Far Beyond the Stars + the alternate DS9 ending

[reversepolarity]

I've seen a lot of mixed feelings about the season 6 episode far beyond the stars I was going to avoid this episode as I generally hate ep's where they go back in time, especially to 20th century America, and I did not remember it from the original run, but I had nothing better to do so I thought i'd give it a chance.
I was very pleasantly suprisied by how much I enjoyed this, i thought it really worked well, but a lot of folks don't seem to agree.
However I looked it up online and according to wiki (link above) I was very suprised to read this:

The crew of "What You Leave Behind" toyed with the idea of having the final scene feature Benny Russell outside a television sound stage with a script titled "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine", suggesting that Deep Space Nine (and possibly all of Star Trek) was a dream. The idea was ultimately rejected

Now that's an interesting idea, and one that is hinted at throughout the entire 'Far Beyond The Stars' episode- I'm just wondering other people's thoughts as to this episode and it's repercussions for the rest of the show - do you prefer to think DS9 is reality, 1950's Benny Russell is the real one or leave it wide open?

 

[Avon]

that would've been a hell of a way to end the show!

 

[sonak]

There was a similar thread on this issue a few weeks back, and I'll repeat what I wrote there: this would not have been a "cool ending," as that "twist" was already cliche by that point. "St. Elsewhere" had done it, and "Bob Newheart" had parodied it. Buffy's "normal again" would try it too. it's really just a different take on the "all just a dream" plot.


But yes "FBTS" is a great episode as it is.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Oh, I love the episode. But I've never cared for that potentiality and I've always been glad they ditched it. It would feel like a potentially tremendous disservice to the 'lives' of the characters within the story.

 

[flemm]

Both Benny Russell and DS9 are fictional, so both are simultaneously real and unreal. That is one of the interesting aspects of fiction that FBtS explores. Quite a few other DS9 episodes in the last couple of seasons touch on this same issue.

Having Benny Russell appear at the end of DS9 wouldn't have actually changed any of that, though it's true that such an ending would have been at least superficially very similar to the St. Elsewhere ending and so would probably not have had its intended impact.

The ending that was actually filmed works very well, so that was probably the right choice, all things considered. Benny should probably have been involved in the ending of the Pagh Wraith storyline, though.

Incidentally, the main cast's final gathering in Vic's lounge already goes pretty far toward breaking suspension of disbelief, even moreso in a sense than a Benny Russell ending would have. It's basically an out-of-character cast and crew party. Which is hilarious.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Having DS9 be a dream of Benny's would, by extension, mean that the entirety of the Trek universe is also a dream, and that's not something I would have enjoyed watching.

Of course DS9, and all of Trek, is fictional, but don't we like to pretend that it's "really happening" within its own fictional universe? If it's all in Benny's mind, then that's not possible.

 

[flemm]

If it's all in Benny's mind, then that's not possible.

Sure it is, because Benny is also a vision that Sisko had. He is "the dreamer and the dream." So it is just as likely that Benny only exists as part of Sisko's vision as vice versa. This is especially true at the end of WYLB, after Sisko has joined the Prophets and begun to exist outside of linear time.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

How could Benny and Sisko be visions in each other's heads? One of them must be real.

 

[flemm]

How could Benny and Sisko be visions in each other's heads? One of them must be real.

Well, as i see it, FBtS went out of its way to suggest that both are equally real, and both equally unreal. That is literally true, since they are both fictional and so not "real" in the sense that you and I are real, but definitely very "real" in the sense that they impact the lives of real people, causing us to think and feel, be bored or entertained, etc.

That is the whole meaning of the Benny Russell character: "You cannot destroy an idea. That's ancient knowledge." Fiction can be very real and very powerful, while remaining, of course, fictional.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ But the fact remains, within the fictional reality presented by the show, only one character - Russell or Sisko - can be real. Either Russell is dreaming up Sisko, or Sisko is dreaming up Russell. Logically speaking, both cannot be the case simultaneously.

 

[flemm]

^ But the fact remains, within the fictional reality presented by the show, only one character - Russell or Sisko - can be real. Either Russell is dreaming up Sisko, or Sisko is dreaming up Russell. Logically speaking, both cannot be the case simultaneously.

I don't see that we have to make such an "either/or" choice. The episodes where Benny Russell appears intentionally blur the lines so there is no way to identify one character as more real than the other. The ending of FBtS is pretty explicit on this point: maybe I just dreamed up Benny, or maybe Benny is out there somewhere dreaming of us.

And then again in Shadows and Symbols: the scripts for DS9 episodes are scrawled on the walls of Benny's cell and he is just trying to "finish the story." And when he writes that "Sisko opens the orb box thing," that's exactly what Sisko does. So Benny could just be a vision of Sisko's, or it could all be a story being told by Benny. Either interpretation works fine, it just depends on how you look at it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I always thought that Benny Russell was just an invention by the Prophets - to teach Sisko a lesson, as it were.

 

[Angus Dax]

^ I always thought that Benny Russell was just an invention by the Prophets - to teach Sisko a lesson, as it were.

I assumed something similar - but not exactly to teach a lesson, so much as be an 'inner child', a guiding force when Sisko needs it.

 

[sonak]

flemm's interpretation may have the virtue of being more poetic, but it's needlessly complicated. As others have pointed out, "Benny Russell" seems to appear only when the Prophets are involved in the plot, giving Sisko a vision, teaching him a lesson, etc., which indicates that he's not "real" within the Trek universe.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Well, neither of them are actually real...

Far Beyond the Stars was great (partly, to be honest, for the thrill of seeing the alien actors out of makeup), but come on, DS9 wasn't just about Ben Sisko.

Maybe if it was all in Morn's imagination...

 

[flemm]

flemm's interpretation may have the virtue of being more poetic, but it's needlessly complicated. As others have pointed out, "Benny Russell" seems to appear only when the Prophets are involved in the plot, giving Sisko a vision, teaching him a lesson, etc., which indicates that he's not "real" within the Trek universe.

That implies that one fiction is more "real" than the other, but that cannot be so.

Certainly, from Sisko's point of view, Benny is a vision sent by the Prophets, but from Benny's point of view, Sisko is part of his stories about the future. That doesn't make Sisko or DS9 or the Trek universe any less "real" than they were previously, as Benny Russell would doubtless be the first to tell you. (It's REEEAL! ) If anything, Benny's point of view is closer to the truth because Sisko is part of a series of stories about the future.

As Trek fans, we are just used to one point of view and not the other, but shaking up our standard way of thinking about the Star Trek universe is part of what Benny Russell (and indeed DS9) is all about.

 

[sonak]

er, that's not very manageable storytelling.

There HAS to be a hierarchy of intersubjective reality within a fictional universe.


If I write a series of stories about a kid named Dave who's kind of a daydreamer, and he dreams up things like green unicorns, pink yeti, etc. if you're reading the book you pretty much as the reader acknowledge Dave as the "real character" within my fictional universe and the imagined creatures aren't.


we're arguing from within the Trek universe, not Earth, 2011.

 

[flemm]

There HAS to be a hierarchy of intersubjective reality within a fictional universe.

Well, no, there doesn't have to be any such thing. There usually is, and so audiences have a habit of accepting a certain point of view as the "real" one, but it is in no way a requirement. And in any event, "real" always has to be in quotes. We might say that Benny puts the quotes around Sisko's reality and vice versa.

This type of thing, while somewhat uncommon, is certainly not unheard of. Take the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes. Bill Waterson (its writer/artist) said that readers' always asked him whether Hobbes was really a stuffed tiger or really the vibrant character Calvin perceived him to be. Was it all just happening in Calvin's mind, or were the other characters simply oblivious to Hobbes' true nature? Waterson's reply was, basically, that the whole point was that Hobbes was both, i.e. there was no correct answer to that question.

In the Narnia novels, is Narnia more or less "real" than the reality outside the wardrobe? More AND less real. Again, that is the whole point. Basically, fiction can sometimes try very hard to get the audience to suspend disbelief, or it can, on the contrary, remind the audience that it is fiction and play around with its own fictional nature. A lot of really excellent storytelling actually does the latter. It takes place "Through the Looking Glass," i.e. there is a device in the story that reminds the readers/audience members of their own passage into the world of fiction (like Sisko seeing Benny's reflection in FBtS).

"What if it wasn't a dream? What if all of this is the illusion? ... Maybe Benny isn't the dream. Maybe we're nothing more than figments of his imagination. For all we know, at this very moment, far beyond all those distant stars, Benny Russell is dreaming of us." And that is, of course, very close to the truth about what Sisko and the rest of the DS9 characters actually are.

In that sense, Sisko's vision in FBtS is closely related to his vision in Rapture: as the Emissary, he sees the big picture, to the point that he is conscious of his own story's fictional nature in ways that other Trek characters are not.

 

[sonak]

OK, I get what you're saying, but I think your examples don't really apply, since the creators of the works you mention left it intentionally ambiguous, plus Hobbes and the Narnia dimension are big parts of their respective fictional stories.


Benny Russell had only a small role to play in DS9, and then only as a vision from the Prophets as mentioned, so I don't really think it's supposed to be ambiguous, even if a writer or two may have played with an idea of a one-minute throwaway scene in the finale.

 

[flemm]

OK, I get what you're saying, but I think your examples don't really apply, since the creators of the works you mention left it intentionally ambiguous, plus Hobbes and the Narnia dimension are big parts of their respective fictional stories.

Often when a particular fictional story includes a transition between different layers of fiction, or two interdependent fictional worlds, one of the two "layers" or worlds is depicted more thoroughly than the other. For example, we see Hobbes as a vibrant character much more often than as a stuffed animal. We spend much more time in Narnia than back in normal England. In the Princesse Bride, we spend more time in the fairy tale than outside of it. So the fact that Benny Russell does not make many appearances is really not all that relevant.

We tend to see the more fantastical fictional world more often than the more mundane one, which mostly serves as a reference frame and striking contrast.

In a different way, of course, Star Trek has a long history of doing this via time travel back to our own present time or recent past. So, in a way, FBtS is a variation on a common Trek theme, but with an new emphasis on Trek as a series of stories.

Benny Russell had only a small role to play in DS9, and then only as a vision from the Prophets as mentioned, so I don't really think it's supposed to be ambiguous, even if a writer or two may have played with an idea of a one-minute throwaway scene in the finale.

Well, FBtS strikes me as quite intentionally ambiguous. The episode goes out of its way to underline the inter-changeability and interdependence of Benny and Sisko. Sisko appears in Benny's time period, they see each other in the mirror, and each declares or intuits the reality of the other's existence.

"You are the dreamer and the dream."

"They're REAL!"

"For all we know, at this very moment, far beyond all those distant stars, Benny Russell is dreaming of us."

So there can really be no doubt about the intent to establish ambiguity, and that ambiguity is in no way dependent on the hypothetical final scene with Benny Russell. If anything, a final scene with Benny might have lessened the ambiguity of FBtS by suggesting that DS9 had all been a dream (whereas the episode itself and Benny's later appearance leave the question entirely open). That was probably one of the strongest arguments against it.