Sisko in RBoE..... SPOILERS!!!!!
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
I kind of figured, considering what happened to Sisko's dad in RBOE, the ship was named after Tom Robinson, Brock Peter's character in To Kill a Mockingbird.
I would have prefered something else though for a Galaxy-class ship. With except of Yamato and Galaxy, which at least implied something massive, the rest have been named after some kind of undertaking or journey.
I just like consistency when it comes to a class of starship is all.
Last edited:
Not quite. Challenger and Yamato are named for earlier ships, and Galaxy is self-explanatory. Only Enterprise, Venture, and Odyssey really fit your pattern, and that's only 50% of canonical G-class ships. And there have been plenty of G-classes in the novels with all sorts of names, from Asgard to Bolivar to Constitution to Excalibur to Mukaikubo to Oraidhe to Trident.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was named after Jackie Robinson, the first black major league baseball player...
Given that he's mentioned in The 34th Rule, which DRGIII co-wrote, that seems likely, at least in "real life".
As well as the baseball connection to Sisko. That's who I was going with.
It's nice to see a well-reasoned understanding of what happened with Sisko in RBoE. I don't like it either, I don't anyone would. But I respect the story that's going to be told. Let's not forget, people, this isn't exactly the end of it.
It's nice to see a well-reasoned understanding of what happened with Sisko in RBoE. I don't like it either, I don't anyone would. But I respect the story that's going to be told. Let's not forget, people, this isn't exactly the end of it.
As mentioned up-thread, I liked what DRG did with Sisko's story in RBoE.
i figured the Robinson was named for ENT's AG Robinson, the first human to do warp 2...
I see so many people claiming it's out of character for Sisko.
I don't know how many people here have suffered depression. And I don't mean 'I feel crappy', I mean actual depression. I have faced, and still am. People that are depressed tend to do things they normally wouldn't, for reasons others might not understand but seem completely logical to the person that is depressed.
And wether we like it or not, events leading up to RBoE (events that, as has been stated before, are NOT completely clear to us) have made Sisko depressed. He blames himself for the suffering of others. He feels that, even though he loves his wife so very much, being with her will ultimatly mean great suffering for her, and their child.
I don't know how many people here have suffered depression. And I don't mean 'I feel crappy', I mean actual depression. I have faced, and still am. People that are depressed tend to do things they normally wouldn't, for reasons others might not understand but seem completely logical to the person that is depressed.
And wether we like it or not, events leading up to RBoE (events that, as has been stated before, are NOT completely clear to us) have made Sisko depressed. He blames himself for the suffering of others. He feels that, even though he loves his wife so very much, being with her will ultimatly mean great suffering for her, and their child.
^That's right. I often hear "out of character" complaints that are predicated on the assumption that a person's character is constant and unchanging. That's not true. People's behavior and outlook can change wildly depending on the circumstances.
I briefly alluded to such a scenario up-thread, Christopher, so I totally know where you're coming from. The best example of this attitude that I can think of pertains to the TNG 'relainch' novel "Before Dishonor" and the perceptions of a certain sub-group of fans as it concerns the actions of a couple of characters in said novel.
Just because a character acts differently than they have in the past, that does not make their actions automatically 'out of character'. Sisko does take actions in RBoE that are a drastic departure from the norm for his character as based strictly on the canon, but they make sense as an evolution of his character as established by the canon.
Just because a character acts differently than they have in the past, that does not make their actions automatically 'out of character'. Sisko does take actions in RBoE that are a drastic departure from the norm for his character as based strictly on the canon, but they make sense as an evolution of his character as established by the canon.
Even when Sisko was mourning Jennifer's death, he never turned away from Jake; similarly when Dax died, he went back home (now we can debate whether he was 'friendly' to his family or not), but his natural inclination seems to hold on to his family when he's in pain, to rely on them, to go back to them. With RoBE, Sisko did the opposite, something we never saw him do throughout the run of DS9, and that is out of character. And it is highly debatable that the actions he takes in RoBE would flow from the character as presented in DS9, because he openly defied the warnings of the Prophets to marry Kasidy. What I see this is is DRG taking the character in a direction, with a filmsy basis, if you are basing him on the DS9 canon Sisko.
I don't mind if Sisko is depressed or in pain, so long as he learns how to overcome it instead of running from it, instead of knuckling under. Some might see that as 'realistic', but we never see Picard in such deep doldrums that aren't resolved by the end of a film or novel. RoBE was a deconstruction of Sisko that 'certain sub-groups' of fans don't like just like other 'sub-groups' of fans support. Calling dissenters a sub-group doesn't delegitimize their point(s) of view.
I don't mind if Sisko is depressed or in pain, so long as he learns how to overcome it instead of running from it, instead of knuckling under. Some might see that as 'realistic', but we never see Picard in such deep doldrums that aren't resolved by the end of a film or novel. RoBE was a deconstruction of Sisko that 'certain sub-groups' of fans don't like just like other 'sub-groups' of fans support. Calling dissenters a sub-group doesn't delegitimize their point(s) of view.
As someone mentioned upthread, there are some pretty strong hints in RBoE that what the emotions that Sisko is dealing with in this particular story are symphtomatic of depression, which puts his actions into a completely different context than either of the two examples you cite.
It's also not nearly as easy to 'deal' with depression as you seem to think it is, judging by the comment that "I don't mind if Sisko is depressed or in pain, so long as he learns how to overcome it instead of running from it, instead of knuckling under".
Could Sisko's behavior be judged by professional counselors as being irrational or unhealthy? More than likely, yes. Does that automatically equate to his actions being impossible to understand? I would say that, no, it doesn't.
The people to whom I referred ARE a sub-group, because they have taken their dissatisfaction with "Before Dishonor" and certain aspects of that novel far beyond normal dissent and into the realm of obession and extremism (some individuals moreso than others).
Thankfully, that is not the case with yourself and others who have expressed dislike with regards to what DRG did with Sisko's character in RBoE. I may disagree with your opinions, but the ways you've expressed said opinions have not yet reached the level of obsession/extremism demonstrated by those fans who were unhappy - and remain so - with "Before Dishonor" and what happened therein.
It's also not nearly as easy to 'deal' with depression as you seem to think it is, judging by the comment that "I don't mind if Sisko is depressed or in pain, so long as he learns how to overcome it instead of running from it, instead of knuckling under".
Could Sisko's behavior be judged by professional counselors as being irrational or unhealthy? More than likely, yes. Does that automatically equate to his actions being impossible to understand? I would say that, no, it doesn't.
The people to whom I referred ARE a sub-group, because they have taken their dissatisfaction with "Before Dishonor" and certain aspects of that novel far beyond normal dissent and into the realm of obession and extremism (some individuals moreso than others).
Thankfully, that is not the case with yourself and others who have expressed dislike with regards to what DRG did with Sisko's character in RBoE. I may disagree with your opinions, but the ways you've expressed said opinions have not yet reached the level of obsession/extremism demonstrated by those fans who were unhappy - and remain so - with "Before Dishonor" and what happened therein.
Why compare it to Picard? Besides, after Picard was rescued from the Collective at the end of BobW, it wasn't actually 'resolved' untill the episode after, and even he carried it with him for the rest of his life.
Wanting to things to be peachy at the end of an episode watch Voyager. DS9 has left us with clifhangers that we're less then happy before, and left us with a feeling of dread.
I think part of the problem with this is that people are thinking of the Sisko stuff as a complete story, when (based solely on what people have said here, I haven't read the book yet) it sounds like this is possibly the beginning of a new arc for Sisko. This is DS9, more often than not, when something like this occurs it's the beginning of a new arc, not a one and done thing.
It remains to be seen, at this point, whether or not Sisko's arc in RBoE will be incorporated into or referenced in the DS9-R going forward, because RBoE isn't, as far as I know, officially part of that continuity the way that ZSG is, at least at this juncture. However, the way that DRG ends Sisko's story arc - as well as the novel's overall story - is very open-ended and is indicative of a 'new beginning', so the possibility certainly is there for the DS9-R to directly reference Sisko's arc in RBoE or even feature him and his new crew aboard the Robinson.
That's just a matter of labeling. It's all one continuity, and events that happen under one series title can be reflected in a different series -- for instance, Janeway's death in Before Dishonor and Seven's transformation in Destiny both being followed up on in Kirsten Beyer's Voyager novels, or Ranul Keru's backstory from TNG: Rogue and DS9: Trill: Unjoined being followed up in Titan.
When it's said that RBoE isn't technically a DS9 novel, that just means that the majority of that book is about Spock and the Romulans, with only about a third of it being Sisko's story. But that one-third of RBoE actually reveals more about DS9 character arcs and events than Zero Sum Game did. It is definitely a part of the same continuity.
I don't hate DRG for what he did to Sisko. I'm very disappointed in the creative direction that was chosen (I'm one that would have been happy with Sisko staying mostly-retired on Bajor or at least having his stories take place in the context of that world), but a lot of good drama can come from it. Also, I thought the book was very well-written. What I hate is Sisko's decisions themselves - I think he's acting despicably and needs to be told so, loudly and to his face. If he is dealing with depression, he needs to be treated for it. But as has been said several time, Rough Beasts is not the end of this character arc, but the beginning.
With respect, this is the excuse ("they're better off without me") that deadbeat dads use all the time. It's responsibility-shirking masked as nobility.
With respect, this is the excuse ("they're better off without me") that deadbeat dads use all the time. It's responsibility-shirking masked as nobility.
A lot of people grow up with parents who stay together for the sake of the child. If you really want to mess up your kid, that's a surefire way of doing it. Sisko realized that his marriage to Kass wasn't working out. Reasons aside, staying with her would have done both of them, and Rebecca, more harm then good.
So no, staying with his family might have done more harm, psyhollogically speaking, then it would have done them good.
And yes, it's easy to say that they should have worked it out, but I know someone very close to me who was in a similair situation, and she can now say, after all the hurt and pain, that the break up between her parents was ultimatly better for both of them.
Sorry guys, but just like in real life there isn't always a happy-ever-after.
Two thoughts on this. While your overall point is right, there's no indication in Rough Beasts that Ben and Kas have the sort of problems (as a couple) that would make them staying together a bad choice long-term for their daughter - certainly no indication that it would be worse than simply leaving with no explanation or attempt at continued contact. The only reason the marriage isn't working out is because Ben is suddenly unwilling to fight for his family, not because of any incompatibility between them. Also, we're not just talking about a divorce or a breakup - we're talking about the father simply leaving and cutting off contact with his child.
Similar threads
