Do you think Sisko eventually forgave Picard?

[The Rock]

I figured this topic would be better for this forum rather than the DS9 forum, cause it's about both Sisko and Picard.

As we all saw in the pilot episode for DS9, Sisko clearly does not like Picard......at all. He blamed Picard for the death of his wife at The Battle of Wolf 359, when Picard was Locutus of Borg.

Do you think Sisko eventually realized that Picard really wasn't at fault, and that he was captured and assimilated by the Borg, and was forced to do their bidding? And then he forgave him?

I would hope so.

 

[Silvercrest]

Probably so. I don't think he blamed Picard in the usual sense, as much as used him as yet another excuse to hang onto his grief. When the Prophets got him to recognize that he wasn't moving on with his life, he probably recognized that he was being unfair to Picard. That's why their interaction at the end of the episode was so different.

 

[indolover]

Sisko was obviously still distraught at losing Jennifer, but I see it this way. Ben Sisko was a well written and acted character, but Wolf 359 was probably the most ethically reprehensible thing Picard ever did on screen (and even then, he never truly did it).

Ben on the other hand:

- Poisoned a planet for 50 years
- Tricked the Federation's long time enemy into war
- Risked his ship and crew over a personal vendetta against a former subordinate

Now, what if, say, 10 years after the end of DS9, the Prophets release Ben to live amongst humans for a while, and he is promoted to Admiral. Imagine this:

"Commander, please take a seat. Why so angry, have met?"
"Not directly. My father died when you poisoned a planet many years ago, to satisfy a personal vendetta against the leader of our colony."

or better still:

"Sub-commander Virol, welcome aboard Deep Space Nine. Why so angry, have we met?"
"No, but somebody close to me once did. My father was Vreenak. Does that name ring a bell?"


Ben couldn't use the valid pretext, as Picard could, of "I wasn't in control of my actions/emotions." Sisko should have apologised to Picard, either in Emmissary or later in the series.

 

[Spockula]

Yes, I got the impression that by the end of "Emissary," Sisko had begun to come to grips with the fact that Picard was only the focus of his anger because it was easier than confronting the pain of Jennifer's death head-on.

 

[Anwar]

The novelization made it (more) clear that Sisko realized he had been an ass to Picard earlier, and now he felt really bad about it and saw that Picard was just as much a victim as he was.

 

[RyuRoots]

If by "eventually" you mean "before the end of the first episode", then yes. I thought it was pretty clear.

 

[The Wormhole]

I too thought it was made quite clear that Sisko forgave Picard by the end of Emissary.

 

[The Rock]

Hmmmmm, I need to rewatch it, lol.

 

[YARN]

This begs the question: Why don't we forgive captains for things which happen to their ship and/or their crew which are also beyond their control.

How many times have we heard: "It doesn't matter. A captain is responsible for everything that happens on his ship!" It seems to me that the only way in which this sentiment has been modernized is that we now include women (her ship) as captains too.

 

[22 Stars]

^ Hate to be a stickler (or worse) but that isn't the correct use of the phrase 'begs the question'. http://begthequestion.info/

Back on topic, I think we do forgive captains for acts of god etc, beyond their control, I don't think Sisko understood the extent that Picard was not under control while Locutus.

 

[JoeFromEarth]

I think Sisko didn't understand completely how impossible it is to resist assimilation. In fact, Picard didn't even understand it after he was rescued from being assimilation (we see this in the episode after The Best of Both Worlds)

 

[YARN]

^ Hate to be a stickler (or worse) but that isn't the correct use of the phrase 'begs the question'. http://begthequestion.info/

First,

I prefer Chaim Perelman's definition of "begging the question" (petitio principii) which appears in his book The New Rhetoric (1969) and The Realm of Rhetoric (1982) according to which the error is one of assuming adherence to (i.e., agreement with) a premise which hasn’t been established to the satisfaction of one's audience.

In our case, the problematic premise is that "Picard does not deserve blame for his acts as Locutus" is not entirely secured in the case of ship captains, who often take blame for things beyond their control. A premise which needs to be established, (but which isn't) would explain the moral responsibility of captains/leaders in a more general sense.

Second,

Uses vary. Meanings change over time. That's how it is. What is "right" and "wrong" with regard to semantics are not set in stone forever, but shift and drift between discourse communities. The link you post laments the fact that its prefered usage is increasingly no longer the norm (LOL). Oh well, them's the breaks, people change usages and meanings all the time. That's how languages evolve.

What is needed, therefore, is an argument which offers us a reason to prefer one usage over another (so as to establish that the preference is not purely arbitrary).

EXAMPLE: The modern change of the phrase "I couldn't care less" to "I could care less" grates on my ears, but I can offer a reason to prefer the former over the latter; the former is a more perfect expression of "not caring." It carries maximum rhetorical force. To anyone who uses the latter expression, I personally recommend using the former, because it is a more complete expression of "not caring." It's got more snap to it. Then again, a person might say to me "I could care less" if you want me to say "I couldn't care less" at which all I can do is shrug, because it is not like we can't really understand what is meant by the use of that phrase.

Similarly, if you have a reason to prefer one usage of "Begging the Question" over the usage which I deployed, I am more than willing to hear it.

If not, I maintain my right to use the phrase in precisely the manner you object to.

Cheers,

YARN

 

[The Wormhole]

Back on topic, I think we do forgive captains for acts of god etc, beyond their control, I don't think Sisko understood the extent that Picard was not under control while Locutus.

To be more accurate, Sisko probably didn't care. From his perspective it probably seemed like Picard walked away from the incident relatively unscathed. Most of the Borg components were removed from his body and he got his old job and command back. After taking a vacation Picard went back to normal life as it had been before.

Meanwhile, Sisko had lost his wife, his ship, likely several friends serving on the Saratoga and possibly on other ships destroyed at Wolf 359. He was now a single father forced to relocate to whereever Starfleet would send him next.

When you compare the two situations Sisko likely felt Picard, the (unwilling) instigator got off too easy while Sisko's life was practically destroyed.

The experience with the Prophets obviously helped Sisko realize that Borg assimilation left scars on Picard that were just as bad and that he was just as much a victim as everyone else at Wolf 359.

 

[sbk1234]

sure

 

[Cepstrum]

^ Hate to be a stickler (or worse) but that isn't the correct use of the phrase 'begs the question'. http://begthequestion.info/

First,

I prefer Chaim Perelman's definition of "begging the question" (petitio principii) which appears in his book The New Rhetoric (1969) and The Realm of Rhetoric (1982) according to which the error is one of assuming adherence to (i.e., agreement with) a premise which hasn’t been established to the satisfaction of one's audience.

In our case, the problematic premise is that "Picard does not deserve blame for his acts as Locutus" is not entirely secured in the case of ship captains, who often take blame for things beyond their control. A premise which needs to be established, (but which isn't) would explain the moral responsibility of captains/leaders in a more general sense.

Second,

Uses vary. Meanings change over time. That's how it is. What is "right" and "wrong" with regard to semantics are not set in stone forever, but shift and drift between discourse communities. The link you post laments the fact that its prefered usage is increasingly no longer the norm (LOL). Oh well, them's the breaks, people change usages and meanings all the time. That's how languages evolve.

What is needed, therefore, is an argument which offers us a reason to prefer one usage over another (so as to establish that the preference is not purely arbitrary).

EXAMPLE: The modern change of the phrase "I couldn't care less" to "I could care less" grates on my ears, but I can offer a reason to prefer the former over the latter; the former is a more perfect expression of "not caring." It carries maximum rhetorical force. To anyone who uses the latter expression, I personally recommend using the former, because it is a more complete expression of "not caring." It's got more snap to it. Then again, a person might say to me "I could care less" if you want me to say "I couldn't care less" at which all I can do is shrug, because it is not like we can't really understand what is meant by the use of that phrase.

Similarly, if you have a reason to prefer one usage of "Begging the Question" over the usage which I deployed, I am more than willing to hear it.

If not, I maintain my right to use the phrase in precisely the manner you object to.

Cheers,

YARN

Ok, this is OT; I apologize. I couldn't help myself but respond to Yarn.


I *used* to be a huge "grammar fiend" and hearing statesments such as "this begs the question" instead of "this *raises* the question" really bothered me. I was a complete prescriptivist. After thoroughly reading texts etc. by professional English linguistics, however, I've now shifted to a more mellow, slightly *descriptivist* position. It turns out that so much in English syntax and diction is ill-defined that linguistics can't even agree on a satisfactory and complete definition of something as simple as a preposition. (Obviously I now no longer worry about violating the made-up "rule" of not ending sentences with a preposition!)

I agree, YARN, that the point of verbal discourse is the *coherent communication* of ideas. I do, however, prefer that the pace at which standard usage changes is more slow than is often typical (to avoid misunderstandings).

Now in only a few cases will I take issue with standard usage and then only for clarity/precision. For example, it's IMO crucial to use the correct first person nomitive or objective case. Consider these two phrases:

1. Sisko knows more than me.

2. Sisko knows more than I.

Those two mean wholly different things just by altering the I/me. The first case implies that Sisko knows more (people, etc., depending on the context) than *just* me: he knows many people, actually.

The second case implies Sisko's knowledge is greater than mine; ie, he knows more than I (do).


So only in cases such as those (well, aside from gross errors/gaffes) do I care about the standard usage. Again, the point of verbal communication is to with precision inform others of ideas, not adherence to a set of arbitrary "rules" made up by people such as Fowler. It is people such as he (and elementary education grammar teachers) who drill into peoples' heads that you must always say, eg, "...he and *I*", even when "he and me" is standard. That's lead to hypercorrection, which is why the two examples I listed above arise (though not technically; I constructed them with the "he and " part).

But that's English. Other languages such as French and German actually have governing bodies that define what's "right". English has no such body and as a fairly universal lingua franca, develops organically far more swiftly than most other languages (in addition to the fact that it was historically a mixture of Germanic and Romantic languages and now evolves via contributions from non-native English speakers around the world.)

It is certainly not a tidy language anyway and is replete with contradictions, poorly-defined syntax, and a rapid evolution.)

I wish it were neat and tidy, but I'm quite fortunate to have it as a mother-tongue: much of it (especially its orthography) requires rote learning. When I began studying other languages, such as Spanish, I couldn't believe how much simpler and more orderly things were. It really makes me feel for folks — in particular those from non Indo-European language families, non Roman alphabets, and those without alphabetic written forms at all — who have to learn English to, for example, study at an English-speaking university. It amazed me to see my Korean friend and colleague complete his PhD in the US, for not only did he have to learn to use a completely novel (to him) language but also use that language to learn difficult mathematical and engineering concepts (in addition to writing journal articles)!


Sorry, everyone, for going waaay off topic. Linguistics happens to be one of my favorite avocations, and I just *had* to jump at the chance to say this.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and patience. I am still longing for the day in which "whom", a unique leftover from a no longer existent English case still resides.

Yes, I'm a complete buffoon. Sorry again for the rant. No one but I even cares. Besides, I've noticed several typos in my post, but because I write from an iPod, it's very difficult to correct them. Goodness.

 

[Deckerd]

That's non-Roman.

Thank you.

 

[YARN]

^ Hate to be a stickler (or worse) but that isn't the correct use of the phrase 'begs the question'. http://begthequestion.info/

First,

I prefer Chaim Perelman's definition of "begging the question" (petitio principii) which appears in his book The New Rhetoric (1969) and The Realm of Rhetoric (1982) according to which the error is one of assuming adherence to (i.e., agreement with) a premise which hasn’t been established to the satisfaction of one's audience.

In our case, the problematic premise is that "Picard does not deserve blame for his acts as Locutus" is not entirely secured in the case of ship captains, who often take blame for things beyond their control. A premise which needs to be established, (but which isn't) would explain the moral responsibility of captains/leaders in a more general sense.

Second,

Uses vary. Meanings change over time. That's how it is. What is "right" and "wrong" with regard to semantics are not set in stone forever, but shift and drift between discourse communities. The link you post laments the fact that its prefered usage is increasingly no longer the norm (LOL). Oh well, them's the breaks, people change usages and meanings all the time. That's how languages evolve.

What is needed, therefore, is an argument which offers us a reason to prefer one usage over another (so as to establish that the preference is not purely arbitrary).

EXAMPLE: The modern change of the phrase "I couldn't care less" to "I could care less" grates on my ears, but I can offer a reason to prefer the former over the latter; the former is a more perfect expression of "not caring." It carries maximum rhetorical force. To anyone who uses the latter expression, I personally recommend using the former, because it is a more complete expression of "not caring." It's got more snap to it. Then again, a person might say to me "I could care less" if you want me to say "I couldn't care less" at which all I can do is shrug, because it is not like we can't really understand what is meant by the use of that phrase.

Similarly, if you have a reason to prefer one usage of "Begging the Question" over the usage which I deployed, I am more than willing to hear it.

If not, I maintain my right to use the phrase in precisely the manner you object to.

Cheers,

YARN

Ok, this is OT; I apologize. I couldn't help myself but respond to Yarn.


I *used* to be a huge "grammar fiend" and hearing statesments such as "this begs the question" instead of "this *raises* the question" really bothered me. I was a complete prescriptivist. After thoroughly reading texts etc. by professional English linguistics, however, I've now shifted to a more mellow, slightly *descriptivist* position. It turns out that so much in English syntax and diction is ill-defined that linguistics can't even agree on a satisfactory and complete definition of something as simple as a preposition. (Obviously I now no longer worry about violating the made-up "rule" of not ending sentences with a preposition!)

I agree, YARN, that the point of verbal discourse is the *coherent communication* of ideas. I do, however, prefer that the pace at which standard usage changes is more slow than is often typical (to avoid misunderstandings).

Now in only a few cases will I take issue with standard usage and then only for clarity/precision. For example, it's IMO crucial to use the correct first person nomitive or objective case. Consider these two phrases:

1. Sisko knows more than me.

2. Sisko knows more than I.

Those two mean wholly different things just by altering the I/me. The first case implies that Sisko knows more (people, etc., depending on the context) than *just* me: he knows many people, actually.

The second case implies Sisko's knowledge is greater than mine; ie, he knows more than I (do).


So only in cases such as those (well, aside from gross errors/gaffes) do I care about the standard usage. Again, the point of verbal communication is to with precision inform others of ideas, not adherence to a set of arbitrary "rules" made up by people such as Fowler. It is people such as he (and elementary education grammar teachers) who drill into peoples' heads that you must always say, eg, "...he and *I*", even when "he and me" is standard. That's lead to hypercorrection, which is why the two examples I listed above arise (though not technically; I constructed them with the "he and " part).

But that's English. Other languages such as French and German actually have governing bodies that define what's "right". English has no such body and as a fairly universal lingua franca, develops organically far more swiftly than most other languages (in addition to the fact that it was historically a mixture of Germanic and Romantic languages and now evolves via contributions from non-native English speakers around the world.)

It is certainly not a tidy language anyway and is replete with contradictions, poorly-defined syntax, and a rapid evolution.)

I wish it were neat and tidy, but I'm quite fortunate to have it as a mother-tongue: much of it (especially its orthography) requires rote learning. When I began studying other languages, such as Spanish, I couldn't believe how much simpler and more orderly things were. It really makes me feel for folks — in particular those from non Indo-European language families, non Roman alphabets, and those without alphabetic written forms at all — who have to learn English to, for example, study at an English-speaking university. It amazed me to see my Korean friend and colleague complete his PhD in the US, for not only did he have to learn to use a completely novel (to him) language but also use that language to learn difficult mathematical and engineering concepts (in addition to writing journal articles)!


Sorry, everyone, for going waaay off topic. Linguistics happens to be one of my favorite avocations, and I just *had* to jump at the chance to say this.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and patience. I am still longing for the day in which "whom", a unique leftover from a no longer existent English case still resides.

Yes, I'm a complete buffoon. Sorry again for the rant. No one but I even cares. Besides, I've noticed several typos in my post, but because I write from an iPod, it's very difficult to correct them. Goodness.

The point here really isn't one of grammar (as in syntax) as it is with the meaning of a well-worn trope. Questions are not people, so we cannot really "beg" them. The only reason why we have a sense of the proper use of this phrase is that it is a "dead metaphor" - something which was once a creative turn against expectations, but which is now the norm/convention. "Beat a dead horse," for example, is about as dead as a metaphor can become.

Since communication is not negatively impacted by using the phrase (i.e., you get exactly what I am saying) we cannot say that precision is negatively impacted in this instance. Indeed, any new trope involves a turn from meaning which defies our conventional expectations (precise, literal, and often boring). The gain that one gets in vividness, wit, and memorability more than justifies what we lose in precision.

There is still, however, at least one reason I can think of that would justify the normative judgment against my use of the phrase. Quite simply, if it grates on the ears of one's interlocutors and threatens your ethos as a communicator, then you should abide by standard usage. That one person objects would be a rather hasty generalization. However, if I were to gather that many people were put-off by the use of the phrase (as I used it), I would be inclined to cease and desist for practical gain, the loss not being one of clarity but of goodwill.

 

[AstroSmurf]

Could we please stop correcting each others grammar and find our way back to the topic? Thanks!

 

[Phily B]

up until picard pussied out of the dominion war to commit mutiny to get some milf pootang. i dont think that pleased anyone.

 

[The Wormhole]

^^Technically Picard wasn't even involved in the Dominion War anyway...