I’m by no means a comic geek. Most of my exposure to these franchises has been through film and television. Admittedly, it’s been many years since I actually watched one of the Superman films, and I don’t think that I’ve made much effort to watch Superman Returns.

As a kid, I think the only Superman comics I read were the Death of Superman series, back in 1993. The fall of Superman made him more than just vulnerable. At the time, this seemed shocking, that the impervious hero could be brought down.

Setting aside for the moment, whether the back story of Bruce Wayne witnessing his parents’ murder, or Peter Parker feeling responsible for the murder of his uncle, is felt deeper than the destruction of some distant homeland, lets consider some of the attributes of these heroes.

Superman is an alien being. Outwardly human, and with an all-American heartland upbringing, there is little about his appearance to set him aside as someone different. Yet he is stronger and faster than mere mortals. Generally invulnerable to anything, except Kryptonite. Superman’s defence of Truth, Justice, and the American Way has a saccharine quality, too good to be true.

There’s no fundamental conflict in his character. There are no moral choices that define his character. In the first Superman movie, when Lois Lane dies because Superman fails to stop a missile from setting off an earthquake, he goes back in time to save her. Talk about a missed opportunity for character development. Why should I feel for any of his choices when he can apparently just call for a do-over?

This is in fact the exact choice they made in The Dark Knight film. Batman is offered a choice: save District Attorney Harvey Dent, or save his love interest Rachel Dawes. Batman makes the opposite choice that Superman made: save the girl. The twist is that the Joker switched the locations: in choosing to save Rachel, he instead saves Dent. This is what character development is made of. Even though he made the arguably selfish choice, he still loses. More to the point, he also loses the moral high ground.

I’m reading The Dark Knight Returns, written and drawn by Frank Miller. This series is highly influential, and when published in 1986, reshaped the perception of Batman, probably in ways which colour my view of superheroes today. But the seeds of Batman’s character were planted long before.

Batman is driven by his obsession: avenging his parent’s death. He’s a crime fighter, but it’s driven by vengeance. Superman is a crime fighter too, I suppose, but he stands for virtue and cultural values. Superman fights for what is right. Batman fights because it feels right.

The origin stories of our heroes are all different, and this is where the current controversy comes from. The earlier versions of Superman’s origins are that his home world of Krypton was destroyed, and he was the last survivor, sent as an infant to Earth.

There are rumoured changes to Superman’s origin story in the new film, where Krypton still exists, and that Superman’s exile to Earth is for some other reason. Some folks at io9 suggest that this will alter Superman’s character in a rather fundamental way. I would tend to agree with the pageofreviews which instead suggests that this actually makes his character more interesting.

Finally, we get a choice. Why does Superman stay on Earth, when he could return to Krypton? Why should Krypton matter? Is Superman in exile any more interesting than Superman the infant refugee? Can we sow some seeds of discord into Superman’s origin? Can Superman still inspire us if he has internal conflict? I think so, and it might just restore some humanity to the Man of Steel.

Recently, I read Gail Carriger’s Parasol Protectorate novels, starting with Soulless. The novels are a mix of Victorian paranormal mystery fashion and romance. There are bustles and décolletage, vampires and werewolves, zeppelins and robotic octopi.

The general setting is Victorian England, in a time where paranormals, such as vampires and werewolves, play an important role in society, even serving as advisors to the Crown. It’s an interesting premise, but really starts to wear thin before the end of the series.

The series follows Alexia Tarabotti, a preternatural whose soulless nature renders supernatural creatures temporarily mortal, merely through touch. She of course has close friendships with both sets of immortals, the rogue vampire Akeldama, as well as the werewolf Lord Maccon. Alexia herself is, perhaps due to her lack of a soul, overly fashion conscious. A lack of natural creativity leads her to a series of social rules. It’s hard to explain, but works out well in the novels. Just think about how often George RR Martin goes into excessive detail about battles, lineages, or day-long feasts, and apply that to Victorian fashion accessories, pastries, and fancy hats.

As the series progresses, Carriger builds upon the back story, gently teasing out some longer term plot elements. While the last novel finally manages to bring things to a close, on an upbeat note, some of the middle novels really start to drag on. In particular, Heartless lived up to its name, being considerably less enjoyable than the other novels.

Thankfully, Timeless was worth trudging through the earlier novels. Once again the wit was clever, and the plot twists interesting, once again on par with the amusements of Soulless.

Carriger creates some very amusing characters, and often their interactions are much more entertaining than the plot they’re supposedly supporting. Her characterization is a strength, although all the talk about fashionable frippery can get a little old.

• Soulless: 4/5 stars
• Changeless: 3/5 stars
• Blameless: 3/5 stars
• Heartless: 2/5 stars
• Timeless: 4/5 stars

Soulless was a fun read. It felt witty, and had a unique tone. The remaining books are worthwhile, especially the concluding book, Timeless. If you’ve made it to Heartless, push on. You’re almost there.

There were fewer tracks of programming this year, which was helpful. This reduced the heavy load on the elevators from last year, and made panel decisions easier.

Panels scheduled in the smaller rooms on the lower level were a real problem for me, as the rooms seem designed to devour sound. There are no microphones or speakers, and the panelists tend to be soft spoken. I had to bail on one panel because the sounds of people in the hall were far louder than the people at the front of the room.

Book launches and readings

Book launches are always fun to attend. This year, I attended a reading by Kitchener author Suzanne Church. Suzanne read a piece from her upcoming anthology Elements, as well as a few chicken stories that the anthology editor decided didn’t fit with the anthology. They were amusing, but don’t match the tone of the rest of her work. They would probably fit in with an anthology of Derek Künsken’s stories though… He’s written about monkey assassins and clown farts lately. Which, now that I’ve mentioned it, is going to draw some strange searches to my site.

Speaking of Derek, there was also a Bundoran Press launch party for the digital editions of the Blood and Water anthology (review forthcoming), as well as one of Matthew Johnson‘s stories. A number of authors read selections from their stories in Blood and Water, including Stephanie Bedwell-Grime, Ryan McFadden, Kate Heartfield, Douglas Smith, Derek Kunsken and Julie E. Czerneda.

Julie E. Czerneda also had a reading from her new novel A Turn of Light. Something which I will have to pick up the ebook for shortly.

I didn’t attend the reading from Robert J Sawyer‘s Red Planet Blues. He will be in Kitchener later this month, when he’s not competing against other panels.

Doctor Who

Wandering the floors of the convention, I turned a corner and almost ran into a life-size Dalek. Thankfully, it did not try and exterminate me. Later in the night, there was a group showing of the night’s episode of Doctor Who: The Rings of Akhaten. A number of Whovians were in costume (mainly the fourth and seventh Doctors), and sonic screwdrivers were waved at the projector to resolve technical issues.

The Dealer’s Room

I spent more time in the dealer’s room this year, as I was helping out at the Bundoran Press table. Sitting next to the ChiZine table was fun. Brett Savory has a sharp wit, as does the rest of the CZP posse.

This was also the first year where I didn’t walk out of the dealer’s room with a backpack full of books. Since I started using my Kobo Glo at Christmas, I have read mostly ebooks. This decision was difficult at the con. Some new releases from authors for whom I have their entire backlist signed. This was a struggle between the collector, and the reader. For now, the reader has won.

Panels

I did manage to attend a number of panels, although not as many as previous years. Ad Astra has become more of a social event for me, catching up with friends from the Internet.

Alternate realities

This was a fun panel, and I wish that I had taken more comprehensive notes.
There was some good advice, including suggestions to look outside the traditional Western European history. Post colonialism at work.

Building an audience

This was a solo lecture featuring Rob Sawyer. A few people bailed when they realized it wasn’t a discussion between multiple panelists. There is of course a difference between a discussion and a lecture.

For the most part, Rob’s advice makes sense. You’re not trying to sell a particular book or story to everyone. Just like a particular story won’t be right for a given editor, a story can also not be right for a particular reader.

Rob instead advised the audience to sell a brand: yourself. It’s more of a soft-sale technique, where through exposure to your brand, and a continues, personal interaction, fans will buy your books. Some of the folks in the dealer’s room should have been here. Some vendors were trying the hard-sale.

How to write high fantasy

While I’m not trying to write high fantasy, I found the panel on this topic entertaining. Some good perspectives by K.W. Ramsey, Catherine Fitzsimmons, Gregory A. Wilson, and Marie Bilodeau. It did end up going a little off topic, when the panelists started discussing ways to create believable female characters with real motivations.

How do you know it’s done

This panel included Stephanie Bedwell-Grime, Gabrielle Harbowy, Marie Bilodeau, and Douglas Smith. It was a really good discussion of the merits an limitations of Heinlein’s third rule of writing, limiting the endless editing of finished work. It was really quite fun to see Gabrielle and Marie joking with each other. This is what a really good editor/author relationship is like.

I’m going to come back to this topic in a later post, after I’ve had time to organize my notes.

Space propulsion

As interesting as this topic is, without a story driving particular research on my part, I really didn’t get much from this panel. Escape velocity requires expensive thrust, and can’t be nuclear. When in orbit, interplanetary transfers can be fast and expensive (major talk about nuclear options) or slow and efficient for non-human transport. Some interesting facts about solar sails. The guys on this panel would be great people to query with particular story questions. It’s all really great information, it’s just not very useful to me now.

The parties

Photo courtesy of James Bambury

While waiting for the parties to start up, I met up with Adam Shaftoe, James Bambury (who does not yet have telekinetic powers while drinking), Beverly Bambury and David Lamb for an Aliens board game. It was pretty epic. Shaftoe in particular had some awesome moments, even if the acid splash from the Alien caused someone else to fall down the elevator shaft.

The ChiZine party has an epic event. Just like the TARDIS, it must be bigger on the inside, judging by the number of people there. I bet the Doctor has stronger air conditioning though, although perhaps not as free-flowing of a bar.

The lead story, “FishWish”, is a great opening piece. Originally published in Weird Tales in 2011, it takes the standard three wishes tale in an unexpected direction, plumbing the depths of unfulfilled desires.

Also rather Dickian is “The Inner City”, from which the collection derives its name. A hidden power of distrust and chaos lies just beneath the surface of reality, directing the lives of others. Kind of reminiscent of The Adjustment Bureau, only with a much darker spin.

“Down on the Farm” touches on genetic manipulation, with a dark undercurrent. It’s a rather uncomfortable story, dipping into several unsavoury topics.

“The Escape Artist” explores the relationship with fear. Does one run from fear, or confront it? And if we face our fear, is it to overcome, or to welcome the cold embrace?

Perhaps less disturbing than some of the other stories, “The Large People” is a story with ecological concerns. Ecology tends to take a longer view on things.

“Creating Cow” has clear parallels with Frankenstein, but in this case, the creature has far fewer redeeming characteristics. I wouldn’t recommend reading this one right before lunch.

“The Difficulties of Evolution” is another little gem, which looks to our sense of humanity. The ending was quite appropriate.

There aren’t any duds in this collection, although some didn’t challenge my sense of reality as much as others. It’s a well constructed collection which follows a common theme. If you’re familiar with ChiZine, this should match your expectations.

Disclaimer: I received an advance eBook copy for review from ChiZine Publications. 

Dust jacket for Clementine, illustrated by Jon Foster

Clementine is a novella. It’s shorter than your average novel, and has a relatively straightforward plot.
There are two main characters, Croggon Hainey, an airship pirate, and Maria “Belle” Boyd, a former Confederate spy turned Pinkerton agent.

Both plots converge rapidly, as they focus on the safety and recovery of a stolen airship, the Free Crow from Boneshaker, renamed Clementine, and its cargo.
While Clementine, unlike Boneshaker and Dreadnought, doesn’t have any zombies, there are other fantastical elements at play, including a super weapon with the power to destroy a city and end the decades long civil war. While the technology at play is different from the nuclear bombs which devastated Japan to end World War II, the intent is clearly the same.

The novella is fast paced, with large portions of the book occurring in airships. We get a strong sense of style in Clementine. It’s a fast paced world, with America in a long Civil War. In term of the Clockwork Century books, Clementine is not as isolated as Boneshaker, nor is it as integrated as Dreadnought. Clementine attempts to navigate in a mostly apolitical sphere. While Belle is a former Confederate spy, she works for the Pinkertons, under contract to the Union. It’s a grey area, just as her sympathies remain Confederate grey. We don’t really get to see much of the world in this book; we instead see snapshots of cities as the characters pass through. The world building depth is strongly hinted at, but not extensively explored in this novella.

As for Hainey? His motivation in the story is to reclaim the Free Crow, a symbol of his escape from slavery in the South. While his narrative isn’t quite as intriguing as is Belle’s, it complements her plot quite nicely. The two plots and viewpoint characters are well balanced. It’s dynamic, and enhances the fast plot progression. This addresses the problems with Boneshaker’s unbalanced viewpoint characters, while adding more complexity than the single protagonist in Dreadnought.

Perhaps the greatest weakness in the story is the shorter length. Clementine is half as long as either Boneshaker or Dreadnought. Cherie Priest’s writing is fast paced, leading me to read her books quickly. Sadly, this means that the book is over far too soon. This is balanced by the price of the ebook. Clementine is good value. There are also other novels released in the Clockwork Century series, which means that the story isn’t necessarily over yet.

Here, we get the best scene in the episode, as a dying prisoner grips Bashir by the throat, demanding that he be saved.

He’s not dead, Jim.

There are some decent plot misdirections in the episode. Once we discover that Vantika transferred his consciousness to a new host, we are left guessing as to who. Possible suspects include the new Starfleet security officer, Primmin, the Kobliad security officer Kajada, and finally, our man Bashir. While the clue was of course in the opening scene, it’s interesting to look at some of the reasons the other characters were likely candidates.

First, Kajada could have been Vantika all along, before Bashir and Kira rescued her. With the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde split personality in place, the idea of a security officer fighting to find a hidden personality would be interesting. She would have become the thing she hates the most. This could have turned out to be a more interesting twist, but it doesn’t offer as much character development for Bashir.

The other main candidate would be Primmin. As a new crew member, and a Starfleet security officer to boot. Just give him a red shirt and he’s toast. Wisely, the writers avoid this route, and instead use Primmin as a foil for Odo.

Primmin

This episode introduced a new Starfleet security officer, Lieutenant Primmin, supposedly to oversee the security details of some important cargo shipments. This of course adds tension in Odo’s role as the chief of security on the station. Primmin comes across as a close minded, by the books security officer. He’s not well adapted to running security on a space station, where the free flow of trade is essential. He’s openly dismissive of Odo, as a non-Starfleet local. While his opinion changes over the episode, Primmin doesn’t really endear himself to the viewers.

Perhaps he’s been introduced to remind us why we love O’Brien so much?

Handling interpersonal conflicts is an important part of team building, which is based on good, open communication. There is little evidence that Primmin is ready for any kind of command role, as he lacks understanding and empathy with “outsiders”.

A meeting of the Senior staff. Perhaps discussing Primmin’s performance?

How do you best inject a new character into a television show? I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t use this as an example.

The question of motive

One major issue I have with the plot is that of motive. Kajada explains that Vantika was attempting to steal a shipment of some special ore used to prolong life among the Kobliad. This motivation seems to fall apart once Vantika’s consciousness has been transferred. If it can’t directly prolong his life, why is he still trying to hijack the shipment? It doesn’t really speak very well of someone who has cheated death so many times.

Never underestimate the power of light and shadows.

Although I must say, Bashir’s ego does seem to suit Vantika. It’s probably best not to read too much into this though. While he looks much more dangerous like this, his speech patterns are.. how shall we say? Reminiscent of Shatner.

A most disturbing act

However, the biggest shock of this episode is in the final scene. When Kajada receives custody of the prisoner–now a collection of information on a Petri dish–she draws a weapon and disintegrates it in front of Sisko, Dax, and Bashir. While Sisko appears somewhat disturbed by this, Dax and Bashir remain expressionless.

Terminating with extreme prejudice.

While Vantika’s biological body died at the beginning of the episode, there has been substantial evidence throughout the episode that his consciousness remains alive in this status chamber. Should we not then consider this the cold-blooded murder of a prisoner in custody? That the only reaction is a relatively minor reaction from Sisko is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the episode, especially when we consider Dax’s situation.

As a joined Trill, Dax has relevant experience: after the biological death of the host, the memories and experiences are transferred at the next Trill joining. While in the case of Trills, this is a symbiotic joining, while with Bashir and Vantika, we see a very forceful control being exerted.

In the end, I’m not sure what is more concerning: that the main cast doesn’t see this action as an issue, or that the writers themselves didn’t consider this worth discussing further, especially as so much time in TNG was spent determining whether Data was an autonomous being worthy of rights and freedoms, or whether he was merely “property”.

The Passenger first aired February 21, 1993. Teleplay by Morgan Gendel, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, and Michael Piller. Story by Morgan Gendel. Directed by Paul Lynch.

Finding the right fit

I have a great mentor, who knows many aspects of the code base. While he’s always willing to help, I like to reserve my questions for the tough questions. I’ve often found that when asking a colleague about a problem directly, I often wait until they’re at my desk before I rephrase the problem, and make that elusive link between what I think I know, and what the code is hiding. In other words, I can usually figure it out on my own, but I end up explaining it to someone else first.

While this is good, as I’ve solved the problem, and I’ve shown how my thinking works, this isn’t an interview situation where explaining how I think is important. Sometimes, the person I want to ask is away from their desk. They could be in a meeting, or out for lunch. These questions never seem to come at convenient times.

Here are a few techniques you can use to solve these kinds of problems before you pull a colleague over for a talk.

1. Summarize the problem in writing. Be specific. This should be a careful analysis of the problem, clearly showing the state of the system, what you’re expecting to see, and what you are seeing. Extrapolate if needed.
2. Search the code history. Have any recent changes in the system affected this? Use the blame annotations provided by your version control tool. Perhaps you’re hitting an edge case that wasn’t properly accounted for in recent changes. Watch and see how the function has changed over time. Are all the assumptions still valid?
3. From this summary, search the web with any key terms. With some luck, someone else has experienced this problem before, and you can learn what they tried.
4. Search Stack Overflow. Many companies now host an internal version, which has information on internal software. These obviously won’t be indexed by Google, and they’re often rebranded. Hopefully there’s something relevant.
5. Post your problem to your Stack Overflow site if appropriate. Ensure that you include the written summary from step 1, as well as the results from steps 2-4.
6. Send your mentor an email with the link to the Stack Overflow post.
7. Finally, it’s best to follow-up with your question, marking the best answer as accepted. Follow up with a comment for anyone who was particularly helpful. Ensure that others who find your question at a later date can also solve the problem.

There’s a set of clear benefits to following a path such as this to solving your problem.

• Help others solve the same problem at a later date.
• Showcase your thinking process for your peers.
• Highlight inefficiencies in the code base. Pain points like this can help target debt reduction strategies.

There are other ways to solve problems like these, but this is an effective strategy in helping not only yourself, but also your organization.

Dax is stoic under pressure

The episode is named “Dax” as it’s the first episode that really explores Jadzia Dax’s past lives, and the symbiotic relationships that Trills have with their hosts. While we learn a great deal about Trills in this episode, particularly about Dax, many further questions are raised, as the A.V. Club review has noted. This isn’t a bad thing though. These are valuable story hooks, allowing for further character development and plot hooks for later episodes. Always leave your audience looking for more.

This a great episode on a number of points. It explores a philosophical question about a “perfect” crime, as well as examining issues of identity, loyalty and friendship. Who is Jadzia Dax, and in what ways is she different from Sisko’s old friend, Curzon? Even as Sisko is working to connect his friendship with Curzon to that of Jadzia, this episode works both to complicate and simplify matters.

The major plot is that Curzon Dax was one of a very few people who could have sent a transmission to an enemy of the Klaestronians, committing treason and betraying his close friend, a general who was killed and posthumously made a national hero. Some thirty years later, his son is persecuting Jadzia Dax for the supposed crimes of her former host.

No one likes a fanatic

Dax is of course innocent. The general himself colluded with the enemy, who betrayed and killed him. Dax has an alibi as well: the General’s wife. Rather than risk her reputation, and the heroic status awarded posthumously to the general, Dax holds her peace, ready to accept responsibility for the betrayal: extradition to a planet which has the death penalty.

Death normally isn’t final for a Trill, as when the symbiont is transferred to a new host, it brings all memories along with it. In this case, however, it is the Dax symbiont in particular that is being prosecuted, and would then suffer a final death.

It’s interesting to see that to remain true to her vow of silence regarding her relationship with the general’s wife, Dax essentially denies her friendship with Sisko, stating the Sisko was Curzon’s friend. Sisko, in turn, defends Jadzia Dax as a separate entity from Curzon.

Sisko talks to Jadzia about the claims of treason

When Bashir testifies about how Jadzia’s brainwaves are different from that of Curzon, thus showing that they are separate people. In the cross-examination, Bashir reluctantly admits that there is no evidence that the symbiont’s individual brainwaves altered appreciably from Curzon to Jadzia. Curiously, no mention was made to whether Jadzia’s brainwaves were altered during the joining. The audience learns of her many accomplishments of her own accord, prior to being joined with the symbiont, but we don’t get a feel for how she was changed by this irreversible change. How much of her personality is due to the symbiont? Jadzia is very self-assured, extremely confident, and willing to sacrifice her own life for her principles.

Sisko, however, approaches the case with a particular result in mind, and directs his team to find the “correct” answer, although he admits to wanting to know of any incorrect answers as well. An interesting nuance.

Odo discusses some new building code violations that have come to his attention

Speaking of personal principles, there are some good personal performances by Quark and Odo. The extradition hearing needs a location, and with a little prompting from Odo, Quark “offers” his bar for the location. It’s a small scene, but this relationship is built upon small scenes. Quark, as always, wants any concessions he makes a goodwill gesture, in spite of any coercion.

Quark is not really gracious

Dax is a very philosophical episode. While much of the case focuses on technicalities, such as whether Jadzia Dax is or isn’t the “person” who committed treason, it is in the end a moot point, as Dax has an alibi. We entirely sidestep any question of whether the Federation should allow extradition to a government that has a death penalty, a reminder that Star Trek exists in a world formed by ideologies in the USA.

Dax first aired on February 14, 1993. Teleplay by D.C. Fontana & Peter Allan Fields. Story by Peter Allan Fields. Directed by David Carson.

Spoilers, sweetie!

The last several episodes of Doctor Who have really played up the departure of Amy Pond and Rory Williams from Doctor Who. We’ve all known their departure was imminent, which is one of the reasons why their arguments in the episode Asylum of the Daleks (a worthwhile review by Adam Shaftoe) seemed needlessly angsty. Since that particular low point in their relationship, we’ve been introduced to Rory’s dad, Brian.

Parents of the Doctor’s companions has become a staple in the series since it’s reincarnation by Russel T Davies. Brian’s very much like Wilfrid Mott, Donna’s grandfather, in a number of ways. They’re kind souls, who understand the sense of adventure the Doctor brings.

When the Angels Take Manhattan ended, Amy and Rory were sent back to the past, where they lived out their lives in New York. It’s a bittersweet ending for them, and entirely appropriate for the way their relationship has been running over the past several episodes. The Power of Three really emphasized their dual life.

The ending of the episode included a letter from Amy to the Doctor, giving her final goodbyes, as through some sort of timey wimey mumbo jumbo, the Doctor is unable to travel back to save them in New York.

Afterword, by Amelia Williams. Hello, old friend, and here we are. You and me, on the last page. By the time you read these words, Rory and I will be long gone, so know that we lived well, and were very happy. And, above all else, know that we will love you, always. Sometimes, I do worry about you though; I think, once we’re gone, you won’t be coming back here for a long while, and you might be alone, which you should never be. Don’t be alone, Doctor.

And do one more thing for me: there’s a little girl, waiting in a garden; she’s going to wait a long while, so she is going to need a lot of hope. Go to her. Tell her a story. Tell her that, if she’s patient, the days are coming that she’ll never forget. Tell her she’ll go to sea and fight pirates, she’ll fall in love with a man who’ll wait two thousand years to keep her safe. Tell her she’ll give hope to the greatest painter who ever lived, and save a whale in outer space.

Tell her: This is the story of Amelia Pond – and this, is how it ends.

While this is quite touching, and brings Amy’s journey with the Doctor full-circle, we are now left with Rory’s relationship with his father, Brian, a man recently introduced to viewers within the past several episodes. The official episode leaves him out in the cold, presumably watering the plants forever, waiting for Rory and Amy to come home to him.

Well, it turns out that the writers hadn’t forgotten about Brian, as the BBC has recently released a scene where Rory’s fate is revealed to his father. It was never shot, so is filled out by storyboard renders.

Does this give closure for Rory’s dad? I can understand the narrative desire to focus on Amy’s story with the Doctor, but it seems rather callous to introduce a character, and then leave him in the dark about his family’s ultimate fate.

The Angels Take Manhattan first aired September 29th, 2012. It was written by Steven Moffat, and directed by Nick Hurran. The episode was produced by Marcus Wilson. Rory’s postscript was written by Chris Chibnall, who also wrote the other recent episodes with Brian Williams, including Power of Three and Dinosaurs on a Spaceship.

Q just doesn’t seem himself in this episode.

The episode begins with Bashir framing his Starfleet medical exams in terms of a great battle, while attempting to woo a Bajoran woman. Bashir mentions at this point that he was the salutatorian, and not the valedictorian of his class, having made a mistake awash in techno-babble of post-something, pre-something that sounds the same. As “brilliant” as Bashir assures us he is, and as full of self-assured bravado, this seems an unlikely mistake for him to have made. It’s a little seed of a story to be examined further in later episodes.

Sisko’s encounter with Q in Quark’s is entirely framed within the relationship Q had with Picard; Q acts as the aggressor, presenting Sisko with the opportunity to show the baser instincts of humanity. Where Picard – ever the statesman – would refuse to react, Sisko doesn’t hold back, and hits Q back. While this may be effective in characterizing Sisko, it is once again compared to Picard. It really comes across as a cheap tactic, and not nearly as effective as doing something different.

Yes, Sisko would hit an omnipotent being with a moustache.

More to the point, aside from this brief encounter with Sisko, Q seems rather disinterested in anyone other than Vash, whom Q had convinced to run away to explore the galaxy in the TNG episode “Qpid”. Q is quick to play the martyr, unjustly accused for threatening to tear the station apart, but fails to offer any suggestions or aid in solving the problem. This could be seen as part of his test for humanity. If they can’t solve a little problem like this, why should humanity be allowed to spread like a disease across the galaxy?

Yet the crew is eager to blame Q, rather than ask him in humility if he was responsible. I do have the feeling that if he was asked, Q would answer honestly (the nickname “God of Lies” does tend to be misinterpreted).

Q’s motivations in this episode are completely out of character. It’s difficult to believe that Q would be so enamoured of his companion that he would spend so much effort keeping her around. From what we’ve seen in TNG, he is far more… inconstant. Q is like a child with new toys. He’s always interested in new ones, but quickly loses interest. Aside from his promise to Picard in Qpid to keep Vash safe, there is little to suggest that Q wouldn’t just abandon Vash somewhere when he encounters something shiny.

We’re supposed to believe that Q’s motivations are Vash? Just not buying it.

There are some other comparisons to be made with “Encounter at Farpoint”, as the source of this anomaly turns out to be a embryonic life form which turns into a space-borne alien. Aside from being the source of the danger threatening the station, it’s essentially a MacGuffin.

The MacGuffin.

Vash’s subplot involves selling artifacts from the Gamma quadrant through Quark. While there are some amusing interactions here, the Ferengi susceptibility to people massaging their ear lobes seems a rather obvious evolutionary flaw. This practice was first introduced in the TNG episodee “Ménage à Troi”. Despite Quark’s inability to resist Vash, he shows the Ferengi business sense when running the auction, cutting short the lectures on the items for sale, distilling them to “Friends, it’s rare, it’s beautiful, and it’s a gamma quadrant original, and it can be yours for the right price.” While he’s not a brilliant orator, he knows his customer base well.

Although Q’s motives don’t match my expectations, it’s easy to forget this, and just watch John de Lancie. He’s a brilliant actor, and he’s quite good at portraying Q. It’s just sad to see his character and his acting wasted on an episode that could have been so much better, had they focused on Q’s normal behaviour. I would have loved to see Q’s character developed further, or at least seen some real tests of the DS9 crew. But as John de Lancie notes in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, “Q is best used when he deals with large philosophical issues. And skirt-chasing just isn’t one of them”.

Q-Less first aired February 7, 1993. Teleplay by Robert Hewitt Wolfe. Story by Hannah Louise Shearer. Directed by Paul Lynch.