Jammer's Review

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

"For the Cause"

**1/2

Air date: 5/6/1996
Teleplay by Ronald D. Moore
Story by Mark Gehred-O'Connell
Directed by James L. Conway

Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan

"I am a Starfleet officer, the paragon of virtue."
"You're more like a parody of virtue."

— Benjamin and Kasidy

Nutshell: I can definitely see what they were going for here, but the way it's assembled feels a little too forced and sudden.

"For the Cause" is a story that almost works on so many levels, but it ultimately doesn't quite come together because the characters are at the mercy of a plot with so many collusively entangled angles that they're constantly being jerked here and there without real justification. This is too bad. I get the feeling this story would have been much stronger if it had either dropped some of the extraneous baggage or been a little more truthful about it.

Odo and Eddington come to Sisko after a staff meeting and tell him they have reason to suspect that Kasidy Yates is smuggling supplies for the Maquis. This happens, no less, after a scene that reveals to us that Ben and Kasidy have reached consummation in their relationship. So now Sisko has to deal with the emotional repercussions of finding out his lover isn't what she seems while performing the difficult duty of uncovering her motives.

Ah, the Maquis—now here's a plot line we haven't seen in any real detail since the second season. So much has happened since then—the Dominion's foreboding, the Klingons' presence, the Cardassians' woes. In fact, one thing I was hoping "For the Cause" would explain is what exactly the Maquis do now that political situations have so considerably changed. They are, after all, terrorists for a reason. Unfortunately, the show doesn't explain anything new; it just keeps the general idea in the air that the Maquis are simply not happy with their situation and that they're going to be trouble. (Wouldn't the Klingons' seizure of colonies lead to skirmishes between the Maquis and the Klingons? That would be an interesting angle, but the episode doesn't begin to ask such questions.)

The core of the episode centers around Sisko's dilemma of what to do when he discovers that the woman he loves has a hidden agenda. This part of the story is solid, believable, and empathizing. Sisko is justifiably skeptical of Eddington and Odo's suspicions at first. At the same time, it's obvious that he won't look at Kasidy again without wondering what she's hiding. The personal consequences of the events definitely make for relevant drama.

Still, there are some missed opportunities here, particularly because of Sisko's unwillingness to open up to anybody about his troubles. There's a nice scene between Sisko and his son (I thought the "Things change, but not this" bonding was quite poignant), yet I can't help thinking how much nicer the scene could've been had the writers allowed Sisko to talk to Jake about his problem. Similarly, the same goes for the scene where Dax is going to offer her ear after a briefing—Sisko's "Dismissed, Old Man" conveys his brooding state, but good dialogue could've conveyed so much more.

But there's more here than just Sisko's personal affairs. There's a plot involving some costly industrial replicators that the Federation is shipping to Cardassia as part of a relief program, and Eddington thinks the Maquis may try to obstruct such an effort. So while Eddington makes special security preparations at DS9, Sisko takes the Defiant, cloaks it, and follows Kasidy's freighter into the badlands where she's expected to rendezvous with another Maquis agent. The other agent, however, never shows up, and the Defiant ends up waiting hours for the illegal transaction to take place.

Something is fishy—as Odo points out, smugglers don't wait around if their buyers don't meet them on schedule. Sisko and crew decloak and beam over to Kasidy's freighter, and then they realize that they've been had—the whole thing was a trick to draw Sisko away from the station so someone could steal the industrial replicators.

It's about here where the plot introduces one device to many. Something about the whole thing feels off-kilter. The thief turns out to be Eddington—a Maquis spy himself—who stuns Kira and takes command of the station so he can sneak away with the replicators while half the command crew is still hours away on the Defiant. Sisko & Co. rush back to the station without Kasidy's ship but they're too late—Eddington is long gone.

This ending, alas, feels very wrong. I think the biggest problem is that all of these plot developments simply don't seem justified by the rationale of the characters. Eddington's defection is supposed to be shocking, but it isn't—it's just unwarranted. When Eddington contacts Sisko, he rants on and on about the Federation and what it represents, even calling it worse than the Borg ("At least they tell you they're going to assimilate you"). Kenneth Biller's performance seems sincere, but this does not work because it comes so far out of left field and feels so forced. (When was the last time we even saw this guy anyway? "Our Man Bashir"—which is completely irrelevant in terms of this show.) The story never explains why Eddington is so taken by the Maquis' plight, or why he's so angry at the Federation. It's as if the writers are pulling this stuff out of the air.

For that matter, the same goes for Kasidy Yates—though her role doesn't feel nearly as excessive as Eddington's does. (She doesn't rant about the evil Federation and so forth—it appears that she's just a sympathizer). While the idea of Kasidy putting Sisko in this painful situation is fine, the story's explanation of why—practically none—is far from fine. I did, however, appreciate the fact that Kasidy turns herself in for Sisko's sake, and that Sisko is able to forgive her even if he has to send her to jail.

I might take some comfort in the way this episode played out if I thought we would see any consequences of it. But the way the show is presented, I highly doubt we will see Eddington or the Maquis anytime soon—and that's irritating. The story should've stuck with the Sisko/Yates angle and considered it more deeply. By adding the thread involving Eddington, the plot shoots itself in the foot and seems like little more than a device to write out two of the series' recurring characters.

As for the B-story involving Garak and Tora Ziyal, it meanders too much without much of a point. Garak's scene with Quark where Kira threatens him is sort of amusing, but the scenes between Garak and Ziyal (who was unfortunately recast with Tracy Middendorf—a lesser performer than Cyia Batten) mostly fall flat. It's your standard filler—inoffensive but hardly compelling.

Previous episode: The Muse
Next episode: To the Death

Season Index

30 comments on this review

Terence - Thu, Sep 4, 2008 - 10:08am (USA Central)
We definitely needed more background and context that would have justified the actions taken by Kasidy Yates and Eddington. Nothing leading up to this episode suggested either had reason to be Maquis sympathizers. Consequently, the episode feels contrived, as if the writers hadn't bothered to develop sensible character arcs. (And no, Eddington's conniption out of left field doesn't count.)
gimbo - Sat, Jul 4, 2009 - 7:23pm (USA Central)
I realize jammer's opinion on this is consistent with most of the fanbase, but this was one of my favorite episodes. It starts out with the possibility that kassidy is innocent and the episode could turn into a lesson about being over-suspicious, and the suspense continued to the final act as I thought the sudden Eddington reveal was well-done. It had the right amount of buildup - practically none at all, since part of the idea was that Eddington had put together a masterful plan and had given no indication as to his true motives.

It's one of the episodes that makes ds9 unique. Trusted characters whose beliefs make them do questionable things - including sisko, whose unprofessional decision-making comes back to bite him in the end, and the consequences of these will be further explored in the next season.
Jay - Sat, Aug 22, 2009 - 3:41pm (USA Central)
How would Gene Roddenberry react to the notion of the Federation even needing prisons? He seemed to think humans would be beyond interpersonal conflict...surely that includes crime.
Durandal_1707 - Wed, Oct 7, 2009 - 4:33pm (USA Central)
I have to disagree on this one - there was something sort of... strange about Kasady's behavior ever since "The Way of the Warrior." The existence of this episode makes it look like they may have been planning her defection for a while, rather than it just being attributable to bad acting on her part.
Nic - Tue, Oct 27, 2009 - 8:24pm (USA Central)
Recasting should be illegal! Cyia Batten was the perfect actress to play Ziyal, and she was a year older than Ziyal is supposed to be, yet they recast her twice with an older actress. It's SORAS syndrome.
Mostly I agree with your review, except that I think Kenneth Marshall's performance is partly to blame for why the revelation doesn't work.

P.S. Yes, Michael Eddington was played by Kenneth Marshall, not Kenneth Biller :P. Kenneth Biller was a writer and two-time director on Voyager.
gion - Wed, Feb 17, 2010 - 7:25pm (USA Central)
Perhaps Yates' and Eddington's motives could have been explained better, but I think the story's main weakness is that the Maquis would so easily give up a compatriot, or at least a useful, sympathizing traficker, for the sake of tactical expediency. The writers should have brought up some sort of justification because the action is really more in tune with that of cynical bandits rather than zealous freedom fighter.

Eddington's claim the Federation dislikes the Maquis because they had left the Federation (on their own accord) also seems off mark. It may apply to himself, but not to the settlers. The Federation left them, not the other way around. That's exactly supposed to be the whole reason why we've seen Starfleet officers sympathize with the Maquis and join them.
Mal - Thu, Mar 25, 2010 - 12:40am (USA Central)
For the Cause has one of the best DS9 quotes ever, and just for that, three stars is a minimum:

"Why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis? We've never harmed you. And yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands, and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves Paradise, everyone should want to be in the Federation! Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. You're only sending them replicators because one day, they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways, you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious, you assimilate people - and they don't even know it."
Caliburn - Sun, Apr 18, 2010 - 8:02pm (USA Central)
* I love what this episode does for the Sisko/Kasidy Yates relationship. It was already an above-average Trek romance (mainly because the standards there are quite low), but it seems a little deeper now, since we see in Sisko's eyes that he is reflecting on how losing Kasidy Yates will end the family dynamic that is building between himself, Kasidy, and Jake.

* Like Jammer, I do sort of wish that Sisko had confided in Jake what was going on.

* The Eddington defection is abrupt, but I don't personally have any trouble believing it. (Granted, this is my second time watching the episode, but I didn't have a problem with it the first time either.) It seems sufficiently consistent with what little we know of his character at this point, even though this episode declines the opportunity to explain his motives. For example, he's always been all-business, which means nobody really knows anything about his values (as further underlined in the scene in this episode where Eddington ducks O'Brien's question about his opinion on the Maquis). He acts like a poster boy for loyalty to the Federation, which obviously could have turned out to be legitimate, but also makes sense if this attitude was a fairly calculated put-on. Someone who has something to hide is likely to toe the party line more closely than his compatriots.

Also, as Ira Steven Behr points out, Eddington's defection does help explain Eddington's remarks to Sisko about the captain's chair back in The Adversary. I'm not clear on whether that particular subtext was really planned back during The Adversary (as opposed to just making Eddington an effective red herring in The Adversary itself), or whether it just worked out conveniently in hindsight, but either way, it works, and it shows that the writers were playing fair with the past as much as possible, instead of retconning.

I'm not saying the writers shouldn't have provided more foundation than they did; I'm just saying that, for me, the revelation worked.

* I wonder if Jammer would have gone a little easier on this episode if he had known at the time that it was not writing either Kasidy or Eddington out of the show, and that it really would receive follow-up.

* As for Gion's claim (in the Comments above) that "the Federation left [the Maquis], not the other way around": Well, that is the way Cal Hudson (Bernie Casey) made it sound back in DS9's Maquis two-parter when he explained why his sympathies were with the Maquis. But in the TNG episode Journey's End, which showed the birth of the Maquis (albeit through only a single colony), it is pretty clear that that colony decided to give up Federation membership so that it wouldn't have to move out of Cardassian territory. To quote from that episode:

PICARD
Anthwara... I want to make
absolutely sure you understand the
implications of this agreement.
By giving up your status as
Federation citizens... any future
request you or your people make
for assistance from Starfleet will
go unanswered. You will be on
your own... and under Cardassian
jurisdiction.

Yes, the Federation basically gave the colony an ultimatum (to move out of what was now Cardassian space), so some of these people who became the Maquis could very well feel that the Federation abandoned them. But some people in the Federation could also very well feel that the Maquis rejected the Federation, because they gave up their citizenship.

So what Eddington says is just as plausible an interpretation of what happened as Cal Hudson's was. Bear in mind that Ronald D. Moore also wrote Journey's End, which would further increase the likelihood that he would have the events of that episode in mind when he wrote Eddington's speech.

* Funny how so many characters in the DS9 universe (Sisko in The Maquis, the Federation President in Homefront, Eddington here) independently arrive at the same "paradise" moniker for the Federation. Writerliness, much? I blame that on the Homefront/Paradise Lost two-parter (where paradise references ran in such abundance that I grew a little weary of them), moreso than on this episode, but the re-occurence of the word "paradise" in Eddington's speech isn't my favorite touch.

* I like the Borg comparison, though. It's rather a shock on first viewing, and ultimately I don't think the comparison really holds, but it makes sense as a comparison that someone might make. People often make comparisons that are somewhat true, yet over the top. And the fact that the show even raises this question adds to its thoughtfulness.

* Jammer's desire for more info on how the Maquis fit into a changed political landscape might have been somewhat assuaged if the original subplot, which apparently involved the Klingons arming the Maquis with weapons, had been retained, instead of being replaced with the Garak/Ziyal subplot. An interesting what-if...

* For me, this episode would probably warrant 3.5/4 stars, but then, I'm partial to stories that hearken back to the political intrigue of Season Two. I might not go as high as Trek reviewer Tim Lynch's re-grade of 9.5/10, but I'm more in line with Lynch's thinking than with Jammer's here.
Elliott - Sun, Dec 26, 2010 - 4:02am (USA Central)
Whose idea was it to start calling the Federation or Earth "Paradise"? Ech. It's so contrived to make the Maquis look sympathetic (and Star Trek look naïve), but the truth is the Maquis are arrogant, immature and self-righteous in the most nauseating way. It's like hearing teenagers rave at you for becoming part of the corporate machine. Shut up and get a job.
jon - Thu, Jan 27, 2011 - 6:38pm (USA Central)
Elliot calling Earth Paradise is very close to GR's ideals so what's your problem?

Yeah I mean the maquis only were only defending their homes from the cardassians and oh wait they were supposedly a part of Voyager and incidentally a main attraction of Voyager so again's what's your problem?
Elliott - Sat, Jan 29, 2011 - 6:45pm (USA Central)
They were defending homes which were no longer theirs to defend and too immature to realise the larger ramifications of their actions.

Jon, I don't think you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. My problem is with dishonest storytelling. And, incidentally, while I certainly to like Voyager as a series, I don't defend parts of its premise simply on that basis any more than I attack DS9's for the same reasons.
jon - Fri, Feb 4, 2011 - 11:49am (USA Central)
Elliot the maquis were designed for Voyager and were considered to be a central part of te premise and then forgetten about.

The fact is that they were their homes if the US govt signed a treaty with a foreign power that gave your part of America away to another country and then expected you to give away your home which you'd lived in what would you do? sayok fine or no this is my home i bought it i'm not moving away and watch prempative strike and the maquis and the Cardassians armed their citizens and got them to attack the fed citizens that was how the maquis were born and that is why they acted the way they did at first out of self defence and then this. I think the problem was the writers didn't want to do the maquis and so were half hearted about them since there were meant for Voyager.
Nathan - Thu, Mar 10, 2011 - 3:31pm (USA Central)
I have to agree with Jon on this.

The Federation allowed colonies to be setup near Cardassan space. Then after the Borg almost destroyed Star Fleet the Cardassans started making aggressive moves against the Federation. The Federation to appease them pulled out of the area and tried to force the settlers out. They naturally refused. The Maquis motives are perfectly understandable. The morally superior Federation cowardly sacrificed it's land and citizens to avoid war.
Elliott - Mon, Aug 15, 2011 - 12:41am (USA Central)
In "Journey's End" we see how there may be metaphysical issues which no amount of political or economic security can account for. However, those concerns cannot justify the militant actions of of the Maquis. To say they do is to invite justification for any level of Holy War. But the DS9 portrayal of the Maquis glosses over this and just makes speeches designed to piss on Gene Roddenberry's grave. Are you really suggesting, Nathan, that avoiding a bloody and costly war over the relocation of a few settlers is really unjust and cowardly? This kind of thinking is the same behind "Insurrection" and why the premise of that movie flops on its rear end.
Elliott - Mon, Aug 15, 2011 - 12:45am (USA Central)
Remember, no one in the Federation, including the colonists, has any worry of money or property or employment. Like it or not, believe it or not, it's a premise which makes this Universe possible and considering it, there's no viable justification for the Maquis' actions. At best, as I said, it may hold some clout as a spiritual issue with the land and so forth, but at worst (and this must be said of most of the predominantly Atheist Federation), it's just immature postering and pathetic threats.
Elliott - Mon, Aug 15, 2011 - 12:54am (USA Central)
Oh, and lest we forget, because this episode is just a soap box to preach--I don't know...post-capitalist pessimism--Eddington's apparently iconic speech from the monitor is met not with a philosophical counter or anything which might draw in that coveted "grey area" polemic into his argument but with a personal vendetta from Sisko.

This show doesn't care about the grey area. It only pretends to in order to be subversive to an enlightened philosophy.
Aaron B. - Sat, Aug 27, 2011 - 10:31am (USA Central)
I get a kick out of the fact that the mighty Federation, which is supposedly so prosperous that everyone's needs are met so completely that there's no need for an internal means of exchange, can only muster up enough replicators and reclamators to give people something to fight over.
Nic - Mon, Oct 3, 2011 - 8:11am (USA Central)
"This happens, no less, after a scene that reveals to us that Ben and Kasidy have reached consummation in their relationship."

Sorry, this makes me laugh. I'd taken for granted that they'd reached consummation a long time before this episode (probably even before "Indiscretion").
Captain Tripps - Tue, Oct 11, 2011 - 11:11am (USA Central)
Did you miss all the episodes of TNG where settlers refused to leave their homes even when facing imminent war/death/destruction/assimilation? Some chose to fight, others to face certain death. That's an old theme. Well played out with the Maquis, IMO. They had complete justification for their actions, were they supposed to simply walk away from their homes because the federation chose to withdraw? I guess it's a fundamental difference in attitude that probably manifests in other ways politically and socially. The decision that's right for the Federation isn't necessarily right for the individuals it's going to most affect. Sometimes the needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of the few (or the One).
Captain Tripps - Tue, Oct 11, 2011 - 11:16am (USA Central)
I say that as someone who lives in a community that's had it's own fight with something similar, eminent domain, and a local government that decided it was in it's best interests to take privately held homes and businesses and sell them to a larger corporation, so that it could expand it's operations in the area. People were offered above market prices for the property, but many, many of them objected. And I understood, and in many cases supported those objections. On the one hand is a balance sheet, the other people's lives and livelihoods. I know which I'd choose, but then again I'm not in business or politics.
TDexter - Sat, Oct 29, 2011 - 6:28pm (USA Central)
It seems pretty clear from other episodes that it's not true that every settlement in Federation territory benefits from an endless supply of resources. Perhaps the core planets and the homeworlds are scarcity-free, but out on the "frontier," people have to fend for themselves in many ways.

I think that DS9, this episode included, has brought much-needed depth to the idea of the Federation as a Utopian force at least if not more powerful than any other league in the quadrant, and that it is only truly threatened by all-powerful enemies (Q, Borg, Dominion).

Keep in mind that Ronald Moore (of BSG) wrote this episode; it has the mark of his grittiness in terms of realpolitik and realism.

We should be able to root for the Federation without being so naive as to think that it is the only force for good in the Universe. The criticisms expressed by the Maquis are the same that are often expressed by alien races not part of the Federation (and by the earlier Vulcans): that it's dominated by humans; that it's arrogant and closed-minded; that its goal is endless (albeit peaceful and diplomatic) expansion. These are all fair criticisms.
Paul - Tue, Nov 8, 2011 - 9:09am (USA Central)
Interesting thread. I think this is a better episode than Jammer. I also think it's a very Ron D. Moore episode.

For the BSG fans in the crowd, RDM's other show had a couple examples of making round characters fit into square holes. It wasn't normally that the character had a backstory that would invalidate some new info -- it was more that the character had nothing to validate the new info. Take Adama's sudden connection with the pilot Kat.

The Kassidy Yates news in this episode, to me, didn't need that much explanation. The Eddington switch did. The fact that there were follow-up episodes certainly helped ('Blaze of Glory' is one of my favorites in the series) but I always wished that Sisko had simply asked Eddington why he turned -- or what was the turning point?

I think it's safe to assume that Eddington became a sympathizer after 'The Search'. That's some supposition, but I have a hard time seeing a spy potentially losing Sisko's trust by sabotaging the Defiant before Enabaran Tain's attack.

So, at some point between the destruction of Tain's fleet and 'For the Cause' -- and it must have been a while before, because the Maquis don't trust easy AND because Eddington presumably needed time to carry out the sabotage discovered in 'For the Uniform' -- Eddington's value structure changed. And there was nothing on-camera that we saw that would provide any insight.

I always thought a cool reason would have revolved around the Klingons' attack on DS9. We never saw Eddington in that episode (I'm guessing the guest star budget was more than tapped). What if, in 'Blaze of Glory' or even 'For the Uniform', Eddington explained his change of thinking to Sisko like this:

Eddington was on special assignment to the Badlands around the time the Klingons attacked. He witnessed first hand how the Klingons didn't discriminate between Cardassians and Maquis (even on a limited scale). And he learned, first hand, upon returning to DS9 that Sisko warned the Cardassians and not the Maquis. The explanation would have to include something about how the Maquis forces largely avoided the Klingons' attack (hid in the Badlands/they weren't the primary targets?) while still incurring some damage.

That would a) explain why Eddington became a Maquis spy b) explain why he wasn't on the station during the Klingon attack c) what was going on with the Maquis during a quadrant-shaking turn of events and d) partially explain the Maquis buildup that we saw in 'For the Uniform.' And the last point doesn't even really need explaining.

The only possible inconsistency would be that the Klingons would later give the Maquis weapons (as discussed in 'Blaze of Glory'). But, as long as the Klingons' effect on the Maquis wasn't overly pronounced -- e.g. a couple ships with children were killed in the crossfire -- the Maquis, as terrorists and pragmatists, would have still been willing to take weapons to attack Cardassia.
RStretton - Mon, Apr 9, 2012 - 6:28pm (USA Central)
I'm really beginning to disagree regularly with your reviews Jammer which is a real shame as I enjoy reading them. This is for me one of the best episodes of this season. I'm not sure how you could give the utter tripe that was Shattered Mirror a better score.

I do agree that this should have been more thoroughly handled (perhaps with a two parter) and we should have seen more of Eddington's motives however given the time constraints of a single episode I felt this was about as good as DS9 ever managed.

The Maquis were always one of the better adversaries and they were handled rather poorly by the show especially given the Federation's embarrassingly one-sided approach to them which frankly left me rooting for the Maquis and not Sisko. They have justifiable grievances which have not been settled and should be fought for. I don't see it as a Holy War type scenario but people fighting for their right to exist.

One annoying typical Trekkian inconsistency in this show was the freighter. So the Federation is shipping these huge industrial replicators able to get whole economies back on their feet and what were they to be transported in - a freighter the size of the Defiant. Why can these shows never match the effects to the story?
Eduardo - Tue, Aug 21, 2012 - 10:18am (USA Central)
@jammer

Little bit of correction:

In the review, you referred to the actor playing Eddington as Kenneth Biller, a ST-Voyager writer/producer. His actual name is Kenneth Marshall.
Arachnea - Tue, Nov 20, 2012 - 10:26am (USA Central)
The biggest problem about the Maquis is this:

The inhabitants of the DMZ were no longer Federation Citizens once the treaty was signed. They are in Cardassian space, thus making them a "Cardassian problem". The Federation claims to not interfere in internal affairs.
But they left starfleet officers in the colonies and they obviously want to take the Maquis down, thus interfering. And in this episode, being a Maquis smuggler seems to be a higher offense than other smugglers.

What I mean to say is, it was ok for the Bajorans to be terrorists, but it's not for the Maquis. In french, we say "2 poids, 2 mesures". I really don't like the way the Maquis/Federation has been written. And I'm not saying that the way the Maquis is handling things is the right one, it's just badly thought.

Having that in mind, this episode wasn't so bad (except for the "I'll get you because you made a fool of me" Sisko speech).
Kotas - Wed, Oct 23, 2013 - 6:12pm (USA Central)

I dislike Yates, but this was a decent episode.

6/10
eastwest101 - Mon, Nov 4, 2013 - 4:24pm (USA Central)
I thought this was one of the better episodes of the season, the twist was well done but the B-story was a little weak.
Dusty - Tue, Feb 18, 2014 - 6:57am (USA Central)
This one was a lot better than I expected. Sisko is put in an impossible position, and the subliminal conversation between him and Kasidy is chilling. Collaborating with the Maquis was the best thing that could happen to her. If nothing else, it made her interesting. Eddington's betrayal was also a surprise,and his conversation with Sisko was memorable. This episode was a much needed reminder that the Maquis are not going away.

As for the Garak/Ziyal subplot, when did Ziyal suddenly get 5 years older? I guess they needed a different actress but they could have found a younger one. I loved Kira's warning to Garak. I'd be afraid of her too.
Vylora - Tue, Feb 25, 2014 - 2:23am (USA Central)
Despite some personal disagreements, I do actually care for the plight of the Maquis and what they're going through up to this point. The story told in the earlier DS9 eps about them were well done. It really does suck for them and it's not JUST about the Maquis either. Their are civilians in that situation, too, that probably feel trapped. Their IS reason for sympathy. But some of the things the Maquis do push too far based on what got them there in the first place. And some of the actions by certain sympathizers make no sense in that regard. Eddington in this case is way too sudden and forced whereas Yates makes sense. Ro Laren in TNG's "Preemptive Strike" made sense. I like the IDEA of Eddington joining, but there has to be some sort of build up to it. Or at least portrayed better than what was here.

I fully realize watching these stories that there's a big difference between Bajorans fighting back during the occupation and the what the Maquis are doing. Bajor was oppressed by a brutal regime. The civilians were terrorized and beyond worse in some cases. Their planet, their home, was being razed and strip-mined in places.

The planets in the demilitarized zone were chosen by these people to be colonized knowing full well that they were, or had the potential to be, contested. They started building lives there, yes, but then the treaty came and they refused to move. I don't get that, but people aren't perfect. People that have the ability to move near a semi-active volcano shouldn't do so. But some do because they love the area for one reason or another. Not the best analogy but it's close enough methinks. It doesn't give Cardassians the right to be assholes about it, though, and of course it would be great if different decisions were made on their part. But it is what it is and up to this point the civilians are not having fun to say the least. They felt abandoned by the Federation and so began the Maquis. It's a mix of good intentions and bad decisions and all the vice versa's thereof.

"It's easy to be a saint in paradise" indeed.

This episode on the whole was good but suffered from not being a two-parter. I say that because I see some genuinely great ideas here. A few worked but needed more time and one fell flat on its face (Eddington) and especially needed more time. And they could've kept the lightweight Garak/Ziyal thread.

2.5 stars seems right...maybe a guarded 3 stars for me just because their was so much potential here.
Toraya - Thu, Mar 13, 2014 - 9:28am (USA Central)
Guess I am the only one who likes the new Ziyal? I liked the previous version too, but the character was played very much as a naive ingenue - OK for a guest star but boring in a recurring character.

Given what we'd been shown of her previously, I utterly expected her to fall for Garak and end up gazing at him with big puppydog eyes while Kira did a mama-bear act. The writers' decision to give Ziyal a stronger character was a pleasant surprise. Her future relationship with Garak, Kira, and Dukat could prove interesting - as she is not necessarily going to comply with what each of them wants from her.

Submit a comment

Above, type the last name of the captain on Star Trek: TNG
Notify me about new comments on this page
Hide my e-mail on my post

Season Index

Copyright © 1994-2014, Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of any review or article on this site is prohibited. Star Trek (in all its myriad forms), Battlestar Galactica, and Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc., NBC Universal, and Tribune Entertainment, respectively. This site is in no way affiliated with or authorized by any of those companies. | Copyright & Disclaimer