.

If it turned out that Sarah consented to the Prophets' actions that would be one thing, but I think the evidence makes it clear that she was coerced into the actions she undertook and wasn't thrilled about it after the fact.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

I would say that in this particular case the morality of the action could be determined by how the target of the action felt about it.

If it turned out that Sarah consented to the Prophets' actions that would be one thing, but I think the evidence makes it clear that she was coerced into the actions she undertook and wasn't thrilled about it after the fact.

That is not really morality, it is opinion at that point. You either have to respect the different views of morality of all beings or there is a universal, absolute standard that applies to everyone.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

The outcome with the Prophets intervention was the galaxy was saved..... so seems if we go by your logic, then the effect leads to something beneficial to everyone and therefore is to be labeled good.
Are you seriously trying to find a way to argue that RAPE can be good?

No, I am not. Let me make that clear.

No, that's exactly what you just did.

And, yes, Christopher is making a universalist moral assertion, that rape is wrong no matter what. Kindly stop attempting this first-semester philosophy undergrad "deconstructing morality" game, as you're really not that good at it.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

Are you seriously trying to find a way to argue that RAPE can be good?

No, I am not. Let me make that clear.

No, that's exactly what you just did.

And, yes, Christopher is making a universalist moral assertion, that rape is wrong no matter what. Kindly stop attempting this first-semester philosophy undergrad "deconstructing morality" game, as you're really not that good at it.

Interesting since I have never come close to saying that. I have asserted all along how and why I believe it is wrong. I was pointing out that you cannot do that with out a belief in absolute good and evil. I showed how without that belief one could make a case that rape is good, showing the absurdity in that view. I am sorry if you think me not good at philosophy, but that is not the point of this conversation.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

Were I given to involve myself in this sort of thing, I might say something like the following.

Stop trying to pretend you are having a reasoned exchange. You are not. You are not operating on reason, nor on ethics, but on self-indulgence. You are blindly lashing out in accordance with societal and sexual instincts marinated in ideological propaganda and cultural conditioning, because you have psychological investment in the worldviews and identities you've constructed. There are certain sprawling topics that are just completely pointless discussing when certain people - indeed, certain societies - are involved. I for one am getting rather tired of this place becoming a vehicle for this kind of posturing. This is not some forum for political, ideological or social maneuvering, nor is it a place for you to rail against each other over your supposed righteousness in comparison to someone else. Gain some self-awareness, keep it to that Neutral Zone forum, or just bite your tongues, because it impresses no-one and it makes this place increasingly a chore to visit.

That is what I would say, were I one to say such things.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

Were I given to involve myself in this sort of thing, I might say something like the following.

Stop trying to pretend you are having a reasoned exchange. You are not. You are not operating on reason, nor on ethics, but on self-indulgence. You are blindly lashing out in accordance with societal and sexual instincts marinated in ideological propaganda and cultural conditioning, because you have psychological investment in the worldviews and identities you've constructed. There are certain sprawling topics that are just completely pointless discussing when certain people - indeed, certain societies - are involved. I for one am getting rather tired of this place becoming a vehicle for this kind of posturing. This is not some forum for political, ideological or social maneuvering, nor is it a place for you to rail against each other over your supposed righteousness in comparison to someone else. Gain some self-awareness, keep it to that Neutral Zone forum, or just bite your tongues, because it impresses no-one and it makes this place increasingly a chore to visit.

That is what I would say, were I one to say such things.

I did not mean to make it a chore. But I'll discontinue and say. it's just so freaking glad to be getting more DS9 books.
 
Last edited:
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

Yeah, Ben Sisko's post Unity path does feel a little bit like wasted potential or not knowing what to do.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

Sisko isn't "Bajoran Jesus."

He's a figure deeply connected to the deities of the religion who - at points, anyway - speaks for them. I understand it's not a one-to-one comparison, because the Bajoran religion isn't Christianity. It was just a tongue firmly in cheek joke pointing out that, even if he's not, strictly speaking, Jesus with nose ridges and a taste for cream cheese and peppers wrapped in a tortilla, he plays a similar role.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

I've read this thread because I was excited to see we might finally be receiving resolution to the Acendants plotline (truly the "Noodle Incident" of the Star Trek universe).

I'm going to put the rest of my reply into a spoiler tag, as a content / trigger warning for sexual assault.

Here's some brief personal historical context, so you know where I'm coming from with what I'm about to say.

I was a young boy growing up in the 90's. I was 8 years old when DS9 premiered in '92, and 15 when it finished in '99. As a boy I was socialized in a way that normalized rape culture and misogyny. Feminism was a joke to me, because it was easier for me to stay willfully ignorant of my privilege. At the time, the Sarah plot didn't bother me--in fact, the ethical and moral implications hardly even registered.

When I was 22 in 2006, I realized I was transgender, and I began a difficult process of transitioning my entire life and identity. I've now been living my life as a woman for over 8 years, and I'm lucky enough that I "pass well," so throughout that time, most people (not knowing I'm trans) have consistently treated me no differently than they would treat any other (white, middle class) woman.

Take this from first-hand experience: There is a colossal fucking difference in how men and women experience the social norms of the world we live in. I got an immensely life-altering crash course in feminism like you would not believe.

In 2008, I became a survivor of sexual assault, by a man I loved and trusted, and who shared my home.

So I continued to watch as this thread degenerated into a "debate" about the philosophy of morality, as a thinly veiled attempt to defend rape culture by asserting the notion that "rape wrong" is simply a subjective opinion, theoretically on par with the equally subjective opinion "rape meh," and I sat in awe as I observed a Star Trek fan opine that the Prophets may be aligned to this "alternative" morality.

I agree with Christopher, and let me say I thought the reply post from Deranged Nasat was brilliant.

I have tried to decide how (and whether) I should respond myself. This thread struck a chord with me, and I think that I need to share my thoughts and feelings. I don't know that I'll manage a comparable eloquence to the aforementioned gents of the thread, but here goes.

The Prophets are highly evolved post-corporeal, non-linear intelligences--who perceive every potential action, and all its potential consequences, simultaneously.

They have shown emotional intelligence, and awareness and aversion to violent and/or oppressive behaviours.
("Aggressive. Adversarial. It must be destroyed." Emissary)
("We found the Zek's adversarial nature invasive, threatening. We examined your species' history, the totality of your existence. We discovered that you have not always been as you are now." / "We restored the Zek to an earlier, less adversarial state of existence." Prophet Motive)

I have great difficulty reconciling their previous characterization and motivations with their actions, as dramatically presented in Season 7: That a prophet inhabited Sarah's body without her consent to the effect of compromising and coercing her will, for the express purpose of manipulating her into marrying and submitting to intercourse with Joseph to conceive, carry, and deliver Ben. Rape, sexual and physical servitude, and a complete violation of her reproductive rights over a protracted period of time.

From a real-world perspective, it was clearly the intent of the show writers that the fictional Prophets took over Sarah's will, and I agree with Christopher that it was a reprehensible creative decision made by insensitive misogynist men. Fortunately the books have done much better for the most part--although David Mack fridges women, it makes me furious, and it needs to fucking stop (but I digress).

Real-world story over. But on the other hand...

From an in-universe perspective, as a Star Trek fan, and particularly as a Star Trek Lit fan, I want to look for the wiggle-room here, because I really don't want to believe the actual, real Prophets would do that.

I feel compelled to deconstruct this event, and come up with an alternate interpretation of what was depicted on screen: One which does not necessitate the canonical violation of Sarah's consent by the Prophets.

I am strongly motivated, emotionally, to look for this answer, and I'm not entirely sure why.

I have a deep love for Star Trek (Deep Space Nine in particular). They have always been there for me, during times of life experience when I had little or nothing (and no one) else to rely on. I have always looked up to these characters, and the higher standard of the world they live in.

Maybe it's because I need the Prophets to be respectable, and because of my experience of sexual assault, I can't tolerate the emotional blow of accepting that they would do such a thing to Sarah.

If Trip and Data can be Not Dead, and elements of the shows can be wildly re-imagined, and Beyer can reformat and retcon the entire history of the Delta Quadrant, then I don't see why the Prophets have to canonically be rapists based on one crappy episode's ambiguous dialogue. (and by the way, can Hobus please not be a thing in 2387 prose? kthx)

...Or do the show writers wield the power of the Word of God in this instance? If I try to explain it with an alternate interpretation, am I guilty of downplaying an act of violence against women with convoluted fan nonsense? What if some part of this effort is subconsciously motivated by the parts of my psychology that were formed in my male-socialized youth? God, I hope not. But the TERFs are entitled to their opinion too, so I'd be remiss not to mention the possibility.

But let me be very, very clear here: I am not saying that a prophet usurping Sarah's will without her consent isn't rape.

What I'm saying is that I prefer to construct a personal interpretation of canon where Sarah gave informed consent.

So.

We know that the Prophets are physically capable of non-consensual body-snatching, because the pah-wraiths have been explicitly shown to do this (Keiko in The Assignment). Kira in The Reckoning, and Dukat in the finale arc are also relevant to the discussion, because they both did consent.

It's really unclear to me from dialogue whether or not Jake ultimately consented in The Reckoning.
JAKE: When the Pah-wraith was inside me, I could feel its hatred and I knew that no matter what, it couldn't be allowed to win. Even if it meant I had to die. [in reference to Sisko's decision to let Jake and Kira fight to the death:] You did the right thing.
Based on his dialogue, I'm leaning toward the idea that the pah-wraith would have taken Jake whether he consented or not, but that Jake ultimately accepted it in order to save the lives of others and serve a greater good.

In any case, I feel like it's clear that body snatching is within their capacity, but it's never demonstrated that it works like Jedi mind-tricks, where you don't even realize you were manipulated.

Notice that all three of Keiko, Jake, and Kira are clearly established to have a complete memory of their experience while inhabited, despite being temporarily unable to exercise their own wills. It's less clear how it worked with Dukat and the Kosst Amojan, but it probably worked the same for him too.

Could they have taken possession of Sarah without her ever being aware of it? Maybe, maybe not. If we assume non-consent, then they would have needed to do so in order for the story to work, but that is totally inconsistent with the other examples from the show. This doesn't feel right to me.

I think it's not only possible, but likely, that Sarah would have consented given the circumstances.

Consider the dialogue from the problematic vision scene in Shadows and Symbols, in which the prophet (manifesting in Sarah's likeness) reveals information to Ben:
SARAH: The Emissary is corporeal. Linear.
SISKO: Linear or not, I need some answers.
SARAH: The Sisko is intrusive.
SISKO: Are you Sarah Sisko? Are you my mother?
SARAH: Sarah Sisko was corporeal. For a time, I shared her existence.
SISKO: You took over her body, made sure she married my father so that she'd give birth to me.
The Prophet, speaking calmly, says it "shared her existence." It's Ben, upset and angry from shock and surprise, who fills in the blanks here. Ben supplies an uncharitable interpretation of a history he wasn't part of, and which until today, he knew nothing about.
SARAH: The Sisko is necessary.
Is she justifying an immoral act? Or just continuing her explanation? The Sisko is necessary. That, in and of itself, doesn't preclude the possibility that Sarah consented.

What if the prophet made its presence and its nature known to her (as the prophet did for Kira in The Reckoning), and shared with Sarah its non-linear insights, and convinced or persuaded her toward an awareness that "the Sisko is necessary?"

Think back to The Reckoning again.. In that instance, a prophet "shared Kira's existence," for the express purpose of battling to the death and killing her in the process, and according to the prophecy, it would even "consume the gateway to the temple." And yet, due to Kira's own character motivations, she agrees.
KIRA: This vessel is willing.

The Prophets in their infinite wisdom, knowing all of time and all possible outcomes, are aware that they need Sarah's participation at just the right time in order to make the best possible space-baby to solve all of Bajor and the Alpha Quadrant's problems somewhere down the line.

Perhaps this was explained to her? I can't see that I would turn down that arrangement, if it was offered to me along with the prescient certainty that my refusal would ultimately result in the destruction of worlds and the enslavement of the UFP.

It would still be coercive, in a way, because the decision plays on her emotions... Coercive insofar as any truthful and complete knowledge of immutable facts can be coercive and compel certain action based on one's emotional standards. For example, if ramming my ship into a Borg cube is the only thing that will save the inhabited planet behind me, then of course I don't want to die, but I'm still going to give the order to engage the engine.

SISKO: And once you didn't need her anymore, you left her. No wonder she walked out on my father. She didn't choose him, you did.
SARAH: The Sisko would prefer different answers.

Again, as an audience, our understanding of the writer's intent comes through dialogue which, from an in-universe perspective, can easily be dismissed as Sisko's potentially biased supposition in an extremely pissed-off state, based on the hugely abbreviated retelling of Sarah's story he's getting from the prophet in this vision.

But is Sisko's viciously pessimistic viewpoint the only possible interpretation? Is it even the most likely?

Despite the unusual circumstances that brought them together, Sarah may have legitimately fallen in love with Joseph. "My secret awareness of the magical destiny of our future space-baby" might be a pretty strong romantic motivator, not to mention aphrodisiac.

As for her leaving Joseph after Ben was born, well... People fall in and out of love all the time. The magic was gone, so to speak.

SISKO: What you're telling me isn't easy to accept. You arranged my birth. I exist because of you?
SARAH: The Sisko's path is a difficult one.
SISKO: But why me? Why did it have to be me?
SARAH: Because it could be no one else.

So because Star Trek is fictional and open to re-interpretation, I choose to believe that the presence and purpose of the prophet were understood to Sarah throughout, and that she willingly participated in ensuring Sisko's destiny.

It preserves the character of the Prophets, and it makes Sarah a stronger and more compelling character than the disposable baby incubator the TV writers had in mind when they crapped out Shadows and Symbols.

End rant. Thank you for your time.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

As your post was beginning, I was thinking up counterarguments. You eventually expressed those same counterarguments yourself, and frankly, I agree with you. I think your interpretation is the more likely given the established history, and we only have Sisko's very personalised and emotional response to argue against it.

.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

I'm not talking about abstract universal principles of right and wrong here. I'm talking about the total failure of DS9's all-male writing staff to realize that Sisko's conception by the space-roofie and sexual enslavement of his mother was a horribly insensitive creative choice, basically portraying an act of rape and violation as something divine and wondrous and not even realizing how screwed-up that was. It's pointless to talk about universal morality, because the people who created that storyline were human beings, human men who were writing for a human audience that included women. And they frequently had difficulty with their treatment of women's perspectives, rights, and consent in writing DS9, with this being the most egregious example.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

^ Is this why you haven't written a DS9 novel?
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

I've read this thread because I was excited to see we might finally be receiving resolution to the Acendants plotline (truly the "Noodle Incident" of the Star Trek universe).

I'm going to put the rest of my reply into a spoiler tag, as a content / trigger warning for sexual assault.

Here's some brief personal historical context, so you know where I'm coming from with what I'm about to say.

I was a young boy growing up in the 90's. I was 8 years old when DS9 premiered in '92, and 15 when it finished in '99. As a boy I was socialized in a way that normalized rape culture and misogyny. Feminism was a joke to me, because it was easier for me to stay willfully ignorant of my privilege. At the time, the Sarah plot didn't bother me--in fact, the ethical and moral implications hardly even registered.

When I was 22 in 2006, I realized I was transgender, and I began a difficult process of transitioning my entire life and identity. I've now been living my life as a woman for over 8 years, and I'm lucky enough that I "pass well," so throughout that time, most people (not knowing I'm trans) have consistently treated me no differently than they would treat any other (white, middle class) woman.

Take this from first-hand experience: There is a colossal fucking difference in how men and women experience the social norms of the world we live in. I got an immensely life-altering crash course in feminism like you would not believe.

In 2008, I became a survivor of sexual assault, by a man I loved and trusted, and who shared my home.

So I continued to watch as this thread degenerated into a "debate" about the philosophy of morality, as a thinly veiled attempt to defend rape culture by asserting the notion that "rape wrong" is simply a subjective opinion, theoretically on par with the equally subjective opinion "rape meh," and I sat in awe as I observed a Star Trek fan opine that the Prophets may be aligned to this "alternative" morality.

I agree with Christopher, and let me say I thought the reply post from Deranged Nasat was brilliant.

I have tried to decide how (and whether) I should respond myself. This thread struck a chord with me, and I think that I need to share my thoughts and feelings. I don't know that I'll manage a comparable eloquence to the aforementioned gents of the thread, but here goes.

The Prophets are highly evolved post-corporeal, non-linear intelligences--who perceive every potential action, and all its potential consequences, simultaneously.

They have shown emotional intelligence, and awareness and aversion to violent and/or oppressive behaviours.
("Aggressive. Adversarial. It must be destroyed." Emissary)
("We found the Zek's adversarial nature invasive, threatening. We examined your species' history, the totality of your existence. We discovered that you have not always been as you are now." / "We restored the Zek to an earlier, less adversarial state of existence." Prophet Motive)

I have great difficulty reconciling their previous characterization and motivations with their actions, as dramatically presented in Season 7: That a prophet inhabited Sarah's body without her consent to the effect of compromising and coercing her will, for the express purpose of manipulating her into marrying and submitting to intercourse with Joseph to conceive, carry, and deliver Ben. Rape, sexual and physical servitude, and a complete violation of her reproductive rights over a protracted period of time.

From a real-world perspective, it was clearly the intent of the show writers that the fictional Prophets took over Sarah's will, and I agree with Christopher that it was a reprehensible creative decision made by insensitive misogynist men. Fortunately the books have done much better for the most part--although David Mack fridges women, it makes me furious, and it needs to fucking stop (but I digress).

Real-world story over. But on the other hand...

From an in-universe perspective, as a Star Trek fan, and particularly as a Star Trek Lit fan, I want to look for the wiggle-room here, because I really don't want to believe the actual, real Prophets would do that.

I feel compelled to deconstruct this event, and come up with an alternate interpretation of what was depicted on screen: One which does not necessitate the canonical violation of Sarah's consent by the Prophets.

I am strongly motivated, emotionally, to look for this answer, and I'm not entirely sure why.

I have a deep love for Star Trek (Deep Space Nine in particular). They have always been there for me, during times of life experience when I had little or nothing (and no one) else to rely on. I have always looked up to these characters, and the higher standard of the world they live in.

Maybe it's because I need the Prophets to be respectable, and because of my experience of sexual assault, I can't tolerate the emotional blow of accepting that they would do such a thing to Sarah.

If Trip and Data can be Not Dead, and elements of the shows can be wildly re-imagined, and Beyer can reformat and retcon the entire history of the Delta Quadrant, then I don't see why the Prophets have to canonically be rapists based on one crappy episode's ambiguous dialogue. (and by the way, can Hobus please not be a thing in 2387 prose? kthx)

...Or do the show writers wield the power of the Word of God in this instance? If I try to explain it with an alternate interpretation, am I guilty of downplaying an act of violence against women with convoluted fan nonsense? What if some part of this effort is subconsciously motivated by the parts of my psychology that were formed in my male-socialized youth? God, I hope not. But the TERFs are entitled to their opinion too, so I'd be remiss not to mention the possibility.

But let me be very, very clear here: I am not saying that a prophet usurping Sarah's will without her consent isn't rape.

What I'm saying is that I prefer to construct a personal interpretation of canon where Sarah gave informed consent.

So.

We know that the Prophets are physically capable of non-consensual body-snatching, because the pah-wraiths have been explicitly shown to do this (Keiko in The Assignment). Kira in The Reckoning, and Dukat in the finale arc are also relevant to the discussion, because they both did consent.

It's really unclear to me from dialogue whether or not Jake ultimately consented in The Reckoning.
JAKE: When the Pah-wraith was inside me, I could feel its hatred and I knew that no matter what, it couldn't be allowed to win. Even if it meant I had to die. [in reference to Sisko's decision to let Jake and Kira fight to the death:] You did the right thing.
Based on his dialogue, I'm leaning toward the idea that the pah-wraith would have taken Jake whether he consented or not, but that Jake ultimately accepted it in order to save the lives of others and serve a greater good.

In any case, I feel like it's clear that body snatching is within their capacity, but it's never demonstrated that it works like Jedi mind-tricks, where you don't even realize you were manipulated.

Notice that all three of Keiko, Jake, and Kira are clearly established to have a complete memory of their experience while inhabited, despite being temporarily unable to exercise their own wills. It's less clear how it worked with Dukat and the Kosst Amojan, but it probably worked the same for him too.

Could they have taken possession of Sarah without her ever being aware of it? Maybe, maybe not. If we assume non-consent, then they would have needed to do so in order for the story to work, but that is totally inconsistent with the other examples from the show. This doesn't feel right to me.

I think it's not only possible, but likely, that Sarah would have consented given the circumstances.

Consider the dialogue from the problematic vision scene in Shadows and Symbols, in which the prophet (manifesting in Sarah's likeness) reveals information to Ben:
SARAH: The Emissary is corporeal. Linear.
SISKO: Linear or not, I need some answers.
SARAH: The Sisko is intrusive.
SISKO: Are you Sarah Sisko? Are you my mother?
SARAH: Sarah Sisko was corporeal. For a time, I shared her existence.
SISKO: You took over her body, made sure she married my father so that she'd give birth to me.
The Prophet, speaking calmly, says it "shared her existence." It's Ben, upset and angry from shock and surprise, who fills in the blanks here. Ben supplies an uncharitable interpretation of a history he wasn't part of, and which until today, he knew nothing about.

Is she justifying an immoral act? Or just continuing her explanation? The Sisko is necessary. That, in and of itself, doesn't preclude the possibility that Sarah consented.

What if the prophet made its presence and its nature known to her (as the prophet did for Kira in The Reckoning), and shared with Sarah its non-linear insights, and convinced or persuaded her toward an awareness that "the Sisko is necessary?"

Think back to The Reckoning again.. In that instance, a prophet "shared Kira's existence," for the express purpose of battling to the death and killing her in the process, and according to the prophecy, it would even "consume the gateway to the temple." And yet, due to Kira's own character motivations, she agrees.

The Prophets in their infinite wisdom, knowing all of time and all possible outcomes, are aware that they need Sarah's participation at just the right time in order to make the best possible space-baby to solve all of Bajor and the Alpha Quadrant's problems somewhere down the line.

Perhaps this was explained to her? I can't see that I would turn down that arrangement, if it was offered to me along with the prescient certainty that my refusal would ultimately result in the destruction of worlds and the enslavement of the UFP.

It would still be coercive, in a way, because the decision plays on her emotions... Coercive insofar as any truthful and complete knowledge of immutable facts can be coercive and compel certain action based on one's emotional standards. For example, if ramming my ship into a Borg cube is the only thing that will save the inhabited planet behind me, then of course I don't want to die, but I'm still going to give the order to engage the engine.

SISKO: And once you didn't need her anymore, you left her. No wonder she walked out on my father. She didn't choose him, you did.
SARAH: The Sisko would prefer different answers.

Again, as an audience, our understanding of the writer's intent comes through dialogue which, from an in-universe perspective, can easily be dismissed as Sisko's potentially biased supposition in an extremely pissed-off state, based on the hugely abbreviated retelling of Sarah's story he's getting from the prophet in this vision.

But is Sisko's viciously pessimistic viewpoint the only possible interpretation? Is it even the most likely?

Despite the unusual circumstances that brought them together, Sarah may have legitimately fallen in love with Joseph. "My secret awareness of the magical destiny of our future space-baby" might be a pretty strong romantic motivator, not to mention aphrodisiac.

As for her leaving Joseph after Ben was born, well... People fall in and out of love all the time. The magic was gone, so to speak.

SISKO: What you're telling me isn't easy to accept. You arranged my birth. I exist because of you?
SARAH: The Sisko's path is a difficult one.
SISKO: But why me? Why did it have to be me?
SARAH: Because it could be no one else.

So because Star Trek is fictional and open to re-interpretation, I choose to believe that the presence and purpose of the prophet were understood to Sarah throughout, and that she willingly participated in ensuring Sisko's destiny.

It preserves the character of the Prophets, and it makes Sarah a stronger and more compelling character than the disposable baby incubator the TV writers had in mind when they crapped out Shadows and Symbols.

End rant. Thank you for your time.

I'd like to believe this version of events. Well thought out! :bolian::bolian:
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

I'm not talking about abstract universal principles of right and wrong here. I'm talking about the total failure of DS9's all-male writing staff to realize that Sisko's conception by the space-roofie and sexual enslavement of his mother was a horribly insensitive creative choice, basically portraying an act of rape and violation as something divine and wondrous and not even realizing how screwed-up that was. It's pointless to talk about universal morality, because the people who created that storyline were human beings, human men who were writing for a human audience that included women. And they frequently had difficulty with their treatment of women's perspectives, rights, and consent in writing DS9, with this being the most egregious example.
I agree 100% Christopher. And I like to see new writers fix the mistakes of old writers.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

I'm wondering if DS9 will become more pivotal to the book continuity again in light of the new station, the assassination and keeping Sisko closer to home. I am so excited to see what will happen.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

I'm wondering if DS9 will become more pivotal to the book continuity again in light of the new station, the assassination and keeping Sisko closer to home. I am so excited to see what will happen.

And there are still many gaps to be filled. DS9 rules :)
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

^ Is this why you haven't written a DS9 novel?

No, it's got nothing to do with that. I like DS9 as a whole, but it had its flaws, and the whole Sarah Sisko thing was a terrible mistake.

I never really got into writing DS9 fiction because it was just too serialized for me to keep up with -- by the time I had an idea, the storyline would already have moved beyond the status quo that would've allowed for it. I guess I found that a bit forbidding, so I never really tried to get into the DS9 book series. Besides, Marco Palmieri kept offering me other stuff like Titan and The Buried Age, so that kept me busy elsewhere.
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

^ Is this why you haven't written a DS9 novel?

No, it's got nothing to do with that. I like DS9 as a whole, but it had its flaws, and the whole Sarah Sisko thing was a terrible mistake.

I never really got into writing DS9 fiction because it was just too serialized for me to keep up with -- by the time I had an idea, the storyline would already have moved beyond the status quo that would've allowed for it. I guess I found that a bit forbidding, so I never really tried to get into the DS9 book series. Besides, Marco Palmieri kept offering me other stuff like Titan and The Buried Age, so that kept me busy elsewhere.

Don´t forget DTI. I love Watching the Clock :).
 
Re: Hey, everyone! DRG's DS9 novel after Sacraments is called ASCENDA

^ Is this why you haven't written a DS9 novel?

No, it's got nothing to do with that. I like DS9 as a whole, but it had its flaws, and the whole Sarah Sisko thing was a terrible mistake.

I never really got into writing DS9 fiction because it was just too serialized for me to keep up with -- by the time I had an idea, the storyline would already have moved beyond the status quo that would've allowed for it. I guess I found that a bit forbidding, so I never really tried to get into the DS9 book series. Besides, Marco Palmieri kept offering me other stuff like Titan and The Buried Age, so that kept me busy elsewhere.

Don´t forget DTI. I love Watching the Clock :).

I don't think Marco had anything to do with DTI. I'm pretty sure he was out of the picture by then...
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top