Garak and "In the Pale Moonlight" (*Spoilers*)

[JustKate]

Eh, I never thought it was THAT good. Still don't.

Yeah, me neither. The hype over it here is absurd. I started this thread to admit that it gave me a new appreciation for Garak and because I was really blown away by the reveal at the end, but I don't think the rest of the episode is that great. It continues to surprise me how overpraised this episode and "Duet" are here, and I wonder if that isn't in large part because people here are biased towards episodes with strong endings.

Both episodes have really powerful endings, but my idea of a truly great episode is one that is enthralling from start to finish, and to me, neither episode fits that bill. They're both filled with excessive exposition, which is one of my biggest pet peeves in stories (on television and movies) these days, and they really tried my patience with that.

You probably have to look at it in context to get the full import of the episode. I think what people like about it so much is the perception that it changed the rules for Trek. The courageous human captain plays a fairly dirty game with the assistance of a definitely dirty ally, he is allowed to do something morally ambiguous...and he gets away with it. It works.

Mind you, I don't think it changed the rules as much as the real "Moonlight" boosters seem to think it did. We actually saw TNG wrestle with some pretty darn complicated moral issues, and despite what the anti-TNG folks seem to think, it wasn't always tied up all pretty at the end either.

But even so, I'd say "Moonlight" was a watershed moment. What had been hinted at and alluded to here and there was suddenly out of the closet: Sometimes even courageous human captains have to get their hands dirty. And that's what people remember, I think.

 

[Kosh Naranek]

See I loved In the Pale Moonlight but hated Duet.

I was sure that there would be more hand wringing in ITPM. The fact that he seemed to own his decision is what sealed it.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You probably have to look at it in context to get the full import of the episode. I think what people like about it so much is the perception that it changed the rules for Trek. The courageous human captain plays a fairly dirty game with the assistance of a definitely dirty ally, he is allowed to do something morally ambiguous...and he gets away with it. It works.

Mind you, I don't think it changed the rules as much as the real "Moonlight" boosters seem to think it did. We actually saw TNG wrestle with some pretty darn complicated moral issues, and despite what the anti-TNG folks seem to think, it wasn't always tied up all pretty at the end either.

The goody two shoes ethos of TNG often makes me want to puke.

The Pegasus episode shows this the most. Although I like the episode I want to shoot Picard in the head at the end. Turning the cloak off in front of the Romulans.

I would have left photon torpedoes inside the asteroid on a time delayed fuse. Let the Romulans think I'd blown up the ship rather than surrender. But I would tell La Forge to study that device enough to make a duplicate. I would have one of those ready to activate on my ship. Sooner risk a courtmartial then be caught in a situation where some existing technology could save my ship.

psik

 

[Anwar]

The goody two shoes ethos of TNG often makes me want to puke.

Too bad, some people appreciate characters who aren't morally bankrupt and don't give up their ideals over what's convenient.

 

[Reanok]

In The Pale Moonlight just shows how desperate things had gotten for Starfleet when it came to the Dominnion war and all the casualties that were staggering losses of ships and crewmembers.It just goes to show what desperate measures Sisko took when he asked for Garak's help and the deception to get the Romulans into the war.especially after the Dominion/Cardassian forces overran Betazed.Sisko and Garak had some of the best scenes including Vreenak.Pretty powerful storytelling.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The goody two shoes ethos of TNG often makes me want to puke.

Too bad, some people appreciate characters who aren't morally bankrupt and don't give up their ideals over what's convenient.

Yep, they are characters. Just something that can happen in fiction. Not very good fiction. DS9 was more realistic in that sense. If you are going to be morally bankrupt then killing a few fictional Romulans is definitely the way to do it.

At least Sisko can honestly say he had no idea Garak was going to bump off the senator. You just gotta love plane and simple Garak.

http://tvsothertenpercent.tripod.com/startrek/garak.html

psik

 

[Anwar]

Nope, you can have good characters in good fiction who don't compromise like an incompetent. DS9 was just trying to be "dark" and "edgy" with limited success.

As for Garak, he's too much of a smug snake to be all that likable. Too perfect, which is ironically what the TNG characters get slammed for by the rabid Niners.

 

[DevilEyes]

Nope, you can have good characters in good fiction who don't compromise like an incompetent. DS9 was just trying to be "dark" and "edgy" with limited success.

As for Garak, he's too much of a smug snake to be all that likable. Too perfect, which is ironically what the TNG characters get slammed for by the rabid Niners.

Perfect? With his claustrophobia, massive daddy issues, allegiance issues, and excessive desire to satisfy daddy as an Obsidian order operative even when he hated what he had to do (say, torture a friend)? Well, I suppose you might have very different ideas of what makes a person "perfect".

For the record, I don't think that the TNG lot were 'perfect', I think that they were too nice, politically correct, and morally clean - as a result of the show rarely putting them in situations where they had to make a really tough decision to either get their hands dirty, or suffer a massive failure due to sticking to their ethics. Instead, the writers played it safe and made it seem as if it's possible to always be a paragon of morality while never failing to succeed in your missions.

 

[Anwar]

So you think it's impossible to be a nice, moral person and to EVER succeed at anything without compromising yourself?

Great, we got us a case of http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SillyRabbitIdealismIsForKids

And yes, Garak was too perfect. Aside from that claustrophobia/daddy stuff he was always calm in control and 5 steps ahead of everyone else and those "issues" hardly ever came up anyways.

 

[DevilEyes]

So you think it's impossible to be a nice, moral person and to EVER succeed at anything without compromising yourself?

Read more carefully, please, and do put words in my mouth.

For the record, I don't think that the TNG lot were 'perfect', I think that they were too nice, politically correct, and morally clean - as a result of the show rarely putting them in situations where they had to make a really tough decision to either get their hands dirty, or suffer a massive failure due to sticking to their ethics. Instead, the writers played it safe and made it seem as if it's possible to always be a paragon of morality while never failing to succeed in your missions.

^ You know the difference between "NEVER" and "not ALWAYS", do you?

Yes, I very much doubt that it is possible to be involved in war and politics and ALWAYS succeed in everything while keeping one's hands perfectly clean every time. Unless you are just incredibly lucky - or a protagonist in a fictional story whose writers are playing safe.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Perfect? With his claustrophobia, massive daddy issues, allegiance issues, and excessive desire to satisfy daddy as an Obsidian order operative even when he hated what he had to do (say, torture a friend)? Well, I suppose you might have very different ideas of what makes a person "perfect".

Exactly, Garak was as neurotic as Hell. That is what over time made him such a great character. We didn't begin to find this out until The Wire but we eventually learn he had an insane father that drove him insane. It was great theater.

I am not saying I would like Garak as a person, but as a character in the show he was FANTASTIC! More interesting than 7 of Nine as a character actually.

psik

 

[Anwar]

What, that Garak just had some freudian excuse for his personality and character? That's a cop-out more than anything else.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What, that Garak just had some freudian excuse for his personality and character? That's a cop-out more than anything else.

Is there anybody that doesn't have just some Freudian excuse for his personality and character?

We live in a country where people get excited about piston engine garbage that rolls along the ground 40 years after the Moon landing. Watch some car commercials and see if there isn't Freudian garbage in there.

http://www.texas-cars-and-dealerships.com/car-salesman-psychology.html

psik

 

[Anwar]

Of course, there is a reason Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". I think seeing Freudian imagery everywhere says more about the person than the world. I may not have my PHD yet but I studied enough for my Bachelors to know that much.

 

[Captain Fine]

I love Garak and I love this episode.

Personally I thought the "It's a FAAAKE" line was understated, given the gravity of the whole situation.

 

[TheGodBen]

What, that Garak just had some freudian excuse for his personality and character? That's a cop-out more than anything else.

Are you saying that it is impossible for someone's personality to be affected by their parents? That in the 20-30 major characters in DS9 for 2 or 3 of them to have daddy issues is outlandish and an excuse by the writers?

It's not like as if we're talking about Lost here.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Of course, there is a reason Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". I think seeing Freudian imagery everywhere says more about the person than the world. I may not have my PHD yet but I studied enough for my Bachelors to know that much.

It is possible to argue forever over my paradigm of reality is more accurate than you paradigm of reality. But notice that Freud said SOMETIMES.

Who needs a degree in psychology?

http://www.ericberne.com/Games_People_Play.htm

Cynics are cynical about school too.

Lots of sci-fi is about psychology. Lots of stuff just seems to have been watered down since the 60s just to get people to spend more time in school.

The Space Merchants, Hell's Pavement, Far-Seer

psik

 

[Too Much Fun]

Personally I thought the "It's a FAAAKE" line was understated, given the gravity of the whole situation.

That line was a lot of things. But "understated" is not one of them.

 

[Anwar]

What, that Garak just had some freudian excuse for his personality and character? That's a cop-out more than anything else.

Are you saying that it is impossible for someone's personality to be affected by their parents? That in the 20-30 major characters in DS9 for 2 or 3 of them to have daddy issues is outlandish and an excuse by the writers?

It's not like as if we're talking about Lost here.

Sisko has a contrived issue with his mother once he find out who she was.

Kira's got issues with her mom

Worf's got family problems.

Bashir's got issues with his parents over the genetic modifications.

Ezri's got problems with her family as well.

Odo's got issues with his "father" Dr Pol.

Quark and Rom both have problems with their mother.

Wow, this is turning into the Proto-Lost here...

 

[DevilEyes]

What, that Garak just had some freudian excuse for his personality and character? That's a cop-out more than anything else.

Are you saying that it is impossible for someone's personality to be affected by their parents? That in the 20-30 major characters in DS9 for 2 or 3 of them to have daddy issues is outlandish and an excuse by the writers?

It's not like as if we're talking about Lost here.

Sisko has a contrived issue with his mother once he find out who she was.

Kira's got issues with her mom

Worf's got family problems.

Bashir's got issues with his parents over the genetic modifications.

Ezri's got problems with her family as well.

Odo's got issues with his "father" Dr Pol.

Quark and Rom both have problems with their mother.

Wow, this is turning into the Proto-Lost here...

How many people do you know who don't have any kind of problem or disagreement with their family?