Sisko

[at Quark's]

We also have to count intentions in. Probably it wasn't Sisko's intention to kill anyone, just forcing the colonists off the planet. We don't know if exposure to that trilithium resin would have been immediately fatal, or that the colonists still would have had a couple of hours/days to pack their bags (but probably the sooner they were off the planet, the better).

Picard on the other hand was willing to let people die who didn't have a means of escaping that fate.

So what is worse? Initiating a lethal action that people have sufficient means to escape from (even if it means leaving their homes behind), or not initiating it, but still refusing any help to people who can't escape? I honestly don't know. And for me, legality (whether it is against starfleet orders or not, whether someone has sworn to uphold the prime directive or not) doesn't even enter into that equation at all.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Maybe Picard would have said something about his bombarding a planet with children on it.

There drops the other shoe.

Sisko never bombarded a planet. We've adjudicated For The Uniform ad infinitum. Before proceeding, please review A Taste of Armageddon (looking into my tagline wouldn't hurt either.)

 

[JirinPanthosa]

In retrospect it was a really bold choice to start your spinoff by having your lead character hate the beloved lead character of the series it's spinning off from. That set the tone off DS9 rebelling against the idealism of TNG.

 

[kkt]

Not just in retrospect. At the time, too. It goes with the Q episode's "I'm not Picard!"

 

[Qonundrum]

I don't know. I am reading this scene almost oppositely to you. I thought Siko was unbelievably unfair to lash out at Picard that way, considering he had years to think about it. Blaming Picard for that situation is no better than blaming a rape victim for the rape. Sisko is supposed to be intelligent not some brute who sends nasty letters to an actor who happens to play the bad guy in a TV series (as I've been told sometimes happens). If Picard had been as out of control as Sisko was in that scene he would have angrily told him that; instead of taking it as diplomatically as he did. Sisko's attitude might have been excusable days or even weeks after the events but not YEARS. How long does it take him to cool off and think a little about Picard's plight?

Fair questions.

But looking at all the inconsistencies given to Picard in "The Drumhead", especially in "First Contact: The Movie" where more years had passed but decided Picard shouldn't be there, etc, etc...

Oh, how many people who are being raped try to destroy an entire Federation? I would surmise that what Picard went through is much closer to cult indoctrination, with Locutus being the end result, admitting that most cults use more persuasive forms indoctrinating.

Oh, and as a survivor of a sexual assault myself - which is something I did not ask for, if you really want to know what that feels like, I'll be more than happy to adumbrate one day - and even after decades the emotions are still raw - this is not atypical for many survivors of this sort of thing, so Sisko's reactions are not outlandish and, indeed, are somewhat relateable to me, especially if I ever had to deal with the (humans) who did what they did to me and what I've had to deal with... I'll leave it at that, for now.

And in a way, I was half-hoping Picard would talk about it, but he avoided the situation because he was still having emotions too. But that didn't help, did it?

We also have to count intentions in. Probably it wasn't Sisko's intention to kill anyone, just forcing the colonists off the planet. We don't know if exposure to that trilithium resin would have been immediately fatal, or that the colonists still would have had a couple of hours/days to pack their bags (but probably the sooner they were off the planet, the better).

Picard on the other hand was willing to let people die who didn't have a means of escaping that fate.

So what is worse? Initiating a lethal action that people have sufficient means to escape from (even if it means leaving their homes behind), or not initiating it, but still refusing any help to people who can't escape? I honestly don't know. And for me, legality (whether it is against starfleet orders or not, whether someone has sworn to uphold the prime directive or not) doesn't even enter into that equation at all.

^^this. Eddington's intentions were to kill, and Sisko had much bigger concerns.

What was worst was to let Eddington continue to go around poisoning planets and having "the needs of the many" be upended by the Cardassians ending the treaty and making a real mess. Sisko did pretty much everything else to stop an outright traitor, even saving lives that Eddington was willing to murder as a diversion. Sisko had little choice in the matter.

 

[Qonundrum]

Everyone deals with their grief in different ways. Sisko's anger with Picard may or may not be logical, but anger often isn't.

He lets it go in the end, but it seems the "Sisko spoke meanly to Picard!" folk can't.

I disagree. In my mind the best contemporary analogy would be if someone were indoctrinated into a cult. If a cult member killed your family, and then was subsequently rescued and deprogrammed, and felt truly terrible for what they had done...would it be so easy to forgive them? Even if you knew for absolute certain that they acted in a way that they never would have otherwise, they have still broken your life.

After re-reading the thread, feeling a need to respond to Discofan due to real life issues that happened to me as impetus and then checking/editing because I was a bit steamed, I went back to the thread. Thank you for also mentioning "cult", which is far closer to what Picard went through. "Blackmail" also works as a more cogent reason. "Rape" is not the strongest analogy, especially made by those who've likely never been assaulted or raped.

It's well known that rape victims have been blamed for the rapes throughout history and even now it would be feasible for an unscrupulous lawyer to convince a jury that a victim is at least partially to blame for the rape that's why there are laws preventing that kind of thing, AKA rape shield laws.

That's true. People get stimulated all the time but most people try to look the other way or other things, and obviously people certainly don't forcibly impose themselves by force. One's looks are not an invitation to touch. But, again, Picard was not raped. Neither literally nor allegorically. He's closer to a Prisoner Of War, molded with nasty cult indoctrination tactics of sorts to get him to reveal the enemy than anything approaching a rape victim, and there are big differences.

 

[Prax]

Overacting is part of the gig. That's why the producers were so keen on hiring actors that could believably perform dramatic, over the top scenes.

As to the coversation above, Picard was invaded physically and mentally. His every cell, and thought, and then used as a weapon against his friends and their families. I don't think "rape" quite covers it.

When I see that scene with Sisko, I very much don't like Sisko, and maybe we're not supposed to. When he mentions the battle, Picard looks away in shame, and my sympathies immediately gravitate to him.
In the second meeting, I feel like Picard should be questioning this guy's fitness to command, and maybe he has reservations. Sisko did a 180° immediately after being made an important relgious leader by some local tribe... seems like an opportunity for the kind of abuse/corruption Starfleet has had to constantly be vigilant against.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I just love the Picard/Sisko scene, because it's kind of deconstructivist, unexpected and daring. The safe option would have been to have Sisko be Picard's old pal or something like that. But no, fuck Picard and his perfect world on his perfect ship. Sisko is not a perfect human being, but someone who's angry and sad and wants to throw it all away. The scene's job is to show that this is not TNG, but its own thing. And it does that pretty perfectly, I feel.

That is a great scene, I love the seething anger under Sisko's surface and that fact that it's directed towards someone almost anyone else in the fleet would consider a legend and a hero, it shows just who Sisko is in a nutshell, he's a man who thought he had his life arranged and planned out, thought he'd be with the woman he loved for the rest of his days (despite the danger of his career), but in the moment that that was taken from him, when he was powerless to do anything to help her, when he just had to leave her behind, nothing had prepared him for that. On some level he knew Picard wasn't to blame (the fact at the end of the episode he forgives him for that shows this) but on a far more visceral level the man is a symbol for his loss and pain, so Sisko directs all of his feelings at him, even though a lot of that will be the anger he has for himself at the loss of Jennifer.

It's amazing to think that that personal journey for Sisko, to find forgiveness for himself and to begin to properly deal with his loss and heartache, and really mourn his loss was simply the first episode of this wonderful series. It's one of the many reasons I am a hardcore Niner and why I love Sisko (and the other characters) because of the nuances that he has.

 

[Riker'sMailbox]

I think that Avery Brooks has a unique voice and a unique style of acting. I think he definitely crossed over into overacting, at times. However, I think that Sisko was a unique captain in a unique circumstance and the casting was brilliant. Sisko was written to be more passionate, more off the cuff than Picard. A captain like Picard may not as fared as well as Sisko on DS9. Brooks did a great job of selling a captain that had to balance a delicate diplomacy between Bajor and the Cardassians and was at the front lines of one of the most catastrophic wars in Federation history, all the while being a single father and a religious figure. Brooks was able to sell it all.

As for the Picard/ Sisko scene. I am willing to extend some grace to a man that saw the love of his life, the mother of his child die. There is no handbook nor timeline for grief and I am okay with a bit of irrationality on the part of Sisko. We also needed to see where he started from to appreciate where he ended.

 

[Kilana2]

I think that Avery Brooks has a unique voice and a unique style of acting. I think he definitely crossed over into overacting, at times. However, I think that Sisko was a unique captain in a unique circumstance and the casting was brilliant. Sisko was written to be more passionate, more off the cuff than Picard. A captain like Picard may not as fared as well as Sisko on DS9. Brooks did a great job of selling a captain that had to balance a delicate diplomacy between Bajor and the Cardassians and was at the front lines of one of the most catastrophic wars in Federation history, all the while being a single father and a religious figure. Brooks was able to sell it all.

As for the Picard/ Sisko scene. I am willing to extend some grace to a man that saw the love of his life, the mother of his child die. There is no handbook nor timeline for grief and I am okay with a bit of irrationality on the part of Sisko. We also needed to see where he started from to appreciate where he ended.

His performance in Far Beyond the Stars was outstanding, at least for me.

 

[Nakita Akita]

I don't know. I am reading this scene almost oppositely to you. I thought Siko was unbelievably unfair to lash out at Picard that way, considering he had years to think about it. Blaming Picard for that situation is no better than blaming a rape victim for the rape. Sisko is supposed to be intelligent not some brute who sends nasty letters to an actor who happens to play the bad guy in a TV series (as I've been told sometimes happens). If Picard had been as out of control as Sisko was in that scene he would have angrily told him that; instead of taking it as diplomatically as he did. Sisko's attitude might have been excusable days or even weeks after the events but not YEARS. How long does it take him to cool off and think a little about Picard's plight?

To me he shouldn't have gone off on Picard.
Mainly due to being a professional.
The pain of losing his wife, that could take a lifetime and never go away.
But being a professional, he should have set aside his emotions and acted in a professional fashion.
He can go into a private room later, or prior to meeting with Picard and deal with his emotions.

 

[Discofan]

To me he shouldn't have gone off on Picard.
Mainly due to being a professional.
The pain of losing his wife, that could take a lifetime and never go away.
But being a professional, he should have set aside his emotions and acted in a professional fashion.
He can go into a private room later, or prior to meeting with Picard and deal with his emotions.

Absolutely, I found his lack of restraint unprofessional too. Plus nothing he said to Picard made sense. He basically accused him of being in the pay of the borg while to anyone else in the world Picard was as much of a victim if not more than Sisko.

 

[Jayson1]

To me he shouldn't have gone off on Picard.
Mainly due to being a professional.
The pain of losing his wife, that could take a lifetime and never go away.
But being a professional, he should have set aside his emotions and acted in a professional fashion.
He can go into a private room later, or prior to meeting with Picard and deal with his emotions.

Some people are just better at hiding their feelings than others. I think Sisko showed his professionalism by simply doing his job without his trauma influencing him. He must have been doing a good job at Utopia Planita to even get offered the command. He didn't go down the Captain Maxwell route of keeping everthing inside and before you know it your waging war on Carddisians without your government even approving of it.

Jason

 

[Discofan]

There's a name for people who wage private wars: Murderers.

 

[kkt]

There's a name for people who wage private wars: Murderers.

Legally, of course you're right, but the psychology of someone waging a private war against a nation-state that is doing horrible things is quite different from a typical murder for passion or material gain.

 

[Discofan]

Legally, of course you're right, but the psychology of someone waging a private war against a nation-state that is doing horrible things is quite different from a typical murder for passion or material gain.

The psychology can be used as extenuating circumstances but it can't change the fact that its murder. The only time when terrorism ceases to be murder is when the terrorists take over and become the new government, they can then retroactively pardon themselves.

 

[Prax]

It's self-defence, which usually is not murder. Sometimes it's revenge, though.

what's morally different between killing in a state sanctioned war vs killing in a private little war?

 

[Discofan]

It's self-defence, which usually is not murder. Sometimes it's revenge, though.

what's morally different between killing in a state sanctioned war vs killing in a private little war?

A serial killer could be construed as waging a kind of private little war.

 

[Jayson1]

A serial killer could be construed as waging a kind of private little war.

But wouldn't that just be all in his mind? I might think I am the sexiest man alive but the world isn't going to conform to my beliefs.

Jason

 

[Discofan]

But wouldn't that just be all in his mind? I might think I am the sexiest man alive but the world isn't going to conform to my beliefs.

Jason

Sure, but what exactly is a "private" war? Wars are supposed to be waged by states or countries, not individuals. So I'll ask you again, what's the difference between a serial killer/mass murderer and someone waging a private war?