• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Opinions on Michael Eddington

He's talking directly to Sisko here, the man had a death wish and at that point was terminally depressed, his bravado as dishonest as it may appear was still truthful.

Why precisely would he claim all the credit, Sisko never once challenges him on the credit only that it led to the Maquis destruction.

If Sisko acknowledges his leadership even in the negative then I do as well.
 
Leadership now if he was just another general or what not wouldn't you think he would say something different.
No. Officers in the military discuss leadership quite extensively. It is not a word reserved for the president or monarch. It is a quality cultivated in order to get men and women to perform collectively and above their abilities.
 
No. Officers in the military discuss leadership quite extensively. It is not a word reserved for the president or monarch. It is a quality cultivated in order to get men and women to perform collectively and above their abilities.
Given what we saw earlier of the Maquis they didn't have a centralized presidency or general staff. Perhaps a council or something similar.

Everything implied tells me Eddington was in charge.
 
With this Eddington changed the Maquis from fighting for their homes to an expanionist rogue group. The Federation gets slammed for wanting to relocate those in the DMZ, but Eddington is forcing the relocation of whole civilian population under the threat of death. Eddington perverted the cause and made them no better than the Cardassians he so "hated".

Make me wonder if in the post-Dominion War era if the Federation does take the DMZ (I'd assume they would) that if they wouldn't find examples of atrocities commited under the guidance of Eddington.
The novel The Never Ending sacrifice explores this concept. Its a great read.
 
I looked at the summary it didn't seem to deal with Eddington being a monster or something.

I'd love a book series alternate timeline where the Maquis triumphed and you see heroic maquis fighting against, diplomatically haggling with and dealing with the other powers.
 
That would only be true if Michael founded the Maquis.

Did he?

Or did Eddington pick up late in the game, playing with some other bugger's playbook, and toys?
 
I think there's evidence to suggest that Eddington moved the Maquis in a more radical direction than they might have gone otherwise.
 
I looked at the summary it didn't seem to deal with Eddington being a monster or something.

I'd love a book series alternate timeline where the Maquis triumphed and you see heroic maquis fighting against, diplomatically haggling with and dealing with the other powers.
No near the end of the story, it deals with the concept of how human colonists behaved towards their Cardessian neighbours. Eddington is not in it. Lets just say the humans revert to their wonderful 21st century forebears. No peace and love in the DMZ, even after the war.
 
I will be discussing spoilers on the Eddington story arc, but I assume it is fair given a twenty year old show. I thought of this because of this quote, and fridge logic thought on it:

"You'd be surprised. People don't enter Starfleet to become commanders. Or admirals, for that matter. It's the captain's chair everyone has their eye on. That's what I wanted when I joined up, but you don't get to be a captain wearing a gold uniform."

And that was the seed of his character arc. However, Sisko started out in engineering, was made first officer and put in the command division by Leyton on the USS Okinawa, and he became commander/captain of Deep Space Nine. Michael Eddington is a rather complicated character. He started off as the loyal Starfleet officer, before becoming a Maquis. Eddington thought of himself as a romantic hero, and of the Federation as something insidious. Sisko thought of him as having betrayed his oath and betraying the principles and people he had dedicated himself to, as well as Sisko himself. And he saw Sisko as his great adversary. Eddington died in a way a romantic hero would, fighting a lost cause to allow his friends and family and even his enemy to make it out alive. So what are your opinions on the character of Michael Eddington?
Good character, great arch. "For The Cause" was a surprise. ""For The Uniform" was awesome. And he died a good death.
 
I'd rather die ingloriously but knowing I made the world a better place than die gloriously having made the world worse in the process.

Eddington died saving people, sure, but people whom he'd put into that situation to begin with.
 
The conceit of his fall is that Michael has only ever read one book, and continues to re-read it constantly.

Who the hell does that?

THERE'S MORE THAN ONE BOOK!
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top