Sisko (DS9-R spoilers)

[Dayton Ward]

Well, a stroll around the message boards on this very BBS would tell us that, yes, Brooks' intent and message obviously were wasted, for we know that Star Trek's audience is comprised solely of open-minded, inclusive, tolerant, and responsible people.

 

[Steve Roby]

I suspect a whole lot of people just heard something go whoosh right over their heads.

 

[Yassim]

Somehow, I expected Sisko to come back from his time with the Prophets slightly "Dr. Manhattan"-esque...

"Sorry, Kassidy, I'm answering Jake's question 30 seconds from now...."

... or like the Oracle from the Matrix...

"Don't worry about the vase... but what's really going to bake your noodle is, would anything have happened if I hadn't warned you?"

I'd love (I'd have loved?) to see Sisko return, and take a bunch of seemingly meaningless actions that become important as the story emerges (a la Signs). As someone who's lived outside linear time, he should be different now.

(okay, so all my ideas are total rip-offs. Sue me)

 

[Marie1]

I suspect a whole lot of people just heard something go whoosh right over their heads.

Nicccce...

For the record, I'm mostly harmless...

 

[The Grim Ghost]

Again, this whole argument makes no sense. Somebody should have explained to Avery Brooks the definitions of 'abandon' and 'self sacrifice'. If Avery Brooks got this idea from reading the script then he either has serious reading comprehension problems or was just horribly misguided.

But just for a second, let us pretend that it isn't a moot point. It wouldn't make sense with Sisko, but it seems to me that the 'Star Trek' way would be to actually do an episode about this subject, with aliens standing in of course. Trek has a long history of addressing 20th century social problems in this way.

There IS a problem in the black community with father's abandoning their children. It is real, it exists. It is also a problem in many of groups of people, it certainly isn't exclusive to African Americans. Seems to me instead of running away from the whole idea, the responsible thing for Brooks or anyone else to do would be to embrace the idea of doing an episode saying "Hey, this is wrong! We need to address this problem!"

 

[Dayton Ward]

According to the DS9 Companion, Sisko not coming back wasn't even an issue for Brooks until the writers decided to throw in the monkey wrench regarding Kasidy being pregnant. That changed the way the scene in the finale worked for him -- a man not at all lacking intelligence who happens to be African-American and living in the here and now, and knowing that somebody somewhere is pointing to him and his character as role models for young African-American men. So, he met with the producers and asked for a slight modification to the scene to leave things somewhat open-ended. It didn't make a major difference to the story, and it allowed Brooks to make a subtle point on an issue about which he felt strongly.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[Sean Aaron]

But those social issues don't exist in the Star Trek universe, which makes it an imposition--a very fraught imposition--onto the fictional landscape on the part of the audience

How? I didn't know about the change until after I saw the episode; it certainly didn't ruin it for me and I can understand where Brooks is coming from.

I enjoyed the relationship between Sisko and his son a great deal; even moreso after becoming a father myself. He's definitely the most human Star Trek captain I can think of as a result.

It's nice and safe to do allegory, but I don't see how you can make a show set in the future or not which depicts issues of relevance to the non-show world without taking any impressions of how that looks to the viewing audience into account.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is.

Me neither.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

It isn't a big deal.

The fact that the whole thing is based on a false premise is silly though and making out that Avery Brooks did some sort of courageous act by doing this is just ridiculous beyond all belief.

 

[Dayton Ward]

Nobody said it was a "courageous act" on Brooks's part. He wanted to make a subtle, simple statement. Anything else is simply blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

 

[Trent Roman]

How? I didn't know about the change until after I saw the episode; it certainly didn't ruin it for me and I can understand where Brooks is coming from.

Nor I; I'm not talking about the filmed ending, but rather the idea that if Sisko had left it in a more permanent fashion it would have communicated some kind of racialized message, which seems like a radical misinterpretation. I'm happy Brooks pushed for the change because it means we were able to get the character back for the books, I just find his reasons for it spurious. It reminds me of that Dworkinian review of the Incredibles that was floating around the Sci-Fi & Fantasy forum a while back: when the pursuit of a social agenda gets to the point that it ignores both the fictional landscape and authorial intention.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

How? I didn't know about the change until after I saw the episode; it certainly didn't ruin it for me and I can understand where Brooks is coming from.

Nor I; I'm not talking about the filmed ending, but rather the idea that if Sisko had left it in a more permanent fashion it would have communicated some kind of racialized message, which seems like a radical misinterpretation. I'm happy Brooks pushed for the change because it means we were able to get the character back for the books, I just find his reasons for it spurious. It reminds me of that Dworkinian review of the Incredibles that was floating around the Sci-Fi & Fantasy forum a while back: when the pursuit of a social agenda gets to the point that it ignores both the fictional landscape and authorial intention.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I would suggest that it's not that Brooks was saying that Sisko was abandoning his children so much as that he was saying that he didn't want something to happen with regards to Sisko that could be interpreted as being even similar to the unfortunate real-world phenomenon of African-American fathers abandoning their children. He wasn't saying that Sisko would be engaging in the same kind of behavior -- he wanted to role model a better kind of behavior. Since Behr obviously agreed with him upon consideration, I don't think there's anything frivolous about Brooks' concerns.

 

[Christopher]

Nor I; I'm not talking about the filmed ending, but rather the idea that if Sisko had left it in a more permanent fashion it would have communicated some kind of racialized message, which seems like a radical misinterpretation.

Unless you're African-American yourself, I don't think you're qualified to judge how it would've been perceived by African-American viewers, or to dismiss Brooks's views about how it might be perceived.

 

[Damask]

Again, this whole argument makes no sense. Somebody should have explained to Avery Brooks the definitions of 'abandon' and 'self sacrifice'. If Avery Brooks got this idea from reading the script then he either has serious reading comprehension problems or was just horribly misguided.

No it's quite correct. Sisko sacrifices his life to save Bajor. He then "abandons" his wife and children to stay and learn with the Prophets in the Celestial Temple.

"My life... my destiny... the Prophets saved me, Kas -- I'm
their Emissary, and they still have a great deal for me to do.
But first, there's a lot I have to learn... things only the
Prophets can teach me."

It's not a big deal for me but if that was the last line Sisko says to Kas (or near enough) then I could see why Avery Brooks might have an issue with it.

 

[Trent Roman]

Unless you're African-American yourself, I don't think you're qualified to judge how it would've been perceived by African-American viewers, or to dismiss Brooks's views about how it might be perceived.

I'm neither, and you're right that there's only a certain extent to which projection will work. But I don't think I have to be to recognize that the analogy with abandonment doesn't work. A better real-world analogy would be--had Sisko not come back--like a firefighter who falls in the line of duty, or--with the revision of a period of absence--a member of a peacekeeping brigade or foreign diplomatic corps being deployed abroad; all honourable functions, none of which would diminish Sisko as a role model. It's quite the leap in logic, I think, to interpret the self-sacrifice of a character we already know to cared deeply for his family as an act of familial irresponsibility.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Damask]

I'm neither, and you're right that there's only a certain extent to which projection will work. But I don't think I have to be to recognize that the analogy with abandonment doesn't work. A better real-world analogy would be--had Sisko not come back--like a firefighter who falls in the line of duty, or--with the revision of a period of absence--a member of a peacekeeping brigade or foreign diplomatic corps being deployed abroad; all honourable functions, none of which would diminish Sisko as a role model. It's quite the leap in logic, I think, to interpret the self-sacrifice of a character we already know to cared deeply for his family as an act of familial irresponsibility.

It's not the self sacrifice. That's to be expected especially for a Starfleet officer. It's the fact that Sisko brings Kasidy to the Celestial Temple and tells her that he's staying with the Propehets. That's the abandonment thing. It's two separate things.

Has Sisko died and the DS9 crew or Kas never knew what had happened then there would be no need for anything.

 

[Trent Roman]

Staying with the Prophets is hardly abandonment. It's making sustained contact with powerful alien beings who have and still can be of considerable help to Starfleet and the Federation. An analogy would be a Starfleet or Federation diplomat/contact specialist on a ship that doesn't allow children, particularly if it's a long-term exploratory misison. And, ultimately, Sisko's time with the Prophets places him in a better position to defend his family from coming threats like the Ascendants, but admitedly that's the fiction line and wouldn't be available when the episode was being written.

Whatever. I don't get it, but I guess I'll just concede the point, since ultimately I think the change was actually for the best, whatever the reasoning might be.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Damask]

Staying with the Prophets is hardly abandonment. It's making sustained contact with powerful alien beings who have and still can be of considerable help to Starfleet and the Federation. An analogy would be a Starfleet or Federation diplomat/contact specialist on a ship that doesn't allow children, particularly if it's a long-term exploratory misison. And, ultimately, Sisko's time with the Prophets places him in a better position to defend his family from coming threats like the Ascendants, but admitedly that's the fiction line and wouldn't be available when the episode was being written.

Versus Sisko not being there for his new wife, his son and his unborn baby. Yes there's probably a benefit for Sisko being with the Prophets and chances are Kasidy and Jake would see that. However there's also the other side that he won't be there for Kasidy and his family at all.

Even your analogy of a long term solo mission for Sisko doesn't work. He's not going to be on the mission all his life. His family can still send him messages. Whereas in the original version of WyLB, Sisko would be with the Prophets forever and his family would never see him again.

 

[Christopher]

I'm neither, and you're right that there's only a certain extent to which projection will work. But I don't think I have to be to recognize that the analogy with abandonment doesn't work. A better real-world analogy would be--had Sisko not come back--like a firefighter who falls in the line of duty, or--with the revision of a period of absence--a member of a peacekeeping brigade or foreign diplomatic corps being deployed abroad; all honourable functions, none of which would diminish Sisko as a role model. It's quite the leap in logic, I think, to interpret the self-sacrifice of a character we already know to cared deeply for his family as an act of familial irresponsibility.

You're missing the point. It's not an exact, literal, point-by-point analogy. It's a matter of emotion and symbolism. Brooks is concerned about the state of the African-American family, and he didn't want the series to end with Sisko's family being permanently shattered, regardless of the mechanism involved. His concern wasn't about how Sisko himself would be perceived, it was about the integrity of the family unit as a whole.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

Hey, I'm glad that Sisko was able to come back in the books through the change as well!

How come Avery Brooks didn't have a problem with Rapture? Because in that ep. Sisko actually DOES try to abandon his son, girlfriend and all of his friends as they beg him not to. You could say that he wasn't in his right mind, but I always got the idea that even after he was returned to normal he wished he could have gone through with it.

I feel like a lot of you are missing the point, I'm sure you probably feel the same way about me. If you want to do something to help your culture, how about trying to do an episode that actually points out serious problems in it and call attention to them?? That is what Trek has been doing for years. The last episode of Deep Space 9 wouldn't be an appropriate place to do this, since there never was an issue of abandonment in it. But what if there had been an episode addressing something like this, would Brooks have complained about it? I would hope that he wouldn't, but it sure seems like he would. I see that as hurting his people, not helping them.
What if a powerful and intense episode about drug addiction was written for DS9, involving Jake perhaps accidentally getting addicted to something and then triumphing over the drug using willpower, and the support of his friends and father? Would Brooks have complained about showing a young black man addicted to drugs? Or what if it was Nog they portrayed as being addicted? Would he have a problem with that? We can never know for sure, but seriously think about this. Where does it end?

Also, sorry I'm not buying the whole argument that if you're not black you can't understand. I'm a human, we all are. Isn't that what Trek is all about? If something that most people agree is morally wrong is going on and there can be a good story of Trek built around it then I think it helps everyone to bring attention to the issue, not running away from it in fear of hurting people's feelings or offending them.

 

[Christopher]

Also, sorry I'm not buying the whole argument that if you're not black you can't understand.

Actually, what I object to is Trent's assumption that he's qualified to tell black people they don't understand the issue even though it affects them and not him. I think that's incredibly condescending.