One thing I especially hate in "In Theory" ...

[Skipper]

Troi "I think you should be careful. This isn't just some experiment you're running, Data. Jenna is a living, breathing person with needs and feelings that have to be considered."
Data "Then you do not believe I should pursue this any further."
Troi "I didn't say that. I just want you to be aware that this is unlike any other more casual relationship that you've attempted."

The problem is that in the context of the episode:

1. All the relationship is managed by Data exactly as an experiment.
2. In the context Data is incapable of romantic feelings. From the Moore himself who wrote the episode: So I thought, well, what if we did that with Data and there was a woman who fell in love with a man who literally doesn’t have a heart, who could not give her something emotional. I wanted to see that relationship crash on the rocks. I wanted to see the moment when she realizes that he really can’t give back to her what she wants.

We can argue that Moore does the character a disservice, but in the context of the episode Jenna wants something from Data that Data can't give. He can't even fake it decently ("HONEY I'M HOME").

 

[Farscape One]

She went into the relationship knowing full well that Data was incapable of actual emotions. He said this to her himself. She said that didn't matter because Data had other qualities that 'really mattered', like being attentive and encouraging when she's down.

Yes, she realized at the end that she was wrong in what she really wanted and what she said to Data before wasn't enough, but how is that different than relationships in real life? People go into relationships for the wrong reasons all the time. That's not Data's fault.

Those people that blame Data and not Jenna seem to keep forgetting that she went after him with full knowledge beforehand of his inability to have actual emotions. And then she changed her mind at the end, realizing she made a similar mistake with her ex because he was an 'unemotional man'.

 

[Quantum21]

Well, I particularly dislike this episode, which oscillates between the Nice Guy Fantasy and misogynistic undertones.

But there is a thing that really irks me.


"HONEY I'M HOME!"

In this episode, Data is trying to perfect romantic subroutines for his relationship with Lieutenant Jr. Jenna D'Sora. And, for some reason, she thinks it's a great idea to act like a stereotype of a 1950s American husband returning to her suburban home where his suburban wife is waiting for him.

Now Real Life reasons why he acts in this way are clear: the writers thought it was hilarious to have Data act like he was an "I Love Lucy" character.

In-Universe, it makes absolutely no sense because:

1. Why the hell would Data think that the typical behavior of a 400-year-old culture, which lasted only a decade, in a single geographic area of the Earth, would have been the best choice in this situation? So why not behave like the Pilgrims just landed from the Mayflower? Or an 18th century caliph? Or simply, as a normal and well-adjusted modern human being?
   
2. This was a sexist and incredibly harmful culture towards women. And it was a pretty clear concept even at the time of TNG's broadcast. So Data, the living encyclopedia, takes it as an example of how to manage a perfect relationship, while deciding to ignore the culture of successive decades that detailed why that was the worst way to behave in a relationship? Had the eugenic wars erased all traces of First Wave and Second Wave Feminism from the historical archives?

I know this is a beloved episode for many (Patrick Stewart himself puts it among his favorites) but it irritates me in an incredible way, especially for his utterly misogynistic portrait of the female guest star character. But I think I'll detail more in another post ...

You're probably over-thinking it. He acts the way he does because Americans in the 90s recognized what he was doing.

 

[Skipper]

You're probably over-thinking it. He acts the way he does because Americans in the 90s recognized what he was doing.

I know. I quote myself:

Now Real Life reasons why he acts in this way are clear: the writers thought it was hilarious to have Data act like he was an "I Love Lucy" character.

Yes, I know the US audience in the 90s had fond memories for a sitcom where a woman is continuously humiliated because she tries to have a career of any kind.

But WHY in the episode does Data act in that way? If the answer to a character's motivations in a story is "because the writer of the story decided so" we have a major narrative problem. It is obvious that any action of an imaginary character is the work of the author, but it is the latter's job to make the actions of their characters believable.

 

[Mojochi]

We can argue that Moore does the character a disservice, but in the context of the episode Jenna wants something from Data that Data can't give.

Correction: Something Data is ill prepared to give, imho under a false & misguided impression that he's completely incapable of giving, & given to the understanding by Jenna that he wouldn't need to give it anyhow. All of this leads to failure, but it's not unbelievable nor a total condemnation imho of him as a potential partner, which on other ocassions people have supported him or encouraged him about.

I always felt jilted by this episode for Data's sake & would've liked a follow-up called "In Practice" or something, where this subject comes up again for him, but in this new scenario, he is partnered with someone more suited to him, like Dr. Selar. (Any reason to get Suzie Plakson back into that character is a good reason lol)

It wouldn't necessarily have to lead to a long term romance on the show. There's any number of ways out of that for all those characters, but a more just representation with someone more in his wheelhouse was certainly called for, in my book, especially after this mess lol

 

[fireproof78]

But WHY in the episode does Data act in that way? If the answer to a character's motivations in a story is "because the writer of the story decided so" we have a major narrative problem. It is obvious that any action of an imaginary character is the work of the author, but it is the latter's job to make the actions of their characters believable.

That is the biggest struggle of this episode is that it treats it as a given that Data is incapable. There's no questioning of it, no attempt to educate or practice it. Just cautionary tales, and he does what Data does like in the "Outrageous Okona;" relies on pop culture influences for support.

The episode struggles between meta self-awareness and trying to give Data a reason to not be successful. And it's awkwardly, irritating and in no way pleasant to observe.

 

[Oddish]

Here's a quote from an exchange regarding Data's capacity for love, made from mid-TNG, or the same timeframe as "In Theory", regarding Lal.

CRUSHER: "You didn't have any one experienced to help you through sentience. She at least has you. Just help her realise that she's not alone, and be there to nurture her when she needs love and attention."
DATA: "I can give her attention, Doctor. But I am incapable of giving her love."
(Data leaves)
CRUSHER: "Now why do I find that so hard to believe?"

 

[UssGlenn]

Yes, I know the US audience in the 90s had fond memories for a sitcom where a woman is continuously humiliated because she tries to have a career of any kind.

I'm not entirely sure why you insist on connecting the phrase to "I Love Lucy". For one thing, Ricky said "Lucy, I'm Home". "Honey, I'm Home", certainly predates Lucy, and doesn't really have any connotations beyond being a cliche thing to say to tell your spouse you are in the house. The phrase is notably gender neutral. (Plus you are being rather disrespectful to comedy legend Lucille Ball, but that's another issue).

 

[Mojochi]

But WHY in the episode does Data act in that way?

The most reasonable & simplest in-universe answer to that question, for the overall narrative's sake, if you take into account the whole of the character, is that he just doesn't know any better

It's a fair observation that Data is very in the dark about himself. He pursues a lot of things in the most clueless way because he presumes of himself that such is all he is capable of, because that's what he's been told about himself & because he presumes it & acts in accordance, others around him accept it as true also. So it's a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Qonundrum]

Should it be said then, that Data is worthy of friendship but not intimacy?

Possibly. It's an interesting idea.

Unrequited love is interesting enough, but even platonic friendships tend to be reciprocated. Or are they acquaintances? Data does indicate friendliness for Geordi and has demonstrated it, certainly. Geordi's also one who's never threatened disassembling him over disobeying a comparatively harmless order. You know, like how Picard threatens to dismember his crew when they disobey orders. Oh wait, he didn't... but, as Picard was killing crew in "First Contact" and saying it's better than living the existence as a drone since apparently the process is irreversi-- no, it's not irreversible. All allegedly because Picard is going nuts and becoming Ahab hunting Mr. Whale and all, though the movie was juggling too many elements and none of them really worked as a result. (Or, given they're stuck in the past until they're not, they don't have the means? Again, this movie crams in too much to have to roll with and doesn't mesh beyond the set-pieces.) How come the movie ticket we bought didn't come with a bridge? Oh wait, it sorta did, it just magically disappeared for the sake of a visual effect that wasn't used ever again... snarf...

Then again, Data was constructed with an actual switch. No biological being in the universe has one. Now there's a sco-fi idea, a species that genetically engineers one. Evolution can't explain any number of things as much as can explain other things, so why not...

 

[Skipper]

I just want to remind everyone that aromanticism exists in real life too. They even have their own flag and everything.


A person therefore may have platonic friendship relationships and also be sexually active, but unable to have feelings of a romantic nature.

So she wants something from Data that Data physically can't express. At most simulate. This makes Jenna a, well, a little delusional (remember she's just off a relationship so she's not totally lucid). And makes Data, well, I really don't know? There are various words in the English language for someone who pretends to be something they are not, but they are not nice and I don't find it right to use them for Data.

The big problem is that everyone else knows full well that she's looking for a relationship with someone who can express true romance as much as the replicator in her room, but everyone starts giving advice like they're a normal cis-straight couple with nothing to distinguish them . If an aromantic acquaintance of yours asked you for advice on how to start a romantic relationship, would you give them fortune cookie advice or something more suited to their situation?

 

[Oddish]

I just want to remind everyone that aromanticism exists in real life too. They even have their own flag and everything.

True. I don't count myself as asexual (graysexual maybe), but I'm definitely aromatic. Of course, for me it was more circumstantial than inherent... the fox and the grapes and all that.

 

[Mojochi]

I just want to remind everyone that aromanticism exists in real life too. They even have their own flag and everything.


A person therefore may have platonic friendship relationships and also be sexually active, but unable to have feelings of a romantic nature.

So she wants something from Data that Data physically can't express. At most simulate. This makes Jenna a, well, a little delusional (remember she's just off a relationship so she's not totally lucid). And makes Data, well, I really don't know? There are various words in the English language for someone who pretends to be something they are not, but they are not nice and I don't find it right to use them for Data.

The big problem is that everyone else knows full well that she's looking for a relationship with someone who can express true romance as much as the replicator in her room, but everyone starts giving advice like they're a normal cis-straight couple with nothing to distinguish them . If an aromantic acquaintance of yours asked you for advice on how to start a romantic relationship, would you give them fortune cookie advice or something more suited to their situation?

Or to the best of your ability, give them your thoughts based on your own personal experience, and let them decide if its of any value to them, on their own, as it may or may not apply to them in their personal circumstance... Which is what all of them did.

They treated him like a friend who'd asked their thoughts, nothing more, nothing less. It's not their place to make judgements on how he should proceed, based on their perceptions of him or her. That's prejudicial IMHO.

 

[Forbin]

True. I don't count myself as asexual (graysexual maybe), but I'm definitely aromatic.

So you smell nice?

 

[Qonundrum]

I'm not entirely sure why you insist on connecting the phrase to "I Love Lucy". For one thing, Ricky said "Lucy, I'm Home". "Honey, I'm Home", certainly predates Lucy, and doesn't really have any connotations beyond being a cliche thing to say to tell your spouse you are in the house. The phrase is notably gender neutral. (Plus you are being rather disrespectful to comedy legend Lucille Ball, but that's another issue).

The sitcom in question definitely assisted Lucille with a career, where she started a studio, and even gave Star Trek TOS a second go and not just because of the production costs for the failed pilot were unheard of at the time, I agree with those who say she saw something in the premise regarding both what Gene wanted and the execs who made their criticisms.

From today's standpoint, anyone unfamiliar with the 1950s - in terms of tv production or living anywhere, might perceive the show in a different way nowadays and there's no time machine so we can actually live in 1950 to get firsthand experience, which I don't think too many people would want to do either. Not to mention, Lucy Ricardo the TV character was not suited to the showbiz career she'd wanted due to her stumblings and inabilities, noting that there were lots of women in acting in singing long before 1950 as well. It's about the character's traits as comedy fodder, just like how they do with men - frequency of both varying from decade to decade, but examples exist. And, yes, hubby Ricky Ricardo had to do his shtick every week as well. And with no home video recording or few repeat opportunities, they redid the same shtick every week. Every show had (and Fred Gwynne hated the recycled shtick when doing Herman Munster, but I digress.) In real life, Desi was quite different as well.

Most importantly: Lucille Ball isn't Lucy Ricardo. Whatsoever. She also loved "Three's Company" when other critics loathed it. She understands the business and its nuances. She's a legend. On multiple levels. (She loathed "All in the Family" because she thought only lighthearded whimsy could be the core of comedy. I don't necessarily agree with her on that as AitF and its spinoffs were hilarious, if not heavyhanded at times, so I don't necessarily disagree with her on that either. Comedy should be fun first and foremost. But there's more than one way to do it. But she knew her stuff, that's all I know.)

 

[carcinoGeneticist]

Because the writers thought it was funny? I mean, it's not, I cringe every time I watch this part of the episode, but that would be why. It doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint now that you point it out but tons of stuff in Trek makes no sense. Just don't think too hard about it.

 

[Laughing Dragon]

Nah, dont get upset about "Honey I'm home!" It was obviously done for laughs. If anything it was poking fun at that time period. Using Data as a vessel. And no, she did not go along with it as she looked confused at his later behavior and that's why she broke up with him. She did not act like some mindless 50s houswife. Actually, 'Q-Pid' , as funny as I found it, having Vash as the damsel was a much more insulting episode as Picard enjoyed being the one to rescue her. As well as Dixon Hill where the only female characters of a very sexist time are receptionists and love interests such as Crusher in her old fashioned get up and "wearing it well" not to mention DS9 and "James Bond" and really old-fashioned crooners giving old fashioned love advice about women. Yeah, that's what I really think of when I think of old fashioned casual sexism. Just to go on record I love Bashir, lol. Oh, and Data is a "nice guy" because he is not programmed with human failings. But he cannot be sexist because he does not understand it. He is not human. His failing if anything he may come across as insensitive because he has no emotions. But that's an android failing. He can't understand why Honey I am Home is insulting.

Oh, brother. The tragic hero. Geez. No one thought that. It was a romantic comedy at best. Not some deep piece. What was Datas tragedy? A failed relationship he did not care about? If anything, it drove home that DATA was not prepared for human/romantic relationships.

 

[Skipper]

He can't understand why Honey I am Home is insulting.

As you said, it's obvious that the joke was just for laughs. But in the context of the episode it makes absolutely no sense. Why did Data think that a typical American greeting from the 50s of the 20th century was appropriate for the situation? "To make the viewers laugh." Ok, sure, but that's a very sad justification. Then the fact that he couldn't understand if it was a sexist joke or not: I'm very sure that Data had at his disposal centuries of essays on the genre that explained in detail how certain behaviors appropriate in the past centuries were no longer appropriate in modern times.

If this was an experiment for him, he was conducting it in the worst way imaginable.

 

[Laughing Dragon]

As you said, it's obvious that the joke was just for laughs. But in the context of the episode it makes absolutely no sense. Why did Data think that a typical American greeting from the 50s of the 20th century was appropriate for the situation? "To make the viewers laugh." Ok, sure, but that's a very sad justification. Then the fact that he couldn't understand if it was a sexist joke or not: I'm very sure that Data had at his disposal centuries of essays on the genre that explained in detail how certain behaviors appropriate in the past centuries were no longer appropriate in modern times.

If this was an experiment for him, he was conducting it in the worst way imaginable.

Thats the thing. Data can't help that because he is not human. Thats why I called it an android failing but I think he'd need to understand the concept of sexism to see that his approach was wrong. Unless what he was looking up was explained as being wrong, he would not know. But as I said there were tons of old-fashioned fantasies as well as holodeck programs. So, Data would not be even told that this stuff was wrong - searching the database or from his crewmates. I understand this is important to you but that's just my viewpoint.

 

[Oddish]

If this was an experiment for him, he was conducting it in the worst way imaginable.

I principally blame Troi. When he asked her about matters of the heart, she should have given him frank, BS-free advice instead of waffling.

Yes, Data asked others. But Troi was the expert in interpersonal relationships.