You're putting words in my mouth. I love good conflict, at least in my fiction. The Bajorans are martyrs. It takes really good writers to create interesting conflict between bullies and martyrs. For the most part, the writers failed miserably.
Bajorans - yay or nay
- Thread starter DevilEyes
- Start date
You're putting words in my mouth. I love good conflict, at least in my fiction. The Bajorans are martyrs. It takes really good writers to create interesting conflict between bullies and martyrs. For the most part, the writers failed miserably.
Most Bajorans were NOT martyrs. A martyr is someone who willingly suffers for the sake of a religion or principle. Most Bajorans didn't have a choice. The word you're looking for is "victims".
So, I guess you're saying that Bajorans were victims, and that you can't have a good conflict between victims and bullies?
Um, how about when some of those victims also happen to be the terrorists who blow up and murder the bullies (including the civilians) and eventually drive them away?
Withers
Captain
The Gorn. For evidence of my reasoning just look at photos of Celine Dion.
-Withers-
Yeah, yeah, yeah...boring, boring, boring.
But I do agree with you about the Maquis in Voyager--they had a chance to create some real dramatic conflict with them being aboard Voyager--and they never did anything with it.
Tribbles?
The Gorn. For evidence of my reasoning just look at photos of Celine Dion.
-Withers-
No she's just an experimental weapon we've lost control of.
So... you're saying that Maquis were much better terrorists than the Bajorans? That there are more differences and painful history to explore between the Maquis and the Starfleet than between the Bajorans and the Cardassians, or what?
Help me understand... I really don't get it? The Maquis vs the Starfleet = opportunity for great dramatic conflict, Bajorans vs Cardassians = boring, boring, boring? How does that work?
Tribbles?
But I'm not born pregnant?
Definitely agreed...a combination of the EU and the United Nations.
I would've picked Japan, personally...although I can actually see where the China bit is coming from since it's a very, VERY tightly controlled society. Not necessarily in terms of Big Brother, but in terms of culture...which is why I ultimately settle on Japan rather than China.
In TOS I can see the Russian parallel. But in the later series, I think it's the Cardassians who most closely resemble the Russians on many levels.
Withers
Captain
So... you're saying that Maquis were much better terrorists than the Bajorans? That there are more differences and painful history to explore between the Maquis and the Starfleet than between the Bajorans and the Cardassians, or what?
Help me understand... I really don't get it? The Maquis vs the Starfleet = opportunity for great dramatic conflict, Bajorans vs Cardassians = boring, boring, boring? How does that work?
It's not only the Bajorans vs the Cardassians but it has the added effect of having the Federation standing in between them. Voyager had the Federation versus itself essentially (based on the fact that Torres and Chakotay both attended the academy). If one had greater potential from the onset I think it was obviously DS9. Beyond that, if someone opines that Voyager pulled it off better...
-Withers-
I don't think that any of those comparisons really work in a literal way (Vulcans stand for this, Klingons for that, etc.) I've heard a bunch of contradictory interpretations, each major race or power in Trek has been 'recognized' as at least 6-7 different Earth nations. Most of the time it's all in the eye of the beholder. And in most cases the writers had several different real life inspirations, they combined different things, and it also changed not just from series to series but from episode to episode. I mean, "Duet" was actually inspired by Holocaust and Nazi war criminals (though, really, there are other genocides and other war criminals, in case anybody has forgotten), but to derive out of this the formula "Bajorans = Jews, Cardassians = Germans" for the entire show, would be like concluding that the Talaxians = the Japanese, because VOY "Jetrel" was just as obviously inspired by Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
And it's a good thing that the parallels don't work in such a literal way, because that would really cheapen the shows, if they were nothing but thinly veiled allusions to real world events. (Well, they were a few times in TOS - "A Private Little War", for instance, but rarely in the later shows.) If that were the case, I'd have to ask, what's the point? Why just not be brave and sincere about it and make an honest political show where you'll show your views on [insert a current or historical political situation]. What is really great about SF is that it can deal with universal human themes. War, oppression, slavery, genocide, terrorism, occupation, racism, have happened or are happening many times through history in many different settings all over the world, and in a fictional SF setting, you can use imaginary races to present those conflicts and situations in a universal way, unconstrained by historical accuracy, and the viewers can watch it without the baggage of their own prejudices. Or rather, they would interpret the events based on their own background and views, but it would be like litmus paper - each viewer brings their own interpretation, and each viewer can read into it something that is the closest to them.
Help me understand... I really don't get it? The Maquis vs the Starfleet = opportunity for great dramatic conflict, Bajorans vs Cardassians = boring, boring, boring? How does that work?
The Maquis were not martyrs and The Voyager crew were not bullies, hence we have a good chance of interesting dramatic conflict.
Hey what species represents Canada?
I feel left out.
The Gorn. For evidence of my reasoning just look at photos of Celine Dion.
No she's just an experimental weapon we've lost control of.
But boy can she sing! Did you hear her at the Winter Olympics?
As usual I agree with Withers and Admiral Shran, and voted Yay.
The Bajorans are also one of my favourite Trek races and apart from the Cardassians I can't think of another Trek race that was fleshed out in such an realistic way. They weren't a parody, they weren't all the same, and yes, they weren't all likeable - but overall, their race and each individual was developed in a way that I often wish other Trek races had been.
First off, most of the Bajorans were not martyrs, since a martyr is someone who willingly suffers for their religion or principle, and most Bajorans didn't have a choice. As for the resistance, they were trying to drive away Cardassians by killing and blowing them up, and there is no evidence anywhere that they were trying to get themselves "martyred". If they were killing themselves or surrendering to the Cardassians to get tortured and killed so they would be closer to the Prophets or whatever, you might have a point about "martyrdom", but as far as we know, they were your classic guerrilla fighters/terrorists. And then there were other Bajorans who were collaborators, so definitely not martyrs.
Help me understand... I really don't get it? The Maquis vs the Starfleet = opportunity for great dramatic conflict, Bajorans vs Cardassians = boring, boring, boring? How does that work?
The Maquis were not martyrs and The Voyager crew were not bullies, hence we have a good chance of interesting dramatic conflict.
As for "Cardassians" as a whole can't be "bullies" because "Cardassians" refers to an entire race/species. Only a racist would call an entire race "bullies".
And you are still not making any sense. You're saying that you can have a better chance at interesting dramatic conflict between two groups of people who have less differences and less of a reason of conflict to begin with?
Bajorans are definitely boring and inherently obnoxious, not to mention, eyesores due to their hideous noses, earrings, and clothing.
DS9 would have been much better if they were not part of the concept at all.
When they ditched Bajoran stories for the most part to focus on the Dominion instead (end of Season 2 and on) that is when DS9 became a great show on the whole: because Bajorans were dragging the show down and wrecking its potential prior to then.
I am a huge advocate for dramatic conflict. In fact, since only TOS and DS9 have it, that is one of the main reasons I find the other Trek shows to be unwatchable.
However, the Bajoran/Cardassian conflict was executed very poorly.
~90% of the 'conflict' screen-time was devoted to having Bajorans whine incessantly about how they were oppressed during the occupation, to anyone and everyone under the sun (most often, non-Cardassians), and even the same people hearing it (Sisko etc.) and the very same people whining about the very same things (Kira etc.) umpteen times. That is not entertaining, that is simply unbearably annoying. That is why the Bajoran race fails at providing interesting dramatic conflict.
Good dramatic conflict: both parties have an interesting point of view and neither can be said definitely to be entirely right or wrong. I.e. The Sisko vs. Weyoun scene in Call to Arms where Sisko refuses to let more Dominion ships through the wormhole - an excellent example of perfect dramatic conflict. It even includes nuances like brinksmanship, with each party lying to each other in a polite way.
Another great example of dramatic conflict: Hippocratic Oath. Both O'Brien and Bashir have a valid point of view regarding their dispute, therefore the conflict is fascinating to observe.
What is not good dramatic conflict is a hideous-nosed person whining: "O, woe is me! Cardassians have oppressed me! Pity me! Listen to my whines about how many times and in what ways we have been oppressed! (even though you have already heard them all before, several dozen times in the past, from other perpetual whiners of my race)"
DS9 would have been much better if they were not part of the concept at all.
When they ditched Bajoran stories for the most part to focus on the Dominion instead (end of Season 2 and on) that is when DS9 became a great show on the whole: because Bajorans were dragging the show down and wrecking its potential prior to then.
I am a huge advocate for dramatic conflict. In fact, since only TOS and DS9 have it, that is one of the main reasons I find the other Trek shows to be unwatchable.
However, the Bajoran/Cardassian conflict was executed very poorly.
~90% of the 'conflict' screen-time was devoted to having Bajorans whine incessantly about how they were oppressed during the occupation, to anyone and everyone under the sun (most often, non-Cardassians), and even the same people hearing it (Sisko etc.) and the very same people whining about the very same things (Kira etc.) umpteen times. That is not entertaining, that is simply unbearably annoying. That is why the Bajoran race fails at providing interesting dramatic conflict.
Good dramatic conflict: both parties have an interesting point of view and neither can be said definitely to be entirely right or wrong. I.e. The Sisko vs. Weyoun scene in Call to Arms where Sisko refuses to let more Dominion ships through the wormhole - an excellent example of perfect dramatic conflict. It even includes nuances like brinksmanship, with each party lying to each other in a polite way.
Another great example of dramatic conflict: Hippocratic Oath. Both O'Brien and Bashir have a valid point of view regarding their dispute, therefore the conflict is fascinating to observe.
What is not good dramatic conflict is a hideous-nosed person whining: "O, woe is me! Cardassians have oppressed me! Pity me! Listen to my whines about how many times and in what ways we have been oppressed! (even though you have already heard them all before, several dozen times in the past, from other perpetual whiners of my race)"
Last edited:
First off, most of the Bajorans were not martyrs, since a martyr is someone who willingly suffers for their religion or principleHelp me understand... I really don't get it? The Maquis vs the Starfleet = opportunity for great dramatic conflict, Bajorans vs Cardassians = boring, boring, boring? How does that work?
The Maquis were not martyrs and The Voyager crew were not bullies, hence we have a good chance of interesting dramatic conflict.
Please stop telling me how to speak English--I know precisely what I'm saying. Get a good dictionary. Go beyond the first couple of entries and find the more common use of the word martyr.
Why don't you enlighten me?
What you're talking about is a victim, and in any case you're wrong. If Bajorans were nothing but victims, you might have a point somewhere, but anyone who has a basic idea about the premise of DS9 knows that they were not JUST victims, which blows your argument apart. Kira certainly wasn't just a victim, or anyone else who fought in the resistance.
But boy can she sing! Did you hear her at the Winter Olympics?
Only really watched the hockey part of it.
