Was Eddington wasted?

[Admiral Qu'irk]

Call me contrarian, but I didn't especially like Eddington, or his storyline, and I liked the Dominion War even less. What ever happened to the whole "crossroads in space, with new life and new civilizations seeking us out" concept?

I think the Wadi put rest to that, unfortunately. It's not the best episode and I doubt the original budget would have helped it beyond a certain point, but it's definitely very much underrated no matter which way one can look at it.

It also led to some reasoned reviews, like this one:

 

[trekshark]

What? This?

I had a feeling that link would go to that wine. Saw it on this railway journey show on pbs a while back https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Canadian_Railway_Journeys

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Manages to combine two things that are of precisely zero interest to me.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I couldn't believe Sisko wasted his time on Eddington; it seemed he was elusive because of the bad writing done on our heroes. I never bought he was the leader of the Maquis, I'd rather one of the Admirals I've seen throughout that time to be a logical person for the role than a lame, nobody security officer who was abysmal to my interests every time he was onscreen.

 

[Pumpkin Bread]

I see the Maquis as imitating the Bajoran model for their terrorist (actually, guerilla is a more appropriate term) organization... they're divided into cells, who operate largely independently. Capture one Maquis, and even if the Cardies break him under drugs or torture, he can only identify his cell. The greater organization survives.

 

[Lynx]

I'm thinking more along the line of stories like "Captive Pursuit," "Move Along Home," "The Storyteller," "Progress," "If Wishes Were Horses," "Sanctuary" (yes, I know it involved the Dominion), &c.

It was always obvious to me that every time the DS9 producers tried to differentiate DS9 from B5, they unwittingly accomplished exactly the opposite, and the Dominion War arc was one of the results of that.

I would also liked to have seen more exploration of the Gamma Quadrant. Maybe the Dominion War should have been limited to seasons 6 and 7 and included more action inthe Gamma Quadrant.

I think they killed him off too soon. The Maquis might have been an interesting addition to the Dominion war, especially if they could also have guest appearances by Michelle Forbes and Jonathan Frakes as well.

I agree on that. I suppose that you're thinking of Tom Riker here.
I would also have liked to see Picard's Enterprise show up in some episodes. It would have been great to see some action from them in the Dominion War.

I think the Wadi put rest to that, unfortunately. It's not the best episode and I doubt the original budget would have helped it beyond a certain point, but it's definitely very much underrated no matter which way one can look at it.

It also led to some reasoned reviews, like this one:

I actually like Move Along Home. A bit spooky but a bit funny too.
Not to mention that a neighbor I had in my area back then was a dead ringer of Falow. We used to joke about it.

I couldn't believe Sisko wasted his time on Eddington; it seemed he was elusive because of the bad writing done on our heroes. I never bought he was the leader of the Maquis, I'd rather one of the Admirals I've seen throughout that time to be a logical person for the role than a lame, nobody security officer who was abysmal to my interests every time he was onscreen.

I don't think that Eddington was the Maquis leader, only one of them.

I see the Maquis as imitating the Bajoran model for their terrorist (actually, guerilla is a more appropriate term) organization... they're divided into cells, who operate largely independently. Capture one Maquis, and even if the Cardies break him under drugs or torture, he can only identify his cell. The greater organization survives.

I think "guerilla" is more appropriate for both the Bajoran Resistance and the Maquis even if it sometimes can be a thin line between "guerilla" and "resistance movement" on one hand and "terrorists" on the other.

 

[Pumpkin Bread]

Generally, the distinction is who they principally target. Terrorists kill civilians as a way of terrorizing the enemy, hence the name. Guerillas use a similar organizational structure, but generally attack military targets. Since the majority of the Cardassian occupying force was military, well...

And to reconsider the original question...
Q: Was Eddington wasted?
A: No, he seemed to be sober most of the time.

 

[Dr. San Guinary]

II don't think that Eddington was the Maquis leader, only one of them.

Indeed, the concept of a singular "Maquis leader" is a contradiction in terms. Groups like this don't have leaders of any kind. Just all those little cells. That's the only kind of authority they believe in.

Which is one of the things that flummoxed me about the claim that the Maquis wanted to form their own independent state. STATE? They don't believe in a state!

As for Eddington: He may not have specifically intended to target civilians in any of his operations, but at the same time I doubt he ever shed a tear if any such deaths actually occurred.

To put it another way: Chakotay would have agonized over civilian deaths; Eddington wouldn't give a damn.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Which was why the producers should've never made the distinction Eddington was the leader. I mean Sloan, at least, gave the impression Section 31 had a faction of cells and within those cells someone was in charge. Eddington was such a waste of time when Sisko had better fishes to fry.

 

[Pumpkin Bread]

To put it another way: Chakotay would have agonized over civilian deaths; Eddington wouldn't give a damn.

Not sure about that. If Eddington envisioned himself as the equivalent of a "Jean Valjean" character, he undoubtedly had strict moral principles, and was willing to sacrifice himself for them.

I mean Sloan, at least, gave the impression Section 31 had a faction of cells and within those cells someone was in charge. Eddington was such a waste of time when Sisko had better fishes to fry.

Kira, when forming resistance cells on Cardassia, reveals that she operated the same way. Terrorists and guerillas might have different targets and goals, but they're both fighting asymmetric warfare. If the enemy ever finds out where they all are, they lose.

 

[Dr. San Guinary]

Not sure about that. If Eddington envisioned himself as the equivalent of a "Jean Valjean" character, he undoubtedly had strict moral principles

Eddington's only strict principle was himself. His ego. It's all about HIM. He cares little for others. And if a few civilians have to die for his "glorious revolution", then he'd be like, the hell with them.

 

[Jedman67]

Eddington's only strict principle was himself. His ego. It's all about HIM. He cares little for others. And if a few civilians have to die for his "glorious revolution", then he'd be like, the hell with them.

He surrendered to Sisko because Sisko was going to bomb Maquis civilians.

Didn't the Jem Hadar wipe them all out anyway?

 

[Dr. San Guinary]

He surrendered to Sisko because Sisko was going to bomb Maquis civilians.

There are no Maquis civilians.

I'm sure there were colonists in the DMZ who refused to join the fighting, although I doubt the Maquis thought very highly of them. Groups like this rarely take kindly to those who won't join The Struggle .

I actually wish they'd run with that angle. What DID the Maquis do with the colonists who wouldn't join? Did they make them join? Was there conscription? That'd be right up the Maquis' alley.

Didn't the Jem Hadar wipe them all out anyway?

Yep.

 

[Pumpkin Bread]

Eddington's only strict principle was himself. His ego. It's all about HIM. He cares little for others. And if a few civilians have to die for his "glorious revolution", then he'd be like, the hell with them.

Will have to agree to disagree with you on that one.

 

[Dee1891]

I've always found it odd by how the Maquis was portrayed in the Trek franchise - revolutionary, but always wrong. For me, it was a very conservative stance for the Trek showrunners to make. As if the message for this arc was simply about maintaining the status quo of the Federation, regardless of whether they were right or wrong.

 

[Dr. San Guinary]

I actually found it rather refreshing.

Sometimes "the Man" isn't the bad guy after all!

 

[fireproof78]

I do as well. To me, it's a reflection of the idea that Star Trek espouses-humanity growing together in service to and benefit of the great whole. "The needs of the many..." as evidenced by the fact that preventing a war benefits more people on both sides, than the displacement of colonists.

 

[Tallguy]

I've always found it odd by how the Maquis was portrayed in the Trek franchise - revolutionary, but always wrong. For me, it was a very conservative stance for the Trek showrunners to make. As if the message for this arc was simply about maintaining the status quo of the Federation, regardless of whether they were right or wrong.

That's the dream of Star Trek. The Federation is never wrong. Someone asked Roddenberry during season 3 "How do people leave the Federation?" His reply was "Nobody WANTS to leave the Federation. So there doesn't have to be a way." (Paraphrasing from a 30 year old memory.) I THINK it was Melinda Snodgrass and The High Ground.

"The needs of the many..." as evidenced by the fact that preventing a war benefits more people on both sides, than the displacement of colonists.

In this case it didn't prevent the war and the colonists were all killed (right?). Six seasons into DS9 and a lot of it is a blur.

It's meant to be one of those unanswerable Star Trek questions. How many is The Needs of the Many? And all deference to Spock, but isn't a minority necessarily not "the many"?

 

[fireproof78]

In this case it didn't prevent the war and the colonists were all killed (right?). Six seasons into DS9 and a lot of it is a blur.

I mean, the war with Cardassia didn't happen until the Dominion got involved, which is what the Maquis were fighting against.

It's meant to be one of those unanswerable Star Trek questions. How many is The Needs of the Many? And all deference to Spock, but isn't a minority necessarily not "the many"?

It is a great and interesting philosophical question in a franchise that espouses both IDIC as well as "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." The larger challenge is in how does the decision impact the group of people and what does that mean for the few.

 

[Dr. San Guinary]

In this case it didn't prevent the war

Gotta love that 20/20 hindsight, huh?

and the colonists were all killed (right?).

It can be argued that it was the Maquis threat that, at least partly, drove Cardassia to join the Dominion in the first place.