I assume, as both an SF & Faust guy, you know this, but just in case, two brilliant SF novels retelling the Faust story: the first analogistically (but undisguisedly: among other things the characters produce Goethe's Faust in the course of the novel), is Thomas M. Disch's Camp Concentration (1968). The other, a direct retelling, is Michael Swanwick's Jack Faust (1997). If by any chance you haven't read either, I recommend both highly.
Leaving aside Section 31 as definitely evil (genocidal bioweapon as Evidence A), how far out of the pale a false flag operation against a government officer of a likely to soon be an enemy power would have been for Starfleet Intelligence proper? I think the episode reads different if Sisko is troubled by breaking core Starfleet principles (which would presumably extend to Starfleet Intelligence), by doing something that SI would have done but that him, as a non-SI officer, shouldn't, or by doing something against his personal principles in an area where they are stricter than Starfleet's.
To be clear, I empathize instinctively with his unease, and at first it seemed an straightforward case of moral compromise. But looking again at it, he's a Starfleet officer --- blowing up ships isn't outside his experience, and Tuvok inflitrating the Maquis or "The Enterprise Incident" show that Starfleet isn't entirely above at least some level of trickery (neither one of those, as far as I know, are depicted as morally questionable; it's not Section 31, it's standard Starfleet). It depends a lot on what we think Starfleet considers morally acceptable as intelligence activities in war --- ironically we probably know more about Section 31 than about Starfleet Intelligence --- but a possible framing is that an analogy for Sisko's feelings would be a soldier mourning the first time they kill somebody in battle: they knew that as soldiers it was part of what they might have to do, and they still consider being a soldier morally acceptable, but that doesn't mean there isn't a moral loss involved in the act.
On the other hand, I can't see Picard in TNG doing anything like this. But perhaps that's part of the character as exemplar but also outlier in Starfleet, and also a reflection of the Enterprise having a different role and set of problems to deal with, even in war.
Or in a shorter formulation of my doubts: did Garak say or do anything a Starfleet intelligence officer working within standard operational constraints wouldn't have? And if so, does Starfleet, Sisko, or the show consider SI evil? I'm not sure we have clear answers to that from the franchise itself, which might or might not be deliberate.
What did your students who weren't Star Trek fans make of the episode? It's a strong enough hour that I imagine they were able to appreciate it, but it's also pretty dependent on a great deal of DS9 lore (as you point out, your reaction to Garak will vary a lot depending on if you've been watching him for six seasons). For that matter, what did they make of a work of science fiction that is about deceiving a sovereign nation into entering a war?
I was a little nervous about this one, because it does seem to be so tightly interwoven with the other plotlines and our familiarity with the characters. But in practice, they found it to be pretty self-contained and didn't seem to have any trouble grasping the stakes. The biggest obstacle wasn't Garak, who was immediately legible to them, but Sisko -- they found his odd delivery detracted from the emotional impact of his journey. As for the actual deception involved, they weirdly just seemed to accept Sisko's premise that it was necessary. I tried to shake that loose, but with little success. (Students at my school tend not to be very "political.")
I’m currently on a DS9 rewatch (well technically a watch I guess as I’ve never watched it start to finish before) this is a genuine question, I only ask here as even back in the 90s none of my friends watched Star Trek, I was the only one
Avery Brooks, he’s just a very ordinary actor right? Like I’m not imagining things, he’s like a soap opera level actor? Like a Bold and the Beautiful type actor with his reactions and exaggerated movements and facial expressions?
Don’t get me wrong I like the show, I like the character, hell I even like Avery, but if we’re all being honest with ourselves we would admit this is a pretty hammy very average actor wouldn’t we?
Or am I on an island here and you all think I’m cruel and out of my mind?
I find Brooks's acting style stilted at best and distracting at worst. And for my students, who didn't have the opportunity to get used to it over dozens of previous episodes, his bizarre performance definitely undercut the impact of this otherwise great episode. He's a brilliant man in other ways and had a great positive impact on the show on the production side, but I concur that his acting is bad.
Glad to know I’m not the only one who notices this. I feel bad saying it because the character is solid and from what I can tell he’s a terrific guy in real life but it sure seems like a big drop off from Patrick Stewart to him
Though now I think about it, I guess Shatner wasn’t winning any acting awards was he, so maybe it fits the show
I assume, as both an SF & Faust guy, you know this, but just in case, two brilliant SF novels retelling the Faust story: the first analogistically (but undisguisedly: among other things the characters produce Goethe's Faust in the course of the novel), is Thomas M. Disch's Camp Concentration (1968). The other, a direct retelling, is Michael Swanwick's Jack Faust (1997). If by any chance you haven't read either, I recommend both highly.
Thanks! I will check them out -- and maybe even include them in my class some day!
Leaving aside Section 31 as definitely evil (genocidal bioweapon as Evidence A), how far out of the pale a false flag operation against a government officer of a likely to soon be an enemy power would have been for Starfleet Intelligence proper? I think the episode reads different if Sisko is troubled by breaking core Starfleet principles (which would presumably extend to Starfleet Intelligence), by doing something that SI would have done but that him, as a non-SI officer, shouldn't, or by doing something against his personal principles in an area where they are stricter than Starfleet's.
To be clear, I empathize instinctively with his unease, and at first it seemed an straightforward case of moral compromise. But looking again at it, he's a Starfleet officer --- blowing up ships isn't outside his experience, and Tuvok inflitrating the Maquis or "The Enterprise Incident" show that Starfleet isn't entirely above at least some level of trickery (neither one of those, as far as I know, are depicted as morally questionable; it's not Section 31, it's standard Starfleet). It depends a lot on what we think Starfleet considers morally acceptable as intelligence activities in war --- ironically we probably know more about Section 31 than about Starfleet Intelligence --- but a possible framing is that an analogy for Sisko's feelings would be a soldier mourning the first time they kill somebody in battle: they knew that as soldiers it was part of what they might have to do, and they still consider being a soldier morally acceptable, but that doesn't mean there isn't a moral loss involved in the act.
On the other hand, I can't see Picard in TNG doing anything like this. But perhaps that's part of the character as exemplar but also outlier in Starfleet, and also a reflection of the Enterprise having a different role and set of problems to deal with, even in war.
Or in a shorter formulation of my doubts: did Garak say or do anything a Starfleet intelligence officer working within standard operational constraints wouldn't have? And if so, does Starfleet, Sisko, or the show consider SI evil? I'm not sure we have clear answers to that from the franchise itself, which might or might not be deliberate.
What did your students who weren't Star Trek fans make of the episode? It's a strong enough hour that I imagine they were able to appreciate it, but it's also pretty dependent on a great deal of DS9 lore (as you point out, your reaction to Garak will vary a lot depending on if you've been watching him for six seasons). For that matter, what did they make of a work of science fiction that is about deceiving a sovereign nation into entering a war?
I was a little nervous about this one, because it does seem to be so tightly interwoven with the other plotlines and our familiarity with the characters. But in practice, they found it to be pretty self-contained and didn't seem to have any trouble grasping the stakes. The biggest obstacle wasn't Garak, who was immediately legible to them, but Sisko -- they found his odd delivery detracted from the emotional impact of his journey. As for the actual deception involved, they weirdly just seemed to accept Sisko's premise that it was necessary. I tried to shake that loose, but with little success. (Students at my school tend not to be very "political.")
Well, I imagine that sort of thing was more shocking in 1998 than post-9/11.
To boldly Goethe ...
Knowing a bit about the people in the writers’ room and the production team for DS9, I feel certain your instincts are right – they know their Goethe.
I’m currently on a DS9 rewatch (well technically a watch I guess as I’ve never watched it start to finish before) this is a genuine question, I only ask here as even back in the 90s none of my friends watched Star Trek, I was the only one
Avery Brooks, he’s just a very ordinary actor right? Like I’m not imagining things, he’s like a soap opera level actor? Like a Bold and the Beautiful type actor with his reactions and exaggerated movements and facial expressions?
Don’t get me wrong I like the show, I like the character, hell I even like Avery, but if we’re all being honest with ourselves we would admit this is a pretty hammy very average actor wouldn’t we?
Or am I on an island here and you all think I’m cruel and out of my mind?
I find Brooks's acting style stilted at best and distracting at worst. And for my students, who didn't have the opportunity to get used to it over dozens of previous episodes, his bizarre performance definitely undercut the impact of this otherwise great episode. He's a brilliant man in other ways and had a great positive impact on the show on the production side, but I concur that his acting is bad.
Glad to know I’m not the only one who notices this. I feel bad saying it because the character is solid and from what I can tell he’s a terrific guy in real life but it sure seems like a big drop off from Patrick Stewart to him
Though now I think about it, I guess Shatner wasn’t winning any acting awards was he, so maybe it fits the show
I will say though that even through 2 inches of make up and whatever else they put on his face, the guy who plays Garak is a brilliant actor