Ok, so what we've come to is that the ending was a Deus Ex Machina based on a half-definition from a search engine, not a dictionary, and the trustworthiness of the Dominion to be nice.
Gotcha
Gotcha

Actually, I have no idea how the Dominion's trustworthiness came into it.
A DEM is a way of solving a problem which comes out of nowhere, using previously unknown characters and a large dose of luck.
Actually, I have no idea how the Dominion's trustworthiness came into it.
See post #80. Knight Templar alleged that Sisko had lied to the Prophets to win their support because there was no evidence that the Dominion had any intention of harming Bajor. So KT was assuming the Dominion could be trusted to keep its word.
A DEM is a way of solving a problem which comes out of nowhere, using previously unknown characters and a large dose of luck.
Not necessarily characters. It can be an event, an object, a sudden heart attack -- anything that comes out of the blue to solve the problem rather than being a logical outgrowth of the story and characters established so far.
But since they knew they needed him, had him born through what could be called (in the broadest sense a rape) they knew they were going to have to save him. Looking at it in that sense that they were going to make sure he fulfills his destiny for them, takes all the tension out of the series. They intervened to protect him from a situation that would kill him. Sounds pretty close to DEM.
Actually, I have no idea how the Dominion's trustworthiness came into it.
See post #80. Knight Templar alleged that Sisko had lied to the Prophets to win their support because there was no evidence that the Dominion had any intention of harming Bajor. So KT was assuming the Dominion could be trusted to keep its word.
As a short term thing, yes, the Dom could be trusted. But only because if the Dom had attacked Bajor, the Breen, for example, never would have joined with them.
But since they knew they needed him, had him born through what could be called (in the broadest sense a rape) they knew they were going to have to save him. Looking at it in that sense that they were going to make sure he fulfills his destiny for them, takes all the tension out of the series. They intervened to protect him from a situation that would kill him. Sounds pretty close to DEM.
See post #80. Knight Templar alleged that Sisko had lied to the Prophets to win their support because there was no evidence that the Dominion had any intention of harming Bajor. So KT was assuming the Dominion could be trusted to keep its word.
As a short term thing, yes, the Dom could be trusted. But only because if the Dom had attacked Bajor, the Breen, for example, never would have joined with them.
How do you know that? The Breen weren't a friendly power to any of the other Alpha Quadrant states. They attacked and imprisoned Bajorans and Cardassians alike. They menaced Bajoran colonies. They were a legitimate suspect in attacks on Federation ships and installations. So what makes you think the Breen would've been averse to joining the Dominion if they might've "broken their word"? It's possible that the Breen were encouraged to join by the Dominion promising to attack Bajor!
But since they knew they needed him, had him born through what could be called (in the broadest sense a rape) they knew they were going to have to save him. Looking at it in that sense that they were going to make sure he fulfills his destiny for them, takes all the tension out of the series. They intervened to protect him from a situation that would kill him. Sounds pretty close to DEM.
Uhh, that last sentence is a complete non sequitur. What you're saying is that it removed the tension because it was a predictable and inevitable extension of what had been established elsewhere in the series. That's the exact opposite of a deus ex machina, which is a resolution that is not based on anything previously established, that has no logical connection to any prior story thread.
Also, I disagree with the rest of your analysis. Yes, it's a given that the Prophets needed him alive; they said as much in the episode. But the key point, the thing that makes it a meaningful character conflict, is that they and Sisko disagreed on how to achieve that goal. The Prophets urged Sisko not to sacrifice himself, to avoid taking on the Dominion fleet singlehandedly. But he stood up to them and refused to submit to their will. He forced them to bend to his will for a change.
This is the mistake being made by people who think it's a DEM. They're focusing on who performs the key action, which in this case was the Prophets, but that's not what matters from a story standpoint. What matters is whose decision, whose will and desire, is responsible for bringing about the outcome. Stories are driven by wants and needs. The Prophets' wish was for Sisko to avoid confronting the Dominion fleet, and for themselves to avoid intervening in mortal affairs. That's what would've happened if their will had predominated, if they'd been the decision-makers here. But they weren't. It was Sisko's will, Sisko's decision, that prevailed. He chose to confront the fleet and forced the Prophets to intervene more aggressively in order to save him. The outcome was a direct consequence of the protagonist's own initiative and choices, and that is anything but a deus ex machina.
And that then undermines the whole premise of the Prophets. They see the past present and future as one. To them time is like what looking down on a ruler is us, all one thing. If Sisko had to convince them into doing what he wanted then they no longer see time as one. If a point in time needs to brought to their attention, they no longer see time as one. Which is it?
And that then undermines the whole premise of the Prophets. They see the past present and future as one. To them time is like what looking down on a ruler is us, all one thing. If Sisko had to convince them into doing what he wanted then they no longer see time as one. If a point in time needs to brought to their attention, they no longer see time as one. Which is it?
There's no real contradiction there. The idea that there is a contradiction is based on the perception that the Prophets "know in advance" what's going to happen and thus don't have to be convinced. But that doesn't make sense because there is no "in advance" from the Prophets' POV, no before or after. Everything is right now to them. Cause and effect are simultaneous.
But the key is that there still has to be a cause. Yes, they have "always known" that they would have to do this. But why did they know that? Because Sisko told them they would have to do this. To us, from our linear perspective, it looks like they had foreknowledge that he would tell them and that it was therefore redundant for him to tell them. But they didn't have foreknowledge, because the concept of "before" does not apply to their perception. They just had knowledge. To them, Sisko telling them happens at the same time as everything else in the universe. It's still the cause that produces the effect, the motivation that provokes them to act. Whether it comes before or after their awareness of that result has no meaning from their perspective, because to them there is no such thing as before and after. There's only cause and effect occurring simultaneously. And effects still need their causes.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.