I dunno, I thought that it was fitting that Dukat became the Anti-Emissary. I do think it could've lasted longer than 2 minutes...
I think that's it- he's deluded enough to think a victim wanted it. I think with the willing submission though- he's willing to say the victim should've been willing after the fact. If they aren't willing, he's not disappointed.
Maybe a bigger set would have done the trick. It may have been nice to make the whole stuff about the evil book and Winn a big story on Bajor, with people choosing sides and Sisko as well as Dukat meeting up with followers in a huge cave for a final confrontation. Sisko shooting Orbs from a big ass gun dodging Dukat's fireballs, Kira coming to the rescue with the holy hand grenade from Opaka, blowing them PaghWraith dudes to shreds.
Yet we saw other Cardassians who were the product of the same society, who had entirely different individual personalities - not just Garak and Damar but Amon Marittza and Tkenny Ghemor. Dukat wasn't just a "victim" of Cardie acculturation. He was also an egomaniacal loon. There's one particular scene with Dukat and Kira in Sisko's office during the Occupation Arc that entirely convinced me that Dukat could be (and perhaps had been) a rapist. Man, that made my flesh crawl. You guys know what scene I'm talking about? And Kira was too much of a you-don't-scare-me hard-ass to sensibly just get the hell off the station asap. The tension between those two was unbearable because of the sense that their personalities would lead to an ugly incident. Very well written and well acted.
I have to wonder where you're getting this from, since we've never seen any of that happen, or be alluded to on screen. And he certainly had plenty of opportunities to outright rape various Bajoran women, without putting any effort into manipulation and seduction. It don't see how it makes sense to speculate that a character did things we've never seen on screen and that don't fit with the characterization and mode of behaviour that we did see him on screen.
Sure Dukat was a good guy... when it suited him. What proves he was evil is that he deliberately exploited shades of grey. He was a master of manipulating circumstances to make them look like he was actually a hero and the universe was out to get him, and anyone who thinks that he was a good guy clearly fell for it! As for Waltz (mentioned a few pages ago) it illustrates the truth behind his character. By that stage, he's been playing the game for so long that when he loses Ziyal he's endured the one defeat his psyche couldn't take and was not prepared for. Losing the battle for the alpha quadrant (as it was then perceived) was nothing, he always has counter plans, backups, failsafes etc. I don't buy the whole rapist thing. The rape card is something that is often thrown about by writers who want someone to seem evil to give them cheap heat. Dukat was no rapist, and how do I know? Because it doesn't fit with his game plan. He doesn't handle people not liking him well, and I think we all know what kind of reaction his victim would have post event. Final thoughts for anyone who thinks he's a good guy after the views expressed in this thread: Watch Covenant.... [spoilers for those who haven't seen it] a) he makes an active choice to follow the pagh-wraiths (make of that what you will *braces for a religion argument*), 2) he's the one that gets the Bajoran woman pregnant and then tries to convince everyone that he's not the father, 3) he attempts to kill every single member of his cult to protect his own interests and 4) he actually attempts to assassinate the woman he impregnated by throwing her out of the airlock. Season 7 poor writing? I think not, the episode was compelling and enjoyable, and underpinned what he has been like all along. ((Afterthought: He may not be a good guy, but he is a GREAT character))
^ No question at all about your last point, Tallis. Well, and actually I don't find much to disagree with on your other points either. Edit: I think it's possible he might be a rapist under certain circumstances - I mean, he just had no doubts about what a piece of perfection he was, did he? nor that just everybody was hot hot hot for him - but I don't see him as a serial rapist, either. It wouldn't fit in with his image of himself as Mr. Wonderful.
As I recall, in Wrongs Darker than Death or Night, he could have forced Kira the younger to whatever he wanted...but he didn't. He talked to her. And yes, he is an awesome character, Tallis. Certainly no argument there.
^ Agreed, but then most villains are... On the issue of Dukat the rapist I inclined to go with the hypnosis of Dukat maybe having a even darker side to his personalty and allowing his deep hatred of those who oppose him to come to the fore. His relationship with Kira Nerys is certainly creepy in all honestly, he kept a close watch on her as a child and almost came to see her as his property in a sense. (his reaction to finding out that Kira was in the Resistance is instructive).
Yeah, someone as cunning as Dukat wouldn't let a few non-corporeal weirdos keep him trapped. I really want more DS9 made Preferably with people on the writing staff who'd do Dukat justice. That quote about Dukat from an Ira Steven Behr interview a while back was really disappointing.
If you want to see what happened to Sisko I think his fate (in the novels) is explained in a DS9 relaunch called Unity...
Dude, he was the head of the Cardassian Occupation of a foreign world whom they had invaded and conquered. The Cardassians had no right to be on Bajor, and Dukat had no right to rule Bajor. You don't blame the victim for the aggressor's crimes. How on Earth can you possibly know what Olivia Woods's idea of characterization is if you haven't read the novel? What if she has a really good insight into Dukat, a really good reason to interpret him as a rapist, that you haven't thought of?
I would say that someone has every right to avoid a novel if the very premise is something they find too far fetched to accept. I personally find the concept too far fetched to be interested in pursuing it further, myself. I don't have to know the author's reasoning or rationale. If the premise itself is a no-go for you, you can pretty much bet on the rest of it not being enjoyable. If others want to go there, that's their prerogative.
I'm not contesting that; it has nothing to do with my post. My point was simply that the poster has no idea what kinds of characterization Woods's work consists of, and that one should not conclude that her characterization is cartoonish without having read it -- especially since there might be a good reason for it that the poster hasn't considered. If you don't want to read it, fine, but don't act like you know what's in the book when you haven't read the damn thing.
I think I have every right to avoid a novel based on what I have read about it from reliable sources. See, that's why reviews exist, and 'word of mouth' comes in handy. Unless a dozen or so people are lying, I know very well what Dukat is doing in the novel, and the movitation given for it, and I think it's more than enough to base the conclusion on. As for my comment that this seems to be like an instance of "this character is eeevil, so we can make him to any eeevil thing" characterization, the key word is seems. I never said that I am sure this is what it is, but it sure seems like that to me. I accept that I might be wrong and that the author has thought it all through and firmly believes that there are elements of characterization given in the show that support her intepretation, even though I would not agree. If I accepted your premise that "you can never dismiss something you haven't read/watched", I'd be like those people who watch every episode of a show they hate, so they could come to its fan forum and complain and analyze every episode of it in order to prove how much it sucks. And I'd be forced to watch or read every garbage in existence only to justify my right not to watch or read it because I think it's garbage. For instance, do I have the right to say that Big Brother is rubbish, without really having watched more than a few minutes here and there? No! One must watch it all the time, in order to form an opinion!
And I'm not contesting that. I'm saying you have no reason or ability to accurately characterize the manner in which an author engages writes its characters if you do not read it. If you don't want to read it, fine. But don't pretend that you know that the author's idea of characterization comes from a Dudley Do-Right cartoon when you haven't read the thing. You need to develop your reading comprehension skills, because I never began with that premise. I began with the premise of, "You do not know the quality of characterization in a novel you have not read" and from there reached the conclusion of, "You therefore should not draw conclusions about the quality of characterization in a novel you have not read." Or you could just not talk about something you dislike, or you could just not pretend to know the quality of writing in a novel you haven't read.
I think you need to develop your reading comprehesion skills, so you wouldn't miss the fact that I was not discussing the quality of the novel, but the characterization of a specific canon character from DS9; and this is not a thread about the quality of the novel "Fearful Symmetry", but is a thread about the characterization of Dukat in general, in which someone else brought up his characterization in the novel "Fearful Symmetry" as something to be taken as seriously as anything in the show - despite the fact that novels are not canon. Therefore, I was forced to comment on it. For all I know, the novel might be good, if you pretend that the character is an original creation and has nothing to do with the character we know from the show.
I didn't discuss the quality of the novel, either, I discussed the quality of characterization. Now, I haven't read Fearful Symmetry yet. I've heard what happens in it, but I have no opinion on the quality of the characterization of Dukat because I haven't read it. You haven't read it, either, yet instead of acknowledging that you do not know how good or bad the characterization of Dukat is, you insist on claiming you can accurately deduce that its characterization is equivalent to that of a children's cartoon. Tell me -- where does one get these psychic powers? I'm astonished. You don't know how good the characterization of Dukat is. I don't know how good the characterization of Dukat is. You may not agree with the creative choice, but that doesn't mean it isn't well-written and well-executed, nor does it mean that your interpretation of Dukat is any more valid than someone else's. If you disagree with the choice, fair enough. If you disagree with other interpretations, fair enough. Don't read the book. But don't pretend that your interpretation is the only one that's valid and that a novel that has a different interpretation must therefore be poorly-characterized. 1. You were not forced to comment on anything. It was your choice to comment on Fearful Symmetry (which you haven't read). 2. The fact that the novels are not canon does not mean that they cannot be taken seriously, because "canon" is a meaningless label. Being canonical only means that non-canonical works cannot contradict you. A non-canonical work runs the risk of being contradicted by later canonical works -- but that is also true of other canonical works, which are often contradicted by later canon. A prime example of how a canonical work is no safer from contradiction than a non-canonical work would be the TOS episode "The Alternate Factor," which established that if anti-matter and matter ever interacted, it would blow up the universe, but which was contradicted by later TOS and Trek episodes in which m/a-m interaction was what powered the warp drive. If that is so, then why the claim that the "author's idea of characterization seems to be 'well, he's eeevil, so he'll do all sorts of eeevil things, right?'" She has a different interpretation of Dukat than you do. You disagree with it. That's fine. That doesn't mean that her idea of characterization is as two-dimensional and thoughtless as you characterized it.
Maybe it's not thoughtless or 2-D but as another party to this discussion I'd say that portraying Dukat as a rapist is in poor taste, and I refer you to the "cheap heat" reference I made earlier on. If he was a rapist, why didn't he rape Kira Meru when she turned him down? And if Non-canon doesn't contradict canon, then I think there's enough evidence to show here that Dukat isn't a rapist from the events represented in DS9 (where, I might add, we never see the whole story so I cannot prove he's not a rapist). I just think that from any perspective or angle, for any reason, he doesn't need that aspect to his character to be considered "eeeeeeevil", it's a device used too often by authors in general (in my opinion) to make people have a visceral reaction to a character that needs extra fleshing out for them to be hated. Having Dukat be a rapist would weaken him as a character and compromise parts of his personality needlessly. In my opinion.
First off, I'm not convinced that he didn't rape Meru. Let's get real, here -- she was a "comfort woman." She was a sex slave in all but name. Any Cardassian who had a comfort woman was arguably raping her. It's like Chris Rock once said about the media talking about the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. "People keep saying they had an affair. Bullshit, 'an affair.' You're having sex with a woman who can't say, 'No?' That's not an affair. That's rape." Secondly, not every rapist rapes every woman he possibly could. That Dukat arguably did not rape Meru -- and I question how consensual their relationship really could have been, when Meru was part of a conquered and occupied people who was forced into being a comfort woman and who knew that refusal to submit to the Cardassians' demands meant potential death for her and her family -- does not say anything about his overall character. And I think that there isn't enough evidence to show that Dukat is not a rapist. Indeed, several other posters have noted scenes from the TV series that they interpreted as having an underlying threat of sexual violence from Dukat. Obviously, then, the novels are not beholden to any one person's interpretation of the canon. The author was free to interpret Dukat as a rapist, and CBS, the owners of Star Trek, did not object to that interpretation as being a violation of canon when they approved the novel. Having not read Fearful Symmetry, I can't say whether or not the Dukat rape subplot exists as a device used to make the audience have a visceral reaction against Dukat in order to make them hate him, or if it's something that flows naturally from his depraved ethos. But I would caution against simply assuming that it's done purely for the sake of making the audience see Dukat as being "eeeeeevil." And in my opinion, the concept of Dukat as a rapist is entirely consistent with his personality -- indeed, his entire goal in life is rape writ large. He wants to rape Bajor, and he wants Bajor to love him for it. He wants absolute power over Bajor and wants the Bajorans to adore him for hurting them. And that's just what I take from episodes like "Waltz." And, as I noted above, I already think Dukat was guilty of rape every time he engaged in a sexual act with a "comfort woman," because I do not believe that the comfort women truly consented. So, for me, the idea of Dukat as a rapist is entirely consistent with the canon and with his character. It's frankly something I already thought of him as.