If You Could Rewrite DS9

[Discofan]

And you are equating this experience with 400 years of established cultural bigotry.......ooookkkkk

400 years ago my ancestors were all serfs and slaves, with only very few exceptions.

What were yours?

Or better yet the people standing on your back preventing one from running and causing the struggles just need to stop stepping on folks back...

You always have people standing on your back, that's how the food chain works. People who get in the upper ranks are quick to forget their brothers down in steerage... I've lost count of the knives that I've had to have surgically removed from my back.

 

[Nyotarules]

400 years ago my ancestors were all serfs and slaves, with only very few exceptions.

What were yours?


You always have people standing on your back, that's how the food chain works. People who get in the upper ranks are quick to forget their brothers down in steerage... I've lost count of the knives that I've had to have surgically removed from my back.

1618 chances are my ancestors were kidnapped, placed in the cellar of boats to cross the Atlantic and taken to foreign shores never to see their homes again. And worked from sunup to sundown in chattel slavery that crossed generations until the 19th century. (Watch a show called 'Roots' or a film called '12 years a slave').
Even after 'freedom' the society they were born in decided to judge them based on the amount of melanin in their skin. And it some cases today it still happens.
I forgot to add after church on Sundays some people's idea of entertainment was hanging (murdering) brown skinned people from trees...just because. And to think they had the right to vote...scary!

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I don't deny that that was its intent but as Sisko once said, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." For believability's sake, if a struggling Black writer is striving to have his first novel published, it makes no sense for him to add obstacles by imposing to a prejudiced publisher that the hero of the book be a black man as well" When I went to my first job interview, I didn't mention the fact that I hated the way the guy's office was decorated! I said it much later in a cocktail party with a joking tone, that allowed me some deniability, in spite of the fact that I was telling the truth.

One thing is about maintaining the integrity of ones work, for a people's civil liberties, for hope and the ideal of something better in the future, for representation. The other is about being a grown up and knowing when to be courteous and polite in order to get a job. Don't see how the two match up.

People who are in the struggling phase of their life usually know that you need to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run!

Then there are times you need to take a stand.

 

[bolak]

0. NO KLINGONS.

1. Hugely reduce Sisko's role in the Dominion Role. Perhaps give him the Romulan plot with Garak, and the destruction of the Dominion fleet in the wormhole. But other than that just leave him as a starbase commander posting casualty reports and getting on with daily work. When did he become Tactical Genius Grade 1?

2. Don't have the entire ops crew jumping on to the Defiant and gallavanting off. Maybe create tension by having an equivalent-ranked commander of the Defiant with missions that were assigned from above without Sikso's involvement ( I'd even tolerate Worf in that role ). That'd be about as Sisko would see of the war, the back end of the Defiant as it went warping off into battle.

3. Have Ro Laren involved as a foil to or instead of Kira. Both having the same experiences of the occupation but each on a different 'side'.

4. Implement the Dukat Redemption plot as suggested up-thread.

5. Drop the Bashir Augment stuff and just have him be naturally clever, still struggling with the Founders disease problem and getting in deeper than he could handle with Section 31.

DS9 started strongly with an ensemble cast but quickly fell into the Trek trap of requiring every episode to involve one of the big stars. It would be fine to follow another crew on the Defiant on occasion, or have an episode solely involving Cardassians and the Dominion.

 

[eschaton]

One of my favorite ideas with the "Dukat redemption arc" would be to make him go out a hero like Damar, realize to some extent that he was wrong in his actions in the occupation, but still be a total piece of shit on a personal level. Basically because there are many, many great men of history who were actually total shits but who are remembered fondly because of one great thing they have done. And given the moral complexity of DS9, it would be delicious if Dukat never got his full comeuppance - getting the recognition he always wanted as the hero of Cardassia, but in the end, it didn't matter because things otherwise turned out okay.

Oh, and this isn't so much plot critical, but I would change around the contracts of the main cast a bit so that they didn't have to appear in every episode. I think DS9 generally did pretty well with working everyone into something interesting each week, but it would have been better from a story perspective if they didn't have to waste time on some of the "B plots" - or things like 120 seconds of Sisko in his office just to make sure that Brooks made his appearance that week. I mean, one reason Garak is remembered so fondly is because Robinson fought against being named part of the main cast - he only wanted to appear on the show if they had a story role for his character.

 

[Gul Sengosts]

I for one think it should have been on a starship. Being on a station was limited.

When I watched DS9 the first time when it originally aired (I was 11, I think), I agreed. I didn't like it because I wanted space adventures, exploring the unknown etc.

But rewatching it later, DS9 became my favourite Trek. I think this is actually in large part because it was not that exploration stuff. Some of DS9's strengths were complex political problems with shades of grey everywhere, and the need to somehow deal with them. If Picard had crossed paths with Kai Winn or Gul Dukat, he'd have somehow dealt with them, and then the episode would be over and they'd just go somewhere else. Sisko and his crew never had that option. They had to live with them.

DS9's stationary nature forced the series to not just make isolated episodes, it enforced overarching themes spanning the entire series. I think much that made DS9 special would have been lost if it was a ship travelling outer space.

And I mean, all other series were actual treks through the universe. No harm in having only one that wasn't.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I think this is actually in large part because it was not that exploration stuff. Some of DS9's strengths were complex political problems with shades of grey everywhere, and the need to somehow deal with them. If Picard had crossed paths with Kai Winn or Gul Dukat, he'd have somehow dealt with them, and then the episode would be over and they'd just go somewhere else. Sisko and his crew never had that option. They had to live with them.

DS9's stationary nature forced the series to not just make isolated episodes, it enforced overarching themes spanning the entire series. I think much that made DS9 special would have been lost if it was a ship travelling outer space.

That is DS9 in a nutshell. What made it different made it brilliant.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

And I mean, all other series were actual treks through the universe. No harm in having only one that wasn't.

There was only one thing that made DS9 stand out: the characters lived on a space station. Otherwise, all the Star Trek series are unique from one another, creating their own aura, investing in specufic storylines, and borrowing themes from predecessors . None are carbon copies of one another. DS9 took the politics and Piller's exploration of character to their fullest. Voyager did more with the Twilight Zone like stuff, exploring what constitutes life. If any series did the wonder of exploration like TOS, it was Enterprise, but it combined it with political complications. I haven't seen all Discovery yet , but i do see it taking the debated of TOS and trying to make them more multifaceted.

They are Star Trek, perhaps not all made for me, but everyone can find one that speaks to the.

 

[DarKush]

I don't deny that that was its intent but as Sisko once said, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." For believability's sake, if a struggling Black writer is striving to have his first novel published, it makes no sense for him to add obstacles by imposing to a prejudiced publisher that the hero of the book be a black man as well" When I went to my first job interview, I didn't mention the fact that I hated the way the guy's office was decorated! I said it much later in a cocktail party with a joking tone, that allowed me some deniability, in spite of the fact that I was telling the truth. People who are in the struggling phase of their life usually know that you need to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run!

For Benny Russell and millions of others, which would include my grandparents and parents, among other family members, roughly at the time "Far Beyond the Stars" took place, it wasn't just a struggling 'phase', that was a struggling life, a complete existence living under a system which told you were inferior and it was codified in law and custom and ruthlessly enforced if need be.

For Russell, IMO, it wasn't just an issue of writing a book, but also claiming a humanity that had often been denied him every day of his life, and also denied that to the people he knew and loved, for no reason except they weren't born the 'right' color. With science fiction, perhaps to him that was the one area where there could be an escape, that if one could read stories and imagine worlds filled with aliens, then the idea of a black captain wouldn't be so astounding. That readers might be inspired to think outside what society told them was possible for black people at that time (I would also argue today as well, but that's another conversation). This was more than just a job or an assignment. And if you compromised once, I can imagine they would expect you to keep compromising until by the end you had nothing left, your opportunity to create something memorable and special was gone, and things had not really changed. Just recently I saw an article where George R.R. Martin regretted allowing the publisher to not place his black main character on the cover of his novella Nightflyers, which has been corrected in some new editions. Black sci-fi author Steven Barnes also had some issues with a whitewashed character on the cover of his novel, Streethlethal. Both of these issues happened in the '80s, I believe, so that's not even as 'far' back as in Russell's era. (Barnes wrote the novelization for Far Beyond the Stars).

https://bookstr.com/george-rr-martin-speaks-out-against-white-washing-nightflyers

The wikipedia link to EC Comics goes over the controversy of their story "Judgment Day" which is similar to the struggles Russell had to face, and likely served as an inspiration for the DS9 episode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC_Comics

 

[eschaton]

For Benny Russell and millions of others, which would include my grandparents and parents, among other family members, roughly at the time "Far Beyond the Stars" took place, it wasn't just a struggling 'phase', that was a struggling life, a complete existence living under a system which told you were inferior and it was codified in law and custom and ruthlessly enforced if need be.

For Russell, IMO, it wasn't just an issue of writing a book, but also claiming a humanity that had often been denied him every day of his life, and also denied that to the people he knew and loved, for no reason except they weren't born the 'right' color. With science fiction, perhaps to him that was the one area where there could be an escape, that if one could read stories and imagine worlds filled with aliens, then the idea of a black captain wouldn't be so astounding. That readers might be inspired to think outside what society told them was possible for black people at that time (I would also argue today as well, but that's another conversation). This was more than just a job or an assignment. And if you compromised once, I can imagine they would expect you to keep compromising until by the end you had nothing left, your opportunity to create something memorable and special was gone, and things had not really changed. Just recently I saw an article where George R.R. Martin regretted allowing the publisher to not place his black main character on the cover of his novella Nightflyers, which has been corrected in some new editions. Black sci-fi author Steven Barnes also had some issues with a whitewashed character on the cover of his novel, Streethlethal. Both of these issues happened in the '80s, I believe, so that's not even as 'far' back as in Russell's era. (Barnes wrote the novelization for Far Beyond the Stars).

https://bookstr.com/george-rr-martin-speaks-out-against-white-washing-nightflyers

The wikipedia link to EC Comics goes over the controversy of their story "Judgment Day" which is similar to the struggles Russell had to face, and likely served as an inspiration for the DS9 episode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC_Comics

Benny Russell was arguably based on Samuel Delaney - the first major black science fiction writer who was indeed friends and acquaintances with most of the writers who were depicted in that episode. A few years younger (Delaney didn't break into the scene until the early 1960s) but the parallels are otherwise pretty obvious.

 

[Discofan]

Benny Russell was arguably based on Samuel Delaney - the first major black science fiction writer who was indeed friends and acquaintances with most of the writers who were depicted in that episode. A few years younger (Delaney didn't break into the scene until the early 1960s) but the parallels are otherwise pretty obvious.

I am not denying any of that, what I am saying is that the episode itself suffers from a deplorable lack of consistency.

For instance, it's pretty obvious that "Odo" (IE the character played by the actor who plays Odo) took a big risk by buying "Sisko"'s story. He gambled that he'd be able to convince his boss to keep the story as it is and lost. So "Sisko"'s loss is also his loss, so it's completely unfair for "Sisko" to go after him like he was the cause of his problems. To "Odo", it is a major blow and he's likely to be fired as soon as his boss finds a replacement. You don't pulp an entire issue without ultimately blaming it on the person responsible for the content of the issue, IE "Odo". His colleagues are affected as well because their stories won't be published either and that translates ultimately into a loss of revenue. So it's even more incomprehensible why "Sisko" goes after them as if they were the cause of his troubles. "Odo" hired "Sisko" either in spite of his boss or it took a lot of convincing, so it's obvious that if "Sisko" must blame someone, that someone is neither "Odo" nor his colleagues. I don't like "Sisko"'s misdirected rage as I didn't like when Sisko went after Picard as if the latter wasn't as much a victim of the Borg as his wife. This has nothing to do with race or context, it's about the way the character Sisko has been written. I don't like that he drops bombs on children without a second thought and that nothing happens to him.

This is a thread about the rewriting of DS9 and that's why I made those remarks here. I don't like that each time I make a technical remark some people distort it into something it isn't. Just because you quote Martin Luther King, doesn't mean that your objection is relevant or well thought-out. Just because a story is filled with "good intentions" and mawkish remarks doesn't make it interesting. You need a little more than that.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

"Odo" hired "Sisko" either in spite of his boss or it took a lot of convincing, so it's obvious that if "Sisko" must blame someone, that someone is neither "Odo" nor his colleagues. I don't like "Sisko"'s misdirected rage as I didn't

"Sisko" also forgot to say, "yes, massa."

 

[thribs]

Would have killed Jadzia right back at season one and have Ezri ASAP.
Would have done more with the Gamna Quadrant as well and less about the boring Bajora.

 

[DarKush]

I am not denying any of that, what I am saying is that the episode itself suffers from a deplorable lack of consistency.

For instance, it's pretty obvious that "Odo" (IE the character played by the actor who plays Odo) took a big risk by buying "Sisko"'s story. He gambled that he'd be able to convince his boss to keep the story as it is and lost. So "Sisko"'s loss is also his loss, so it's completely unfair for "Sisko" to go after him like he was the cause of his problems. To "Odo", it is a major blow and he's likely to be fired as soon as his boss finds a replacement. You don't pulp an entire issue without ultimately blaming it on the person responsible for the content of the issue, IE "Odo". His colleagues are affected as well because their stories won't be published either and that translates ultimately into a loss of revenue. So it's even more incomprehensible why "Sisko" goes after them as if they were the cause of his troubles. "Odo" hired "Sisko" either in spite of his boss or it took a lot of convincing, so it's obvious that if "Sisko" must blame someone, that someone is neither "Odo" nor his colleagues. I don't like "Sisko"'s misdirected rage as I didn't like when Sisko went after Picard as if the latter wasn't as much a victim of the Borg as his wife. This has nothing to do with race or context, it's about the way the character Sisko has been written. I don't like that he drops bombs on children without a second thought and that nothing happens to him.

This is a thread about the rewriting of DS9 and that's why I made those remarks here. I don't like that each time I make a technical remark some people distort it into something it isn't. Just because you quote Martin Luther King, doesn't mean that your objection is relevant or well thought-out. Just because a story is filled with "good intentions" and mawkish remarks doesn't make it interesting. You need a little more than that.

I do agree with you that simply quoting MLK does not automatically make anyone's statements legit, however, I have seen people not just do that in response to what I personally feel are some obtuse conclusions you've drawn from the Sisko character. I think the replies have been very well thought out. That being said, you have every right not to be into the Sisko character (though DS9 is my favorite Trek series, Sisko is my third favorite captain after Picard and Kirk), but you know as well as I do, if you put something in a public forum it invites replies and sometimes criticism. Despite your protestations that this 'has nothing to do with race' IMO it does. If it didn't why harp on Sisko's mating choices without doing the same for Picard or the other captains? Why hone in on Benny Russell and the 'travails' of the Odo character in that episode without having greater empathy and understanding for Russell and his position. Why see Russell's frustration as not being legitimate. You see more 'unfairness' in how Russell responded to Odo's character than the system of racism that Russell was contending with. That is your right of course to do so, but it is also my right to disagree with that position.

Sisko's 'misdirected' rage was real, palpable, and it made sense. Jennifer and many of Sisko's friends and colleagues died. Picard did not. Picard took a short trip back home and returned to Starfleet, back to his position as captain of the Federation flagship, and from an outsider's perspective, seeming not to have been affected that greatly at all by being assimilated into the Borg Collective. Whereas, Sisko had to raise his son alone, and rebuild his life without Jennifer. Picard was the face of the Borg invasion, and the idea that everyone-who wasn't his closest friends and junior officers-would just act like that wouldn't leave some residual trust issues-warranted or not-is not realistic. Even the writers of First Contact knew that, ergo Starfleet Command held Picard back when the Borg invaded again. So, First Contact showed there was still some doubt around Picard when it came to the Borg. Personally I liked that Sisko had emotions, he had anger, he was grieving, and that was his way of processing it. You conveniently forget that by the end of the pilot episode he had made amends, or started down that road, with Picard. The episode showed his growth and his greater understanding.

 

[Discofan]

I do agree with you that simply quoting MLK does not automatically make anyone's statements legit, however, I have seen people not just do that in response to what I personally feel are some obtuse conclusions you've drawn from the Sisko character. I think the replies have been very well thought out. That being said, you have every right not to be into the Sisko character (though DS9 is my favorite Trek series, Sisko is my third favorite captain after Picard and Kirk), but you know as well as I do, if you put something in a public forum it invites replies and sometimes criticism. Despite your protestations that this 'has nothing to do with race' IMO it does. If it didn't why harp on Sisko's mating choices without doing the same for Picard or the other captains? Why hone in on Benny Russell and the 'travails' of the Odo character in that episode without having greater empathy and understanding for Russell and his position. Why see Russell's frustration as not being legitimate. You see more 'unfairness' in how Russell responded to Odo's character than the system of racism that Russell was contending with. That is your right of course to do so, but it is also my right to disagree with that position.

Sisko's 'misdirected' rage was real, palpable, and it made sense. Jennifer and many of Sisko's friends and colleagues died. Picard did not. Picard took a short trip back home and returned to Starfleet, back to his position as captain of the Federation flagship, and from an outsider's perspective, seeming not to have been affected that greatly at all by being assimilated into the Borg Collective. Whereas, Sisko had to raise his son alone, and rebuild his life without Jennifer. Picard was the face of the Borg invasion, and the idea that everyone-who wasn't his closest friends and junior officers-would just act like that wouldn't leave some residual trust issues-warranted or not-is not realistic. Even the writers of First Contact knew that, ergo Starfleet Command held Picard back when the Borg invaded again. So, First Contact showed there was still some doubt around Picard when it came to the Borg. Personally I liked that Sisko had emotions, he had anger, he was grieving, and that was his way of processing it. You conveniently forget that by the end of the pilot episode he had made amends, or started down that road, with Picard. The episode showed his growth and his greater understanding.

I notice that you didn't say anything about Sisko's dropping bombs on children and I can see why. It's because it's a much harder pill to sugarcoat than the rest. None of the excuses you've given for the other instances of Sisko's behavior apply to that single act of savagery that completely IMO discredits him as a "good guy". Good guys don't drop bombs on children, ever! And if they do they are court-martialled and ostracized by their (former) friends.

 

[Discofan]

"Sisko" also forgot to say, "yes, massa."

Yeah, that's... clever.

 

[Discofan]

Would have killed Jadzia right back at season one and have Ezri ASAP.
Would have done more with the Gamna Quadrant as well and less about the boring Bajora.

Yes, the Bajoran must be quite boring. Most (if not all) of their "celebrations" consists in depriving themselves of one pleasure or another in an otherwise dull life. Plus it's telling that if not for the Cardassians their society would still be based on a strict caste system where very little is given to a person on merit.

 

[DarKush]

I notice that you didn't say anything about Sisko's dropping bombs on children and I can see why. It's because it's a much harder pill to sugarcoat than the rest. None of the excuses you've given for the other instances of Sisko's behavior apply to that single act of savagery that completely IMO discredits him as a "good guy". Good guys don't drop bombs on children, ever! And if they do they are court-martialled and ostracized by their (former) friends.

I don't see why I needed to say anything about that. I don't have a problem with criticism of Sisko or any character in general, but for the stuff I found questionable that you took issue with, that's what I replied to. Further, most Trek captains have done something discrediting from being a 'good guy or girl' as it were, but Sisko is signaled out by you, and why is that? The Prime Directive is set up to create situations where captains might be forced to not do the humanitarian thing, to let whole world populations die. It's amazing that you take such umbrage with a fictional action by a fictional character but are dismissive (IMO) when it turns to how DS9 tackled the real world issue of racism.

Sisko was not a perfect character. He had a dark side, and that made him more interesting. Just like the dark sides of the other captains as well. I think you've pulled this one string out about Sisko's extreme actions-because you really don't have strong reasons for your dislike of Sisko otherwise, which again, is your right. You don't have to explain anything to me or anyone else on this board, though if you do put something out there-again-that does invite a response. Besides Sisko, we have seen other Trek captains on the edge. We saw Janeway pushed to the extreme when taking on the Equinox crew and also Archer while in the Expanse on the hunt for the Xindi. All those things helped make the characters multifaceted, fascinating, complicated, and at times problematic.

Now if you feel that Sisko should've been court martialed, fine I'm okay with that, but Trek hasn't always been the greatest when it comes to calling its protagonists to account, so if you have if what Sisko did so enrages you but other examples don't, coupled with some of the other disqualifying examples you mentioned, that does lead me right back to the question of why Sisko?

 

[Discofan]

I don't see why I needed to say anything about that. I don't have a problem with criticism of Sisko or any character in general, but for the stuff I found questionable that you took issue with, that's what I replied to. Further, most Trek captains have done something discrediting from being a 'good guy or girl' as it were, but Sisko is signaled out by you, and why is that? The Prime Directive is set up to create situations where captains might be forced to not do the humanitarian thing, to let whole world populations die. It's amazing that you take such umbrage with a fictional action by a fictional character but are dismissive (IMO) when it turns to how DS9 tackled the real world issue of racism.

Sisko was not a perfect character. He had a dark side, and that made him more interesting. Just like the dark sides of the other captains as well. I think you've pulled this one string out about Sisko's extreme actions-because you really don't have strong reasons for your dislike of Sisko otherwise, which again, is your right. You don't have to explain anything to me or anyone else on this board, though if you do put something out there-again-that does invite a response. Besides Sisko, we have seen other Trek captains on the edge. We saw Janeway pushed to the extreme when taking on the Equinox crew and also Archer while in the Expanse on the hunt for the Xindi. All those things helped make the characters multifaceted, fascinating, complicated, and at times problematic.

Now if you feel that Sisko should've been court martialed, fine I'm okay with that, but Trek hasn't always been the greatest when it comes to calling its protagonists to account, so if you have if what Sisko did so enrages you but other examples don't, coupled with some of the other disqualifying examples you mentioned, that does lead me right back to the question of why Sisko?

I did give you a list of things I dislike about Sisko, culminated in his dropping bombs on children. Just because the latter is by far the most disgusting doesn't mean that the others cease to exist. You choose to believe that they do and then conclude that his dropping bombs on children is the ONLY thing that I have against Sisko. It's not the only thing, but it's the most uncontroversial, indeed. I still think that other examples like his beating up of Garak for killing the Romulan politician (who was about to compromise the war effort) and only a few months later his (quasi) ordering of Worf to kill Gowron for the same reason is quite hypocritical. (Why was it bad to kill the Romulan (whose name I don't remember) but now it's good to kill Gowron?!!!)

However, the worst act of Sisko pales in comparison to Archer's, nothing Sisko ever did comes close to committing genocide by inaction the way Archer did. Archer is by far the worst of all the captains.

I bet you're perfectly OK with me calling Archer a genocidal maniac but take umbrage a the slightest criticism of Sisko as if you gave Sisko a protected status not enjoyed by other captains.

I've noticed that on other sites as well. Quite a few posters being perfectly alright with harsh criticism directed at Kirk, Picard, Janeway, and Archer but becoming militant when similar cases are made against Sisko.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Nyotarules]

us it's telling that if not for the Cardassians their society would still be based on a strict caste system where very little is given to a person on merit.

So should they thank the Cardassians for saving them from their prejudiced, strict caste based theocracy by murdering and enslaving them? Oh hail Dukat, Saviour of the Bajora!

Your line of thought reminds me of the pro imperialist thinking who believe colonial imperial powers did the savages (i.e Indians and Africans) a favour