Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers about

[Navaros]

Finally acquired a DS9 Companion book. It's much bigger, physically than I expected based on having looked at stock images of it on the 'net which made it seem like a small little paperback. Anyhow, great book.

This thread is about some comments I read in there today where the writers claim they did a couple of things properly, but I don't think they did.

Firstly, Alexander Roshensko:

Although Alexander would return a few episodes later [after Sons and Daugthers] in You are Cordially Invited, the writers didn't anticipate needing him beyond that. "The relationship was more or less resolved by the end of Sons and Daughters", observes Thompson. "We would have to come up with a very compelling reason to bring him back, because the dynamics were resolved."

I have no idea how he can be saying the dynamics were resolved? In Sons and Daugthers Worf resolved the dynamics by promising to teach Alexander how to be a Klingon, and accepting that Alexander will teach him how to be a father. This was necessary because Worf screwed up Alexander by sending him away.

Yet instead of following through on these promises, Alexander remains a loser in You are Cordially Invited and is sent away again , thus ensuring that he will always remain a loser for his whole life (which will probably be very short due to him being incompetent) in addition to Worf totally failing to abide by his aforementioned promises. For the dynamics to remain resolved, then Worf would have had to follow through on his promises instead of sending Alexander away again; which pretty much undoes everything about the resolution in Sons and Daugthers and sets Alexander on the path to be even worse off than before that episode occured!

Do you guys agree with me about this, or the writers? If you agree with the writers, then how do you account for all the points I've brought up?

Secondly, Ziyal:

When we talked about the arc, we knew that there was going to be a price to be paid. And then we went through all the names. Were we going to kill Nog? Were we going to kill Garak? What would be the emotional cost if a character was killed? And then it occurred to us that the strangest thing would be to kill the villain's daugther. So we set out int his arc to make her pure innocent, to make the audience invest emotion into that innocence.

"We had to get her to the point where it would matter ot the audience besides mattering to Dukat", adds Weddle. "So we began to work with Ziyal, to try to make her a better puppy, as it were," the idea being, of course that the surest way to trigger an audience's emotions is to threaten a puppy."

This effect certainly didn't work on me. I couldn't care less that Ziyal died, and in fact I find "Sacrifice of the Angels" to be an almost-insultingly over-dramatic title because it attempts to impress into the audience the grand illusion of Ziyal being a far more important character than she actually is. Of course this is compounded by the fact that she was played by 3 different actresses. Maybe I might have cared about Ziyal if she was only played by one actress, and that actress was really good in the role. As it stands though, Ziyal never had any emotional impact on me whatseover.

How about you? Do you feel what the writers are saying that you should feel, or do you agree that the show fails to make Ziyal have emotional relevance?

 

[TheGodBen]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

Ziyal is an odd one, I wasn't emotionally effected by it at first but I did think it was a shocking twist. It's impact hit home for me when Garak stands over her body in the infirmary.

Kira: She loved you.
Garak: I could never figure out why. I guess I never will.

So I didn't care all that much about Ziyal dying, but I did care about the impact it had on Garak (which was admittedly very little in later episodes).

 

[Bones2]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

Ziyal's death was, of course, what tipped Dukat over the edge. And it was a huge twist. I certainly didn't see it coming. But I was ultimately more upset for Dukat than for Ziyal.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

I would agree with the opinion that not only were neither of these characters needed back after being discarded, but also that they never needed to be on DS9 in the first place. Ziyal was mostly a plot device to create tension between Kira and Dukat, and Garak and Dukat (and also to give Garak a love interest). All of these characters would have been just as interesting without her, although I admit it did make the interaction between Kira and Dukat more entertaining.

As for Alexander, I liked him more on TNG. I think he's one character that didn't need to be imported from that show (unlike O'Brien and Worf, who were very satisfyingly expanded upon). I didn't like the Worf and Alexander arc in "Sons and Daughters" very much and would have preferred it without that.

The only thing I didn't like about Alexander in TNG was that I thought the kid playing him looked goofy in Klingon make-up (as I presume any child would), but he was a likable character. His enthusiasm in "A Fistful of Datas" helped make it one of the best episodes of its season. In DS9 he was just a pathetic wuss and it was just a bummer to watch him disappoint Worf.

Even when he succeeds at the end, it was in a rather cheap way. It didn't quite work as an uplifting ending of the father and son finally bonding on some level as well as the end of "A Fistful of Datas" did (despite that being a comedic episode). They should have just let the Alexander character's fate be left unknown after TNG. Bringing him back was going to that well for Worf character development one too many times.

 

[Bones2]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

If there's one good thing we got from Alexander on DS9, it's Worf's use of the term "ship's fool". Has me rolling around with laughter that does.

 

[Navaros]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

I really enjoyed Alexander on DS9. Yes he is an annoying wuss, but the point is he is that, because Worf made him that way by being a terrible father; which is what makes it dramatically fascinating IMO. When Worf promised to make amends by turning him into a warrior and learning to be a good father, there was a ton of potential right there for compelling story material that got squandered by never being used.

 

[15wss]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

Finally acquired a DS9 Companion book. It's much bigger, physically than I expected based on having looked at stock images of it on the 'net which made it seem like a small little paperback. Anyhow, great book.

This thread is about some comments I read in there today where the writers claim they did a couple of things properly, but I don't think they did.

Firstly, Alexander Roshensko:

Although Alexander would return a few episodes later [after Sons and Daugthers] in You are Cordially Invited, the writers didn't anticipate needing him beyond that. "The relationship was more or less resolved by the end of Sons and Daughters", observes Thompson. "We would have to come up with a very compelling reason to bring him back, because the dynamics were resolved."

I have no idea how he can be saying the dynamics were resolved? In Sons and Daugthers Worf resolved the dynamics by promising to teach Alexander how to be a Klingon, and accepting that Alexander will teach him how to be a father. This was necessary because Worf screwed up Alexander by sending him away.

Yet instead of following through on these promises, Alexander remains a loser in You are Cordially Invited and is sent away again , thus ensuring that he will always remain a loser for his whole life (which will probably be very short due to him being incompetent) in addition to Worf totally failing to abide by his aforementioned promises. For the dynamics to remain resolved, then Worf would have had to follow through on his promises instead of sending Alexander away again; which pretty much undoes everything about the resolution in Sons and Daugthers and sets Alexander on the path to be even worse off than before that episode occured!

Do you guys agree with me about this, or the writers? If you agree with the writers, then how do you account for all the points I've brought up?

My recollection was that in "You are Cordially Invited," it wasn't Worf who was sending Alexander away, but that Alexander, as a soldier/crewmate, had to go with his ship (call to duty and all that; not that Worf or Jadzia didn't understand it - there was still a war going on). It had felt to me that, if it had been up to Worf, he probably would've kept Alexander close by, if only to properly teach the kid how not to screw up completely.

It couldn't have been that much of a surprise to us viewers that Alexander ended up being such a non-warrior - he was his mother's son and he was more assimilated to human/Federation life than Klingon life because of his upbringing by Worf's parents and even his short time aboard the Enterprise (where warrior mentality wasn't exactly the norm).

So, I do agree with you, Navaros - I kind of liked Alexander on DS9 (since I had been wondering what happened to him since TNG). It filled a gap in my mind as a TNG fan and what I thought Worf was missing. It made a lot of sense that Worf's lack of real presence in Alexander's life messed up the kid (they made so much progress in their relationship by the end of TNG, and then it never seemed as if Worf thought about Alexander on screen during most of DS9 - I kept hoping he wrote to Alexander and his parents home off-screen!).

So, seeing Worf and Alexander hash out their issues again on "Sons and Daughters" (but from an even more understandable view that this time, we have a rebellious teenager, rather than a sullen little kid) - it intrigued me. And, then seeing more of the family interaction in "You're Cordially Invited" made me feel happy for both Worf and Alexander. Alexander even seemed to like Jadzia, which I thought was sweet (the poor kid kept looking for a moher substitute in either Counselor Troi or her mother back in the day; that he finally had a real stepmother this time seemed like a nice resolution).

In fact, I thought that the whole Worf-Alexander thing was a pretty real contrast to the Sisko-Jake relationship (a very solid father-son relationship on television). Worf-Alexander as a pair might have even been closer in comparison to Rom-Nog - although there Nog was embarassed to some extent about Rom compared to Worf's embarassment about Alexander. The tensions of assimilation and balancing bi-cultural lives wasn't easy for Worf and Alexander, and no less so for Nog (and Rom, who wasn't exactly the best of Ferengi). Parenthood wasn't easy for Worf, and for Alexander, being the kid to the parent who isn't exactly very good at parenting was no picnic either. I thought there was a lot of potential for the writers to have considered, but I was sad there wasn't much time left for more.

 

[15wss]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

Secondly, Ziyal:

When we talked about the arc, we knew that there was going to be a price to be paid. And then we went through all the names. Were we going to kill Nog? Were we going to kill Garak? What would be the emotional cost if a character was killed? And then it occurred to us that the strangest thing would be to kill the villain's daugther. So we set out int his arc to make her pure innocent, to make the audience invest emotion into that innocence.

"We had to get her to the point where it would matter ot the audience besides mattering to Dukat", adds Weddle. "So we began to work with Ziyal, to try to make her a better puppy, as it were," the idea being, of course that the surest way to trigger an audience's emotions is to threaten a puppy."

This effect certainly didn't work on me. I couldn't care less that Ziyal died, and in fact I find "Sacrifice of the Angels" to be an almost-insultingly over-dramatic title because it attempts to impress into the audience the grand illusion of Ziyal being a far more important character than she actually is. Of course this is compounded by the fact that she was played by 3 different actresses. Maybe I might have cared about Ziyal if she was only played by one actress, and that actress was really good in the role. As it stands though, Ziyal never had any emotional impact on me whatseover.

How about you? Do you feel what the writers are saying that you should feel, or do you agree that the show fails to make Ziyal have emotional relevance?

I understood why Ziyal's death worked as a plot device - it was the catalyst that led to Dukat's fate. However, my problem with her character was that we hadn't seen enough of her during the years of DS9 other than as this recurring wholly innocent caught between her two cultures. Even her artistic life wasn't something I was quite persuaded, other than "oh, that's nice, she's trying to find a path in life different than either Dukat or Kira." I wasn't invested in her innocence, so much as how she related to Dukat or Kira and how they loved her.

Admittedly, I missed most of the episode of Ziyal's first appearance on DS9 and seeing three different actresses of varying quality play Ziyal didn't help me at all in becoming emotionally invested in the character other than becoming saddened that the loss of her causes Dukat's plunge into madness. To me, the tragedy for Dukat said a lot about the character of Dukat and the actor playing him - he was compelling, even if I had hated him as the villain.

I wasn't entirely persuaded by Ziyal's relationship with Garak either (again, I think for me, it was more because of the different actresses, not necessarily the writing or even on the part of Garak). The loss of her seemed more about how she affected others - Kira, Garak, Dukat - rather than being a character whose loss was important in and of itself. Had Nog been killed - that would have been quite the emotional impact for me (the loss of his leg was powerful enough as it was), even if it wouldn't necessarily have caused the course of the plot (Rom, for instance, might not have caused a change in the war as Dukat did).

Killing the puppy wasn't exactly appetizing to me, but it also had the impact of presenting to me that "Wow, Demar really is a villain" in terms of what he did to Ziyal - he's so evil, he killed the girl; she's so sweet, no wonder Dukat went crazy about losing her. But, I guess that was the point of making Ziyal the sacrificial lamb. Just my two cents on the subject of Ziyal anyway.

 

[Yassim]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

Alexander was done. All we ever needed to hear about him was the occasional "I've just gotten off the phone with Alexander. He's doing wonderfully!" from Worf. Did anyone really care what happened to him?

I quite liked Ziyal, but more as a device really. Her relationships were all so fraught and complicated. Dukat's single weakness, and the proof that he's not all bad... Kira trying to be her sister without joining Dukat's family... Ziyal's refusal to see what her father is, Damar kills her out of loyalty to Dukat... it's all great stuff. Though I admit that while she was actually on-screen, I wasn't terribly engaged.

There's a great idea at the heart of one of the stories from "Prophecy and Change" - the idea that Jake and Ziyal would have a lot to talk about. Both without mothers, both children of men who are shaping the destiny of the quadrant, both choosing paths very different from their fathers... that would have made some great TV, and helped draw Sisko and Dukat as parallels and/or opposites.

 

[Navaros]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

Alexander was done. All we ever needed to hear about him was the occasional "I've just gotten off the phone with Alexander. He's doing wonderfully!" from Worf. Did anyone really care what happened to him?

I cared what happened to him because he raised some very good points; namely, that what he is was Worf's fault. And therefore, it was Worf's duty as an honorable man to make it right.

How would he be fine with Worf not fulfilling his promises? The idea of Sons and Daugthers is that he will become fine because Worf will take care of him; yet Worf doesn't take care of him.

And did we even see Worf saying he's fine anyhow? That might have happened, but personally I don't remember it happening.

 

[15wss]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

I quite liked Ziyal, but more as a device really. Her relationships were all so fraught and complicated. Dukat's single weakness, and the proof that he's not all bad... Kira trying to be her sister without joining Dukat's family... Ziyal's refusal to see what her father is, Damar kills her out of loyalty to Dukat... it's all great stuff. Though I admit that while she was actually on-screen, I wasn't terribly engaged.

There's a great idea at the heart of one of the stories from "Prophecy and Change" - the idea that Jake and Ziyal would have a lot to talk about. Both without mothers, both children of men who are shaping the destiny of the quadrant, both choosing paths very different from their fathers... that would have made some great TV, and helped draw Sisko and Dukat as parallels and/or opposites.

I liked the story and thought it was a shame that we never did see on tv how Jake and Ziyal deal with their parallel with each other. It would have been something poignant to have realized on screen that, as complicated as the universe might be and as different as these two young people were, they had something in common - and so did Sisko and Dukat. (the story also made Jake's life during the Dominion occupation more textured, but that's another thought entirely).

 

[MyCylon]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

Alexander: IMHO no need IN THE WORLD for him to be on DS9 in the first place. I couldn't stand the character on TNG, and Sons and Daughters was clearly by far the weakest link in the season six opener, if you ask me. The character did nothing for the show or IMHO the character of Worf on DS9.

Ziyal: I think, as others have said, the emotional impact of how other characters such as Kira, Garak or Dukat reacted was more powerful than the fact that Ziyal died. At least, that's how I felt viewing it the first time around. And even though it still probably holds true, I think the impact actually grew when I watched the show again. There are so many amazing character running around on DS9 that it's easy to forget about her. And that's really part of what makes her story so sad: There's not very many people who ever cared for her in the first place. And the (fictional) world certainly isn't going to take much notice beyond the ones close to her. A tragic, violent death for somebody who had done nothing to screw up her life the way it was screwed up.

 

[Zeppster]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

These are just a couple of things that bugged me about the later seasons. And the entire Julian Bashir thing the last few seasons.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

I always thought it would have worked better if Dukat killed her. I do think her death is interesting in regards to Damar though as we see quite a lot of him in the future. As he becomes a more noble character and a hero of his world this single action doesn't let us forget his Cardassian nature.

Really they needed to make Ziyal more of a regular character to have emotional impact. It could have been excellent.

 

[Yassim]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

Alexander was done. All we ever needed to hear about him was the occasional "I've just gotten off the phone with Alexander. He's doing wonderfully!" from Worf. Did anyone really care what happened to him?

I cared what happened to him because he raised some very good points; namely, that what he is was Worf's fault. And therefore, it was Worf's duty as an honorable man to make it right.

How would he be fine with Worf not fulfilling his promises? The idea of Sons and Daugthers is that he will become fine because Worf will take care of him; yet Worf doesn't take care of him.

I actually liked that the writers gave Worf this flaw - he's not a good father. Most of the TNG characters would be terrible parents.

But what else did you want to see? An episode of Worf and Alexander playing catch? Worf takes the training wheels off Alexander's bike?

Drama is conflict and resolution. They've had their conflict, and the resolution, now let's have Alexander get the hell off stage.

 

[Navaros]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

My beef is that the resolution was undone by sloppy writing that came in You Are Cordially Invited.

And therefore, Worf's flaw has returned bigger than ever, but it isn't even seen as a flaw any more (which is inexplicable, really), which just compounds the sloppy writing even more.

What I would like to have seen was Alexander to be a recurring character who appeared about as frequently as Martok did, with Worf teaching him how to be a Klingon, and Alexander teaching Worf how to be a father. Or at the very least, Worf giving monologues stating that this was going on.

Or if they weren't gonna do that, then at the very very least, don't have Alexander show up again just for the sake of ruining the resolution of Sons and Daugthers; rather, just don't use him again ever. That too, would have been way better than how they handled it.

 

[PTRACER]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

Ziyal's death was, of course, what tipped Dukat over the edge. And it was a huge twist. I certainly didn't see it coming.

Agreed. I wasn't "upset" she was killed, I just felt a bit frustrated that it had to happen. Ok, she was a minor recurring character, but it kind of reminds me of when Aamin Marritza was killed at the end of Duet - seemed kind of unnecessary, but it was very important for the story line.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

This effect certainly didn't work on me. I couldn't care less that Ziyal died, and in fact I find "Sacrifice of the Angels" to be an almost-insultingly over-dramatic title because it attempts to impress into the audience the grand illusion of Ziyal being a far more important character than she actually is. Of course this is compounded by the fact that she was played by 3 different actresses. Maybe I might have cared about Ziyal if she was only played by one actress, and that actress was really good in the role. As it stands though, Ziyal never had any emotional impact on me whatseover.

?

I though Sacrifice of Angles refers to Starfleet ships and crew that sacrifice themselves to rescue the quadrant?

 

[Too Much Fun]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

I assumed the "angels" of the title was referring to both Ziyal and the Starfleet crews who had dyed for the war effort. Probably would have made more sense if what happened to Ziyal had been the beginning of Dukat changing into a good person as he realizes all his bad deeds lead to his daughter's death, I suppose, but instead he just went cuckoo.

 

[jamestyler]

Re: Alexander & Ziyal shortcomings that I disagree with the writers ab

Ziyal's death was, of course, what tipped Dukat over the edge. And it was a huge twist. I certainly didn't see it coming. But I was ultimately more upset for Dukat than for Ziyal.

Thats the part I liked too. Seeing Dukats breakdown over her death brought a more emotional element to his character, Ziyal dying wasn't a big deal on it's own, but his reaction sold it for me. More so than Garak.

The stuff with Kira and Dukat in the episodes before that also made for good angle in her issues with him.

With Alexander, I see him sent off as part of the 'Go where you're sent' element of war rather than Worfs decision. He never wanted to be a warrior and Worf's comfortable with that. Alexander wanted acceptance from his father, he can live an ordinary life and be happy knowing that the bond between them has been restored.

I don't think he needed to be on the show at all, but I agree that theres a lot of watsed potential in showing Worf's flaws as a father and trying to make him a better person. It could have raised some issues when the happy couple decided to have a baby, he could have been the buffer between Worf and Dax, he could have been anything or it could have given us more Martok moments which are always good... but... quite a forgettable character.