Gul Dukat was a good guy

[DevilEyes]

Devil Eyes, i generally agree with your overall interpretation of Dukat as being driven by a deep, twisted narcissism, vanity and sense of entitlement rather a pure, one-dimensional "eeevil" upon which one could superimpose any type of behavior.

But guess what: that same sense of delusional self-adoration, need for affirmation and sense entitlemnt - itself a noted kind of psychosis, though within Cardassia, perhaps, a respectable one - can lead people to unspeakable, thuggishly brutal acts such as rape and other kinds of sexual exploitation.
(...)

That was a great post, but there's just one thing you get wrong: you seem under the impression that I disagree with you, and that you're proving me wrong? I've already made the comparison between Dukat and American slave-owners

the whole "benevolent dictator/slave-owner" thing

and you have indeed wonderfully elaborated on it. My take on Dukat's psychology is not different from yours as demonstrated in the post above, and I have never claimed that Dukat can not be considered a rapist in a sense of a word - as much as what he did with Bajoran women as learned from the show, consititute rape in a broader sense. In fact, I don't think anyone in this thread other than Navaros ever argued with that; you will notice that me and PSGarak used terms such as "commiting literal rape" "outright rapist", "out and out rapist", for what we think Dukat is not.

What I am arguing, which seems to be constantly going over Sci's head - and now, it seems, yours too (although I suppose maybe you did not read the parts hidden by a spoiler) is that it is out of character and extremely unlikely that Dukat would have the motivation and the wish to do what he is doing in the novel "Fearful Symmetry". And that is , let me remind you once again:

Spoiler: Fearful Symmetry

keeping a woman (Iliana Ghemor, Cardassian undercover agent surgically altered to look like Kira Nerys) as a constantly drugged-up prisoner, and raping her over and over

. I don't see anything in the portrayal of Dukat in the show that suggests he'd be even interested in such an action, and I see plenty of reasons why he would not be, based on his psychology and motivations. I think I have already explained why, and that I don't need to repeat that. Neither you nor Sci have provided any arguments to the contrary. Instead, you keep missing the point by trying to prove that Dukat is exactly what I also argued he was in the first place: an extremely narcissitic, power-hungry man with an imperialistic, slave-owner mentality and sense of entitlement, obsessed with obtaining power over people not just physically, but emotionally as well. If he weren't, as ThalisRule pointed out, he could have easily gotten Kira Nerys drugged up and brought to his quarters so he could rape her during the Dominion occupation. But that would not have gotten him what he wanted, and that is why Dukat was never portrayed as an out-and-out rapist.

In fact, your post nicely demonstrates exactly why the portrayal of Dukat's relationships with women were so great and on-the-mark in the show, and why it was already so chilling and sinister - without any need to add further, simpler, more obvious crimes, that do not even fit his character psychology. Sci thinks that the latter portrayal is "darker"; I think it is just cheaper and one-dimensional, in addition to being out-of-character.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Interesting discussion which I'm jumping into, having not read everything here.

I think where this controversy, if it is that, lies, in that Dukat was a more realistic, but still "bad", guy. You're supposed to feel the "humanity" (apologies to Thor Damar) of a layered villain like Dukat. Even if its something like the sad, strange obsession of Hitler with painting, and his own once-humble, no very inspired attempt at a career in the Arts, painting postcards, or whatever he did.
So, coming back out of actual history, it is perhaps a mark of a good villain character that he is not a total Balrog.
Khan was also like this, especially TOS Khan - by TWOK he was hardened on revenge, but we still got a glimmer of it, when he mentions losing his wife.

I don't think the S7 writing let Dukat down. He did lose his complexity as he went further into the Pah Wraith stuff, and basically lost himself to that. That is another, more mythological aspect of evil, which also has its place, and I think it came in at the right time. And I disagree with those who may feel a mythological, archetypal portrayal of evil is less valid than a nuanced, more "human" one.
They are just different, and serve different ends. I found Dukat's transformations at the end interesting and compelling, and well played.
He's a good, bad guy, from TNG-onwards, morphing into a Black Hat at the end of DS9.
One thing perhaps those who hate his development in S7 are missing: the writers did not lose their sense of nuance and humanity in their villains, if you remember to take into account Kai Winn. That entire element was transferred to her, and like Dukat, she is a very good, bad girl. She was a villain throughout, but danced that boundary more than even Dukat. It's something they have in common and its interesting the two characters are there at the end, and makes sense to me that they ended up exploring those two aspects of evil - the internal struggle, which Kai Winn eventually "wins", and Dukat, who ultimately gives over to the power, thereby losing himself.
Good stuff!

 

[PSGarak]

In fact, your post nicely demonstrates exactly why the portrayal of Dukat's relationships with women were so great and on-the-mark in the show, and why it was already so chilling and sinister - without any need to add further, simpler, more obvious crimes, that do not even fit his character psychology. Sci thinks that the latter portrayal is "darker"; I think it is just cheaper and one-dimensional, in addition to being out-of-character.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I want to add that I also see the keeping of comfort women as a form of rape, and that in our earth history comfort women were often all out physically/sexually assaulted several times per day. The ones kept and favored by individuals were protected from such but still expected to submit to the one who took an interest in them.

I see Dukat as that second type, the one who would prefer the illusion that the woman he was keeping was grateful to him and loved him, not the sort who would simply knock her down and have his way with her while she screamed and protested. Screams and protests would not stroke his ego the way he clearly needed it to be stroked.

I find it really odd that somebody would so vociferously defend a book he/she hasn't even read, all the while complaining that someone who also hasn't read it finds the idea of the characterization black and white or cartoonish. There is no difference. DevilEyes said, and I agree, that resorting to reducing the character to the least common denominator of evil seems like rather black and white, cartoonish thinking. Seems like. Not is. If something seems far-fetched and uninteresting to me, I have no motivation to find out if I am wrong or not. How hard is this to understand?

 

[Sci]

What I am arguing, which seems to be constantly going over Sci's head - and now, it seems, yours too (although I suppose maybe you did not read the parts hidden by a spoiler) is that it is out of character and extremely unlikely that Dukat would have the motivation and the wish to do what he is doing in the novel "Fearful Symmetry".

1. It is not going over my head. I understand your arguments just fine. I disagree with them. Someone disagreeing with your assessment of a fictional character's psychology is not necessarily someone who doesn't comprehend that assessment.

2. What I have been arguing primarily is twofold: A. That while you may not think Dukat would do that, other people may have a different evaluation of the character in which he could do something like that, and that this evaluation can be as well thought-out as yours. B. That, therefore, a novel can be written from that perspective and can be very well-characterized and well-written, without the novelist's characterization boiling down to, "He's eeeeeevil, so he'll do eeeevil things!"

3. My tertiary argument has been that I believe that what Dukat is described as doing in Fearful Symmetry is not necessarily out of character for him in my opinion. I would have to read the novel to make a final evaluation on whether I think he is written in-character, but the abstract concept does not strike me as being automatically inconsistent with the canonical depictions of Dukat.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

OMD--I completely agree with your analysis of Dukat and what sort of rapist that he is. So let me go ahead and get that out of the way.

I would just caution you against painting all Southern men with that same brush--if you think rape is sanctioned in the South these days, you've got another think coming. Remember: whether you agree with it or not, it was Louisiana that viewed the death penalty as appropriate for rapists, not any other state.

 

[PSGarak]

OMD--I completely agree with your analysis of Dukat and what sort of rapist that he is. So let me go ahead and get that out of the way.

I would just caution you against painting all Southern men with that same brush--if you think rape is sanctioned in the South these days, you've got another think coming. Remember: whether you agree with it or not, it was Louisiana that viewed the death penalty as appropriate for rapists, not any other state.

As a Southerner, I would be quite offended if anyone inferred that I am pro-rape simply because of the region of the USA in which I was born and currently reside.

 

[Tallis Rhul]

Does anyone else think we've gone further than full circle on the rape angle here? I think it's abundantly clear that those of us that believe having him rape someone would jar with his representation on screen and those of us that don't aren't going to be reconciled. Some of us think that the events of that book are slightly beyond the pale characterisation-wise, some of us don't, and I think it's safe to be left at that.

I'd also like to question whether anyone condones rape? Never mind the region of the states you're in, what penalties are going for it from your government or whatever... seems a bit of a funny thing to be discussing really :/

Maybe it's time to return to topic?

 

[Anwar]

I think it's fair to say that we all agree that Dukat was evil, long before he even appeared on DS9.

 

[Sci]

I'd also like to question whether anyone condones rape?

You obviously haven't had a discussion with someone claiming that it's okay to fuck a girl who is unconscious, or that a given girl was "asking for it" because of how she dressed.

Some people do condone rape.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Does anyone else think we've gone further than full circle on the rape angle here? I think it's abundantly clear that those of us that believe having him rape someone would jar with his representation on screen and those of us that don't aren't going to be reconciled. Some of us think that the events of that book are slightly beyond the pale characterisation-wise, some of us don't, and I think it's safe to be left at that.

I'd also like to question whether anyone condones rape? Never mind the region of the states you're in, what penalties are going for it from your government or whatever... seems a bit of a funny thing to be discussing really :/

Maybe it's time to return to topic?

From what I recall in DS9, Dukat would not commit an outright rape, no.
To him, the whole reward is in mentally manipulating the woman, I assume a Bajoran, into the act. He would use mental and verbal abuse, wherever it served.
I think he might border into molestation, but not rape.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Let down by the writing in Season 7...

'nuff said.

Yup, most people will agree with you on this one. Dukat rocked. In season seven though....meh.

 

[Bones2]

I think it's fair to say that we all agree that Dukat was evil, long before he even appeared on DS9.

No! I don't agree, nor do others. Hence this topic really.

 

[Anwar]

Sorry, but when a guy shows no remorse for his time as the Prefect of a subjugated planet, kills millions while claiming that he was trying to make life better for them (yeah, that's why you don't care that you killed millions, because you could have killed more but didn't ) without remorse, enjoys sex slaves/comfort women, and ultimately becomes the Antichrist, I'm not inclined to think of him as a good guy (and to hell with "character derailment", the same writers were always involved and agreed on the course set).

 

[Sci]

Sorry, but when a guy shows no remorse for his time as the Prefect of a subjugated planet, kills millions while claiming that he was trying to make life better for them (yeah, that's why you don't care that you killed millions, because you could have killed more but didn't ) without remorse, enjoys sex slaves/comfort women, and ultimately becomes the Antichrist, I'm not inclined to think of him as a good guy (and to hell with "character derailment", the same writers were always involved and agreed on the course set).

Quoted for truth.

Gul Dukat was as much an evil man as Hans Frank, and was never anything more than a monster with a charming smile.

 

[RyuRoots]

Sorry, but when a guy shows no remorse for his time as the Prefect of a subjugated planet, kills millions while claiming that he was trying to make life better for them (yeah, that's why you don't care that you killed millions, because you could have killed more but didn't ) without remorse, enjoys sex slaves/comfort women, and ultimately becomes the Antichrist, I'm not inclined to think of him as a good guy (and to hell with "character derailment", the same writers were always involved and agreed on the course set).

Well-said, Anwar. Well-said.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Sorry, but when a guy shows no remorse for his time as the Prefect of a subjugated planet, kills millions while claiming that he was trying to make life better for them (yeah, that's why you don't care that you killed millions, because you could have killed more but didn't ) without remorse, enjoys sex slaves/comfort women, and ultimately becomes the Antichrist, I'm not inclined to think of him as a good guy (and to hell with "character derailment", the same writers were always involved and agreed on the course set).

Indeed.

In fact, I believe I recently heard that sick bastard who had that girl locked up for 18 years claim he was making life better for her.

If that's not like the canon Dukat--and that's not pure evil--then I don't know what is!!!

 

[DevilEyes]

Sorry, but when a guy shows no remorse for his time as the Prefect of a subjugated planet, kills millions while claiming that he was trying to make life better for them (yeah, that's why you don't care that you killed millions, because you could have killed more but didn't ) without remorse, enjoys sex slaves/comfort women, and ultimately becomes the Antichrist, I'm not inclined to think of him as a good guy (and to hell with "character derailment", the same writers were always involved and agreed on the course set).

I think that most people would agree that he was not a good guy by any means. But many people would disagree that there was no "character derailment" or that the Pah-wraiths storyline seemed like something that came naturally and organically as a part of character development, or that it represented great writing on the part of Behr and the others. Ask yourself, would the above sentence you wrote work just as well without the "ultimately becomes the Antichrist" part? Would you still think of him as a horrible person who has commited many crimes? I would. Was the "ultimately becomes the Antichrist" part ever really needed? Ira Steven Behr seemed to think so, since apparently he had issues with people not hating Dukat enough. A good writer should not allow his perceptions of what the audience thiks to dictate the storylines and characterization, especially not by deciding to hammer it home with a ridiculous supernatural Good vs Evil plot, only because he is afraid that there may be some people who still don't think Dukat is evil.

It's not that Dukat was "let down by the writing in season 7" as someone said; it was that the show itself - once an example of an intelligent Trek that respects the viewers' intelligence - was let down by it.

I've already said all I think on the issue in this thread: http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3278513&postcount=54 and I recommend any new posters to read it, it contains a long discussion about the late season 6/season 7 charaterization of Dukat and the Pah-wraiths storyline.

 

[Anwar]

I liked Dukat as the Antichrist. He was Sisko's opposite, so it was fitting that he became the Anti-Emissary in the end as well, I agree with Behr.

 

[Farrens]

Was never a fan of the Anti-Emissary. Although to be honest I was never a fan of the Emissary aspect of Sisko either.

 

[Tallis Rhul]

I'd also like to question whether anyone condones rape?

You obviously haven't had a discussion with someone claiming that it's okay to fuck a girl who is unconscious, or that a given girl was "asking for it" because of how she dressed.

Some people do condone rape.

Actually that's a good point, I have, while at university. I'd therefore like to change my question to "I'd also like to question whether anyone with any form of moral fiber condones rape". Because I don't believe they had any. And back on topic...

I think it's fair to say that we all agree that Dukat was evil, long before he even appeared on DS9.

While this has since been disputed, I agree with Anwar and will restate my previous sentiment - anyone who doesn't think he was evil has been taken in by Dukat and fallen victim to his mind games. Which shows the strength of the character really.

EDIT: And to agree with Anwar as a second time, after Waltz it was only fitting that the Sisko/Prophets storyline came to a resolution with a battle with Dukat as the Emissary of the Pagh-Wraiths!