^ Except that what he did according to the show was consistant with his character and his motives. What he does in that novel, is not. I have already explained in detail why it is not, others have done it, too. I don't need to repeat myself, and if you haven't already understood my points, repeating them won't help. Which pretty much amounts to "I've already thought of his as evil, so I can see him doing any kind of evil thing", i.e. the laziest possible character analysis without any attempt of insight into character motivation and psychology. Thank you for proving my point.
I understood your arguments just fine. I disagreed with them. Um, no. I didn't just view him as "evil so there's no need to think about why he does something" -- I literally already thought of him as a rapist. I already viewed rape as being the sort of thing that a character like him would do, because I have always interpreted him as being a sociopathic, racist, and, yes, sexually violent imperialist. This is the guy who presided over the occupation of Bajor for decades. Do you understand how violent, how power-mad, how sociopathic a person has to be to preside over the occupation of an oppressed foreign culture? I'm not sure why it is that you have decided to equate that with "no attempt of insight into character motivation and psychology," but, hey, if writing off anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of a fictional character as being lazy and unwilling to think about character analysis gets your rocks off, so be it. Meanwhile, those of us who aren't convinced that our interpretations of the character are the only valid ones will recognize that a disagreement over a character does not equate to someone else not thinking something through.
he wasn't a GOOD guy, LOL. but he wasn't "pure evil", either. that's only in Ira Behr's head. I believe Behr was jealous of what appeared to be Alaimo's growing popularity. at one point during the show, Dukat was proving to be more popular than any of the regular characters, even Sisko. so, poof, he became a caricature instead of the character he used to be. and I guess that's where it stayed.
That's really not very different from saying "I thought of him as evil, so I think he'll do evil things". Just replace "evil" with more sophisticated terms like "sociopathic" or "sexually violent", and there you are. The key to writing a character in-character is to consider their motivations, not what label you have stuck on them. Why would Dukat Spoiler: Fearful Symmetry keep a Cardassian woman as drugged-up prisoner and repeatedly rape her, because she looks like Kira Nerys ? What is he supposedly getting out of this? How does that feed his ego? Why would be even be interested in doing that? Is he getting the illusion that she loves him? Or that he is a hero, that she should be grateful to him? Does it mean that he's managed to break her spirit, made her accept him and submit to him? No. And no amount of self-delusion Dukat has shown, and no amount of delusion a sane person could have, could make it seem so. In order to believe that, he'd need to be certifiably insane. Dukat has only become deranged in season 6 - the individual we saw in the first 5 seasons was sane and intelligent. And there is no way you could convincingly make him certifiably insane during the Bajoran occupation (and I don't know why you would want to do that, unless you want to relieve him of responsability for the things he did). Garak is a murderer. But he's murdered people, and would murder people, in order to achieve a goal, to fulfill a scheme, or to survive. You could as well write a story or novel in which he, in a sane state of mind, kills someone just because they pissed him off by looking at him the wrong way in Quark's bar, and then say "I have already thought of him as a sociopath and a murderer". Only it wouldn't make sense and it would be out of character.
And what exactly makes you think that I haven't thought deeper about why he's sociopathic or sexually violent? What makes you think that using those labels is automatically equivalent to thoughtlessness or two-dimensional thinking? There are, after all, real people like that. The Idi Amins, Adolf Hitlers, Dick Cheneys, Jorge Rafael Videlas, and Augusto Pinochets of the world. That I don't write a five-page essay about Dukat's motivations does not mean that I haven't given it consideration. Which does not preclude other people from applying a label to those motivations upon evaluating them. As I am not Olivia Woods, and as I am not writing Dukat, but evaluating whether or not I think the concept of Dukat imprisoning and raping someone is, in theory, consistent with his canonical characterization, there's nothing inappropriate -- or thoughtless -- about drawing such conclusions. I do not know, because I have not read the book. Nor am I willing to draw conclusions without reading the book. You don't know that, because you haven't read the book. And that's your interpretation of the character, and that's fine. But it doesn't make other interpretations wrong, and it doesn't automatically mean that someone who proceeds from a different -- and apparently darker -- interpretation of Dukat is engaging in bad or two-dimensional writing. Further, you are now trying to argue that your interpretation is the "correct" one, which is irrelevant to the charge of whether or not Woods's characterization of Dukat lacked depth. Indulging in your digression from the primary issue: I thoroughly disagree with your premise that only someone certifiably insane would commit the crimes Dukat is described as doing. Sane people can commit horrible, horrible crimes. Frankly, the crime you describe in the spoiler is far less evil than the acts of mass murder, slavery, and genocide for which Dukat was canonically responsible in the series -- and you certainly haven't claimed he must have been insane to be Prefect of Bajor. Spoiler: Fearful Symmetry And, further, given how fixated Dukat was on gaining sexual and emotional power over Nerys in the series, I don't find the idea of his keeping a Nerys doopleganger imprisoned and raping her to be out of character. Further indulging in your digression -- though perhaps also bringing it back to the point at hand -- perhaps if you were to read Fearful Symmetry instead of dismissing it out of hand, you would discover that Woods has believably portrayed a Dukat who is not certifiably insane as he commits his crimes, and who is therefore not "eeeeeevil" with a capital E, but is a three-dimensional, yet dark and twisted, character.
Your post seems rather strongly to claim that for Dukat to have done the things Fearful Symmetry describes him as doing, he would have had to get certain kinds of psychological gratification from them and that, in order to get such gratification, Dukat would have had to have been certifiably insane. You then argued that he was not insane prior to Season Six of DS9. Your conclusion therefore seemed to be that the Dukat character in Fearful Symmetry was inconsistent with the canonical depiction of the character, because he was not insane prior to Season Six and could therefore not have committed the crime he is depicted as committing in the novel. As I said in your quoted portion, I disagree strongly with your premise that in order to gain the kinds of psychological satisfaction you described, Dukat would have had to have been certifiably insane. ETA: And none of that has anything to do with the fact that you do not know the details of how Dukat is depicted in Fearful Symmetry and therefore have no capacity to judge it as being poorly-written.
Then you probably need to watch the episode again. That's actually a fair point, you've got me on that one. I'm not going to argue with that, he does want to rape Bajor and have them love him for it, but despite the use of the same word it's not the same thing. I'm specifically talking sexual violence, which I don't think we can prove one way or the other in the end. It comes down to individual takes I suppose. I don't see him as a rapist for the simple reason that he could actually have had Kira sedated forcibly and taken her off to his quarters while he was on the station under Dominion rule. There would have been backlash probably, but if he really wanted to do it he could have. He seems to much prefer breaking people's wills and convincing them to love him so that they do consent. By the quote you posted I'll admit that arguably you could call that rape in the long term, but I don't honetly think he'd force the issue because it would, for him, be akin to admitting defeat in his favourite pursuit - playing mind games.
Exactly. You may not think Dukat is the type to engage in an act of rape. I do. Both interpretations are fine. My only objection is in claiming that someone who proceeds from a different interpretation is engaging in poor characterization without reading it. If someone had written a novel in which Dukat was depicted as being the type who would never engage in an act of rape, I wouldn't just assume it's poor or inconsistent writing simply because I disagree with their interpretation of the character. I'd read it first and then decide what I think of its execution.
Wow this thread got even more and more ridiculous as it went on. Now Dukat is supposedly a rapist? That's an utterly disgusting idea and far worse of a character assasination than what Behr did to him in the show. There is absolutely no way that Dukat would ever have raped anyone. Comfort women have the choice to say no, and also have the choice to choose to be comfort women or not in the first place. There is absolutely no rape involved with being a comfort woman.
I don't need to read that novel to justify my interpretation of the character. I seem to recall you saying you hadn't read it either, so aren't we just both drawing conclusions from the knowledge we have? Either way I'm prepared to agree to disagree. I also think that being a comfort woman, which was clearly demonstrated in Wrongs Darker than Death or Night as not being something you could make a choice over (cf. Kira Nerys in her AU guise having to take care of that drunken Cardassian from Quark's), and if they did make the choice they're putting themself in the ideal position to be raped...
Prior to his character assasination in Waltz, the series showed him doing his best to make Bajorans' lives better and take care of them. Heck, he even went out of his way not to kill the rebels with the station defense system as shown in Civil Defense. There are other examples too, like when he hired Odo so that he could save the lives of many random Bajorans who other Cardassians would want executed in order to solve the crime. He wanted to be appreciated for helping to improve the conditions of the Bajorans' lives, not for hurting them. The comfort women episode makes it quite clear that they consented, especially Kira's mother, who not only consented but also loved Dukat because he was a good guy.
I didn't say you did. I said that you have to read the novel to accurately evaluate its content, and that your interpretation of the character is not necessarily definitive. In other words, I said that you can't claim that the novel's characterization is bad just because it doesn't follow your interpretation of the character.
No kidding, Navaros' post reminds me of the Uncyclopedia entry for Dukat. Did you write it, by any chance? I'd like to hope that, because Dukat's "justifications" were completely loony. Yes, PRE-"Sacrifice of Angels." Plus, unless Navaros simply does not know what a comfort woman is, and where the term comes from (read Wikipedia's article--very instructive) then to suggest that it's not rape is borderline trolling, in my opinion.
Navaros, you have NO idea what you're talking about. You not only need to look up, as Nerys Ghemor suggests, the definition of "comfort women," you need to look up the definition of "choice" and "consent." Whatever Kira's mother felt for Dukat, that doesn't mean she "chose" to be a comfort woman. You have totally creeped me out. And I'm not kidding.
Before I say anything else, I would like to point this out, the bolded part in particular. And note that this is Ron Moore: And as far as the comfort women thing...I agree with you, JustKate. Indeed, as I recall, Kira's mother and the others were basically dragged away with the impression that it'd be healthier for their families if they didn't resist.
Devil Eyes, i generally agree with your overall interpretation of Dukat as being driven by a deep, twisted narcissism, vanity and sense of entitlement rather a pure, one-dimensional "eeevil" upon which one could superimpose any type of behavior. But guess what: that same sense of delusional self-adoration, need for affirmation and sense entitlemnt - itself a noted kind of psychosis, though within Cardassia, perhaps, a respectable one - can lead people to unspeakable, thuggishly brutal acts such as rape and other kinds of sexual exploitation. I know that a lot of time we as viewers, and Trek itself, uses Nazism as its reference point for its narratives of occupation, oppression, genocide, inhuman political actions, etc. But i'd like to reference something closer to home and the American experience than the German Nazism: American chattel slavery and post-emancipation defacto segregation. I'd imagine you are aware that many, many slaveholders sired children through their female slaves. That women and girls were routinely raped and/or made proto "comfort women". That many were forced to raise or serve as nursemaids for the illegitimate children of slaveholders. This stuff was pretty much par for the course, and contrary, to the often reflexive anthropology employed among many liberal/rationalist types, these violators of women's bodies were not simply uneducated hicks and rednecks who were merely acting by impulse and a kind of wild-eyed non-thinking racism, but often wealthy, and well-heeled persons who were acting within accepted social mores of their particular society - even the mores accepted within "polite society" (one manifestation of this was that teenage sons of slaveholders were expected to "sow their wild oats" with slave girls and eventually, create offspring with them, although of course those offspring could never be treated like full children). Slavery was above else, a system of economic exploitation, one that mde many of its participants very, very wealthy. And the various rationales to the ongoing sexual exploitation of black females: not only that they were the property of their owners, yes, but also that by doing this, they were actually doing the slaves a kind of existential favor, since their were children would now have the "privilege" of having white blood, lighter skin, more caucasian hair and facial features, etc. In fact, just the fact that a white man touched the slaves and took sexual interest in them was supposed to be an unmitigated good, since of course white blood was inherently superior to that of blacks. Remember that during that time, there was a entire social, political, and historical paradigm that deemed blacks as not only subhuman, but also incapable of building and/or maintaining any kind of civilization or lasting achievements. Africans were deemed to have the an intellectual, social and moral capacity as just about that of apes. Thus, slave women - as well as the men who watched as their wives and daughters were brutalized, kidnapped and made, umm, comfort women - were deemed as fortunate to have to have their captors take interest in them, and "purify" their "inferior" blood. Of course, whenever these kinds of behaviors are deeply integrated into any kind of cultural landscape, those who have been victimized by that system can also become victimizers, and kind of perversely take on the logic of their oppressors, yet another variation of "Stockholm Syndrome". Thus, there became a fair number of black slaveholders, who were sometimes known to engage in the same practices as their white progenitors in that system. A good narrative telling of this phenomenon is in the novel and film "The Color Purple". In that fim (and obviously, the novel) the character played by Danny Glover ("Mister"), is pretty much, in most ways, a beast, though even HE is given some grey, some color to his character (and has what is in my opinion one of the most sublime and moving redemption for the character towards the end). Note that he treats the Whoopi Goldberg character ("Celie") in a perfunctory manner, there for his own use (though at times, the film shows that there can be a strange emotional connection and even functional alliance between the two); he verbally abuses and degrades the Oprah Winfrey character ("Sophia"), he flatters and lies to the Margaret Avery character ("Shug Avery") - and oh, he RAPES the Akosua Busia character ("Nettie", the younger sister of Celie). He also sires two of her children, and then sends her away. All the while, he's acting in ways that could be accepted in polite society, and in ways that were inherited tradition/ritual in the South during that time. Cardassia, anyone? I've also known someone like this in my own family - my grandfather. He was born and reared in the South - and most definitely inherited many of the worst inclinations of his society. He was a philanderer: as with many women from her generation, black and white, my grandmother was forced to tolerate his various extramarital "affairs" and wanderings. He was something of a pedophile - targeting pubescent girls as soon as they started umm, "blooming". He could be verbally cruel - he would target enemies and opposers, perceived and otherwise, with a high degree of vitriol and viciuousness, so as to reduce them to tears. And oh yes, he was a rapist - though not of the "hide-in-the-bushes-and-wait-to-the woman-is-home-alone" sort. No, he was what was known as an acquaintance rapist, often using charm and charisma and emotional manipulation to cause his prey to be trusting, or at least feel "safe" with him before he performed his despicable acts. Dukat, anyone? Yet, according to many who knew him (including one of his past "conquests") he was also given to exceptional charisma, wit and often, an uncanny ability to navigate and make the most of various social, political and military circles (among, other things he was a decorated WWII vet). He was fairly well-spoken, and, even within the racist circles he often encountered, was often able to obtain positions of influence and acclaim within his community and some social organizations. Heck, he was even given to organizing all kinds of "good works" for the communities in which he lived, organizing block parties and gift giveaways to the various children within the community, who would then, along with their grateful families of course, shower him with adoration and affirmation. Sound like anyone? Know what else? Both my mother and her sister have said that he NEVER touched them sexually and was, in many ways, a loving, protective father, though his actions against their mother and others (he could have a vicious temper) certainly created a lot of emotional instability which even today has had residual effects. And my mom told me that she knew that he would go postal if anyone had ever laid a hand a hand on her or my aunt - and in fact once almost killed a man who attempted to do just that. And despite their despising of the things he had done, my mom and her sister (along with my three uncles) most certainly loved their father. He was, after all, their father. Ziyal, anyone? So you see in my relative, in the "Mister" character and even the slaveholders (most of whom confessed Christianity, a faith which most definitely did NOT advocate or promote cruelty and sexual exploitation of slaves, contrary to some very uninformed opinions around these parts), a range of behaviors, characteristics, value systems and justifications driving their actions, both good and evil. But this ability to demonstrate "grey" behaviors clearly did not preclude them from the enforcement oof their greater power over vulnerable through violent sexual means - otherwise known as rape. I think one mistake you're making in your assessment is in assuming that any suggestion that Dukat could be a rapist is a simplistic, lack-of-grey analysis, when in fact, the fictional and real-life examples that I gave demonstrate that an ability to engage in demonstrably evil behaviors does not preclude "non-evil" behaviors, such as generosity, kindness, and paternal love (of course, one of Dukat's most defining characteristics was that even his good behaviors were calibrated to be for his benefit and self-celebration) I also thinking you may be assuming that we're assuming scenarios of Dukat as a common thug, the kind who makes the front page of the daily paper, when in fact we're all aware of his Machiavellian, function-at-the-upper-echelons-of-Cardassia and the AQ characterization. Of course, the Kennedys are/were arguably the first family of American politics, and have had tremendous influence in the worlds of law, government, economics, and social organizations (The Peace Corps, Job Corps, The Special Olympics, etc) - but they've also had within their ranks quite a few philanderers, drunks, scoundrels, and, according to some, thieves, "negligent manslaughterers", and rapists. So bad, even inhumane behavior don't have to be common thuggery to truly be criminal. So yes, Dukat COULD clearly be a rapist.
OldManDax, you just said everything that I wanted to say, and you said it far more eloquently than I ever could have hoped to. Bravo.