Sisko's Pale Moonlight

[FordSVT]

For me, it boils down to this: will you risk billions of civilian lives so that you can feel good about yourself?

JM1776 apparently wouldn't. He'd rather billions of people die so he can feel good about his own morality. "Those humans are extinct, but GOSH they sure showed the Dominion how moral they were!". I'm not sure the billions vapourized in a hail of disruptor and torpedo fire, or enslaved would make the same choice, but ce la vie.

 

[JM1776]

For me, it boils down to this: will you risk billions of civilian lives so that you can feel good about yourself?

Actually, Sisko did precisely that, Cyke101.

He risked that the Romulans would realize it was a fake, and come in on the Dominion side, just so he could "do something" (i.e., bring the Romulans into the war) ...

... and thereby feel good about himself.

Seems to depend on what pre-suppositions you make, doesn't it?

What if Garak hadn't whacked Vreenak?

The fact that the writers didn't take the story in that direction doesn't invalidate the above observation.

Frankly, one could simply say that Garak played Sisko like an accordion, and that none of this is Benjy's fault.

 

[Cyke101]

For me, it boils down to this: will you risk billions of civilian lives so that you can feel good about yourself?

Actually, Sisko did precisely that, Cyke101.

He risked that the Romulans would realize it was a fake, and come in on the Dominion side, just so he could "do something" (i.e., bring the Romulans into the war) ...

... and thereby feel good about himself.

Seems to depend on what pre-suppositions you make, doesn't it?

What if Garak hadn't whacked Vreenak?

The fact that the writers didn't take the story in that direction doesn't invalidate the above observation.

Frankly, one could simply say that Garak played Sisko like an accordion, and that none of this is Benjy's fault.

Did he really feel good about himself, though? He said he would do it again, but he seems to acknowledge that he lost a bit of humanity there. If he wasn't in mental anguish, there'd be no reason to recount that entire story with such dilemma and second guessing to his own personal log, unzipping his uniform more and more as the story went on.

 

[JM1776]

JM1776 apparently wouldn't. He'd rather billions of people die so he can feel good about his own morality. "Those humans are extinct, but GOSH they sure showed the Dominion how moral they were!". I'm not sure the billions vapourized in a hail of disruptor and torpedo fire, or enslaved would make the same choice, but ce la vie.

That's "c'est la vie," but I get your point.

As I've already pointed out, Sisko's entire "I must do something or the war is lost!" perspective is a false dilemma, no matter the sophistry and permutations of logic employed to bolster it.

Gentlemen (and/or ladies) ... nice exchanging views with you.

Enjoy your Trek.

 

[JM1776]

If he wasn't in mental anguish...

A bit of histrionics directed at the fourth wall isn't anguish.

It's angst.

Again, gentlemen ... good day.

 

[Anthony Sabre]

He risked that the Romulans would realize it was a fake, and come in on the Dominion side, just so he could "do something" (i.e., bring the Romulans into the war) ...

... and thereby feel good about himself.

Except that he didn't feel good about himself. Not while he was doing it and not after it was over. Otherwise he wouldn't have beat the hell out of Garak. And unlike many I've always felt he deleted that log entry because he couldn't live with it. Couldn't risk anyone ever knowing what he had done and certainly didn't want to be reminded of it.

I see you've gone. Nice exchanging views with you.

 

[Cyke101]

If he wasn't in mental anguish...

A bit of histrionics directed at the fourth wall isn't anguish.

It's angst.

Again, gentlemen ... good day.

Angst and anguish = synonyms, at least when I last checked a healthy thesaurus.

If it gets to the point where people are questioning how the director frames an episode, then there's a problem. Let's talk about the context of the show itself, like we've been doing all along, eh? Who would Sisko have to act for, when he's the only one in his living room?

 

[FordSVT]

JM1776 apparently wouldn't. He'd rather billions of people die so he can feel good about his own morality. "Those humans are extinct, but GOSH they sure showed the Dominion how moral they were!". I'm not sure the billions vapourized in a hail of disruptor and torpedo fire, or enslaved would make the same choice, but ce la vie.

That's "c'est la vie," but I get your point.

Je peux parler francais, je ne dactylographie pas toujours parfaitement.

As I've already pointed out, Sisko's entire "I must do something or the war is lost!" perspective is a false dilemma, no matter the sophistry and permutations of logic employed to bolster it.

I disagree. Based on the statements and actions of the Dominion, and based on the available options, he made a choice he felt he had to make. There was no false dilemma.

 

[JM1776]

Angst and anguish = synonyms, at least when I last checked a healthy thesaurus.

Though I've bowed out, I wanted to clarify: I was employing a loose connotation of each word when used in conjuction, which I thought would be understood in context.

"Anguish" as I used it here was meant to imply sincerity.

"Angst," though, is overwrought and melodramatic.

I thought the distinction clear, but evidently should not have made that assumption.

If it gets to the point where people are questioning how the director frames an episode, then there's a problem. Let's talk about the context of the show itself, like we've been doing all along, eh?

I considered (and consider) the observation both valid and germane. If the writers and directors can break the fourth wall and address me directly, then I have a certain license when discussing that particular ep, in my opinion.

Who would Sisko have to act for, when he's the only one in his living room?

Precisely my point. Are we to assume he's ranting and raving whilst talking to himself ... or is he wailing about "people ... dying out there" directly to the viewer? I thought the latter obvious ... and think it an emotional appeal that doesn't withstand cold scrutiny. The story could have been told in another fashion ... and the fact that it's the vehicle by which the story is conveyed does not render it immune to legitimate deconstruction.

[I have a huge thunderstorm moving in. I must depart.]

 

[Immolatus]

Gentlemen (and/or ladies) ... nice exchanging views with you.

Enjoy your Trek.

very enjoyable debate

 

[Cyke101]

Though I've bowed out, I wanted to clarify: I was employing a loose connotation of each word when used in conjuction, which I thought would be understood in context.

"Anguish" as I used it here was meant to imply sincerity.

"Angst," though, is overwrought and melodramatic.

I thought the distinction clear, but evidently should not have made that assumption.

Again, overdramatic/insincere to whom? If he were in front of an actual character in the show, then sure there'd be a case to be made. But more on that with the next point.

I considered (and consider) the observation both valid and germane. If the writers and directors can break the fourth wall and address me directly, then I have a certain license when discussing that particular ep, in my opinion.

Precisely my point. Are we to assume he's ranting and raving whilst talking to himself ... or is he wailing about "people ... dying out there" directly to the viewer? I thought the latter obvious ... and think it an emotional appeal that doesn't withstand cold scrutiny. The story could have been told in another fashion ... and the fact that it's the vehicle by which the story is conveyed does not render it immune to legitimate deconstruction.

Here's the thing, though. The episode comes close to breaking the Fourth Wall, but one final line in the end renders it moot: "Computer, erase that entire log." THAT has to be obvious (to borrow your word) then that he wasn't addressing the viewer but the captain's log; after all, he outright says it, and that device right there reaffirms the wall (seriously, if Occam's Razor ever applied to anything in DS9...). There's no acknowledgement of the audience itself, unlike Blazing Saddles or Sir Lawrence Olivier's take on Richard III, and audience acknowledgement is a crucial component in all Fourth wall concepts. Does it toy with audience perceptions? Yes, it does, which helps plant the viewer further into Sisko's world, perhaps a tad unfairly. Does it break the Fourth Wall? No, because the writers revealed a way to frame the whole "monologue" while maintaining suspension of disbelief. It's like Clockers: replace a cop with a computer or a tape recorder and it's the same concept, and narrative cohesion is maintained.

With the Fourth Wall up and standing because of no audience acknowledgement, I again ask, who would Sisko be melodramatic to, especially in a log that becomes non-existant?

Warning: Audacity approaching: Of course, there's the possibility that you were so engrossed in the story that you did think that the writers were directly addressing the audience, and there's no harm in that. You could hate Sisko after such a thing yet find the story well-made and that'd be perfectly legit; I can't like Janeway because of Tuvix, but I can't deny that it was such a good episode and that the writing is what made me dislike Janeway. Like a good chunk of fiction, in cases like this, hate the character, not the narrative, ie Catcher in the Rye or whathaveyou. Debate the Sisko, not the way the story was told.

With that mouthful said, it true that the episode is designed to inspire discussion into Sisko's character as far as depth and development go (like the first three pages of this thread with semi-congenial thoughts going back-and-forth), I doubt the last line in the episode was ever up for debate.

 

[JM1776]

Hours later, the storm has passed.

There's no acknowledgement of the audience itself (unlike Blazing Saddles or Sir Lawrence Olivier's take on Richard III), which is a crucial component in all fourth wall concepts.

I comprehend your take on it, Cyke101 ... but do not agree. I interpret the usage as much more than a flirtation but less than an egregious violation. By itself, I consider Sisko's "people are dying out there" speech, and the manner in which it is delivered, sufficient evidence to convince me.

Note that Sisko talks with his hands on a number of occasions whilst serving as narrator, alone in his quarters, during the episode. Would one bother with such exclusively visual cues while addressing a computer to record a purely audial log, or are they perhaps aimed at swaying someone who can actually see them—that is, the audience with which he near-continually maintains eye contact? [I suppose one could presume he's recording a visual log and addressing the computer via the camera, but that stretches credulity past the breaking point for me in this context. If I'm not mistaken (and I may be, as I've not got access to the ep just now), when he's frustrated as to the exact stardate near the ep's beginning, he breaks eye contact with the camera to address the computer—which one can easily infer means that they're not one and the same. For a variety of reasons, thus, that explanation sets off my bullshit detector.]

Perhaps we simply have different thresholds as relates to what constitutes a violation of the fourth wall.

I imagine we'll agree to disagree. Again, though, I comprehend precisely why you see it the way you do. It's not at all unreasonable.

You could hate Sisko after such a thing yet find the story well-made and that'd be perfectly legit ...

Agreed. Though I don't hate Sisko by any means, I've always held that "In the Pale Moonlight" was serviceable drama, but terrible Star Trek.

That, of course, is another discussion altogether.

 

[Mr. Fergy]

As a Bush-Cheney supporter,

We need to have you kidnapped and tortured by Cardassians.

psik

PS - I voted against that moron twice.

You voted against Gore twice? Good man, although you should know he wasn't on the ballot in '04.

Seriously, though, I think this convo needs to get back to the topic--apparently, the vote here is that Sisko's ends justified his means, and there's a lot to talk about there--or we should all take this thread to TNZ.

'preciate it, Sci.

1.) Gore was right.

2.) he only ran for President in 2000.

3.) Sisko is a well done TV character, not real life

4.) Bush is an Idiot, nuff said.

PS: Are you a McCain supporter?

 

[smeos]

The morality of any ST is questionable.

Kirk killed people all the time to save his ship and crew. Do you really think that some Romulan crewman serving on that BoP in "Balance of Terror" made policy?

Or some Cardassian conscript serving on Bajor?

Of course not, but Kirk killed them anyway (I know they blow up their own ship, but go with me on this one) out of self defense. Just as Kira killed Cardassians to free her world. Every just law and even most religions do not deny someone the right to self defense.

Picard refused to commit genocide against the Borg in "I, Borg" and thus condemned countless billions, including many of the people that he swore to protect, to assimilation and death. Only to turn around six years later and tell his crew that killing assimilated Enterprise crewmembers would be doing them a favor. Honorable? Maybe. I don't think so.

The Romulans were not entirely innocent, either. They backed out of a declaration that they made to stand firm against the Dominion in "In Purgatory's Shadow" and then allowed Dominion ships to cross through their space to attack Federation starships in Federation space.

Now, I know that ST is supposed to be about perfect people in their perfect world, but does anybody honestly believe that Roddenberry's vision could remain clean in a war that destructive against such a ruthless enemy?

War sucks and people die. The purpose of that episode was to show that war has consequences.

If the Federation was really determined to be as moral as humanly possible than none of their ships would have weapons and they would have been conquered a long, long time ago.

You know, if it was real.

 

[Tulaberry whine]

The flaw therein, and one that in my opinion invalidates the reasoning inherent in most people's acceptance of Sisko's choices is that he must assume, before acting, that his vision of the future—one in which the Federation would be defeated if he didn't act—is invariably and unquestionably correct. We have no idea if such is the case, because we didn't see history flow in that direction. It actually boils down to this: He is operating under an essentially unjustified assumption—one motivated by his own fear and lack of faith.

The problem with this position is that it doesn't really reflect what's happening in the episode or the show. Sisko did not have the luxury of waiting and seeing for certain whether his fears were justified - all evidence (both in this episode and in earlier ones, especially Statistical Probabilities) was overwhelmingly pointing to defeat for the Federation. It was now or never for something to be done. Moreover, if Sisko's fear and lack of faith were ultimately proven to be justified but he's done nothing, what sort of character (and military commaner) does that make him?

In fact, I struggle to see how this sort of approach to decision making could be (and has been) applied in any episode of Star Trek.

I skimmed through this thread so apologies if I missed something.

 

[Anthony Sabre]

Uh... you quoted me there but I didn't actually say that. I'm with you.

 

[JM1776]

Let me clarify once again: You're making a point that I conceded both years ago and in an above post, Tulaberry Whine—that Sisko absolutely did the smart thing. He cannot be faulted for his tactical or strategic thinking in the least, especially if one believes that the ends justify the means once the equation reaches a certain level of inequity. That's not at issue, and never has been, from where I sit.

Idealism and pragmatism are usually on the opposite sides of a dispute. This is no exception. If one believes that morality and ethics are justly set aside once the stakes are raised high enough, well ... Sisko is a hero in those eyes. If adherence to ideals is valid only until it's becomes a genuine trial to do so, though, then they're established as the style of civilization and enlightenment, rather than its substance—as, to quote A Few Good Men, "smoke-filled coffeehouse crap."

The generic response to the above, of course, is one I've heard time and again over the years this has been discussed: "So he should have done nothing and let millions die, just because of his own little morality? He sacrifced his soul for the Federation! Didn't you see how anguish-stricken he was? Didn't you feel his pain?"

Yeah, I did ... and I've never been impressed by wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth from someone who resolutely and obdurately moves forward with something they know is wrong, and then expresses belated (and thus inherently insincere) regret over its 'necessity.' As I've said before above, from my perspective that's hubris disguised as heroism.

If "soul" is a sorely limited metaphor, the pragmatists' position is sound. I acknowledge that. If it's literal ... or, alternately, if ideals are the true foundation of the UFP, and something a Starfleet officer should exemplify, well ... it doesn't hold the kalivah Vreenak's glass did, and Sisko put out a fire at the Federation Tower by using the dirt on which the building stands.

If I want expediency as an ideal, I'll watch Battlestar Galactica.

 

[JM1776]

Uh... you quoted me there but I didn't actually say that. I'm with you.

I had to chuckle there, too. That statement's probably not one you'd expect from someone using the Obsidian Order logo as their avatar.

 

[Dayton3]

If the Federation had been smart they would've followed up Captain Maxwell's success in The Wounded and eliminated the Cardassian threat right then and there.

It would not only have saved millions of Federation, Klingon and Romulan lives, but it would've saved the 800 million Cardassians who died when the Dominion wiped out so many Cardassian cities (the Federation and its allies would never have embarked on a city busting campaign against the Cardassians. The most they would've done is to blockade the planet in all likelihood.)

This of course is the weakness of the "good guys".

They hope for peace so much that they often fail to see that a small war now is often by far the best choice instead of peace now and a massive war later.

I personally would love to see a future Trek series where the Federation routinely launches large scale raids against other potential powers in order to keep them too weak to bother the Federation.

 

[MyCylon]

I think an important issue - one that hasn't been covered here is the following. The Romulans have been referred to as 'neutral' in this thread. That is not accurate IMHO.

I think it's in ITPM itself where it's stated that the Romulans are letting the Dominion make incursions into their territory through which Jem'Hadar forces gain access to Federation territory and are able to his Starfleet and other Federation ships.

At best, that's a highly shaky form of neutrality. To me, it's more liked they were already involved in the war.

If you accept that premise then, in fact, Sisko was dealing not with a neutral party but with one of the warring parties. As such, other standards do apply.

Before I go on: I do believe that there are principles you just can't give up if you're trying to save those principles. This day and age is a sad example of just that (the US are one albeit not the only example): Freedom and democratic rights are limited in the name of protecting the people. IMHO the loss is far greater than what is achieved, and the way back (if we'll ever see it) is much harder than giving up or losing certain rights was.

As such, I feel moved to argue that no civilized nation should ever go to war. A war contradicts just about everything Western-style democracies stand for. However, I can't bear the thought of what the world would be like had the US not intervened in WWII. I think our world is such that we have to accept - for the time being - the fact that there are cases where armed conflicts are going to occurr. Hence even the most advanced society can find itself involved in a war.

That's where the Federation stands. The Dominion is a clear aggressor. It's clear that a war is inevitable.
As a consequence, the Federation has to engage in something that is - by definition - contrary to so many of the ideals and principles that it stands for. But as I've outlined above: That's the reality sometimes.
And that's the reality Sisko finds himself in: A war that the Federation or he did not want but that's right there. And from his perspective a) they're losing and losing in a bad way and b) the Romulans are, in fact, already involved but not on his side.
If you follow this argument, then what Sisko did was this: He deceived and killed one enemy. Does anyone have a problem with the Jem'Hadar or Cardassians that were deceived (e.g. lured into a trap) and killed? Probably not since they're clearly the enemy. It's not as clear with the Romulans but I still think it's a fact that they are enemies at that point.

Sisko DID take a really big gamble here, though. And, yes, you could argue that maybe he was overstating the importance of what he was doing vs. everything else (though the fact that Starfleet Command was anxious enough to go along with his plan seems to indicate that they were, indeed, left with few to no more options). But then, he did what everyone does: They judge based on the information available to them plus their own gut feeling.

So, while I don't condone war I acknowledge that it can't be avoided in certain instances. Given that that's the position Sisko is in and my view of the Romulans at the time I think Sisko made the right choice.