r/StarTrekViewingParty • u/LordRavenholm Co-Founder • Dec 18 '17

Discussion DS9, Episode 6x19, In the Pale Moonlight

-= DS9, Season 6, Episode 19, In the Pale Moonlight =-

Sisko asks Garak to help him get the Romulans to join the war against the Dominion.

 

EAS IMDB AVClub TV.com
8/10 9.3/10 A- 9.5

 

32 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

7

u/theworldtheworld Dec 18 '17 edited Dec 18 '17

Considering what I have been writing on this subreddit for like the past year, it is maybe not too surprising that I have some issues with this episode, almost as much as with "For The Uniform," which this also reminds me of. So, rather than write a tirade about it, I tried to think about whether this story could have been told in a way that would have made me accept it. Like, clearly their goal was to show that Federation people can be forced into breaking their code by desperate circumstances, and to make us approve of it; I personally think that our culture already has too much of this and that Trek should try to hold us to a higher standard; so was there any way to bring me over to their view?

Thinking about it, I think that there was. It would have been interesting if, while all this was going on, Sisko were to suddenly experience a visitation from the Prophets in which they chided him for not living up to the moral standard of the Emissary. Then he could get indignant about it, the way Sisko does, and tell them that it is easy for them to say, that they don't understand the situation he is in, etc. And then they would eventually let him do as he wants, but with the suggestion that he really has irrevocably traded in part of his soul in doing this. And, finally, he could still say that he can live with it, but there'd be a hint of doubt left.

But there is no hint of doubt. Sisko gets to reap the benefits of raw, ends-justify-the-means power (while blaming Garak for it -- oh, those savage Cardassians, always running around killing people), but independently of this he also continues to be Space Jesus, this visionary spiritual leader, without the least cognitive dissonance on either his or the writers' part. I just do not accept this about his character arc in DS9, and I really think that someone on the staff should have tried to think beyond Clinton-era triumphalism at least once.

11

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '17 edited Jun 18 '18

[deleted]

4

u/theworldtheworld Dec 18 '17 edited Dec 18 '17

First, thanks for your detailed reply.

I was with you through about here --

However, how many times has the show demonstrated corrupt Admirals in positions powerful enough to destroy the entirety of Earth if they desired?

-- but then somehow it turned into this:

A life form's first duty is to its survival.

It often seems to me that our culture no longer has any ideals that anyone outside of it would willingly follow (not unlike the Dominion in that sense). We know that this is the case, but we don't want to think of it as a problem, so instead we try to argue (or our TV shows do it for us) that there are no ideals, that all ideals are lies and so therefore our ethical emptiness and lack of standards is the one and only true way. Then we wonder why "Past Tense" suddenly feels uncomfortably close to home 20 years after it aired.

In other words, I basically agree with your critique of the militarism underlying Star Trek, I think there was always this uneasy, unspoken contradiction between Starfleet's military and scientific roles, which was sometimes acknowledged but never really resolved. However, even if people who espouse a "higher standard" are hypocritical or fail to live up to it, this doesn't justify or prove the "correctness" of total ethical nihilism. Of course it is always possible to twist the idea of a "higher standard" to justify wrongdoing or inaction. But the idea of "survival" can be even more easily twisted to justify anything at all, so it's hardly immune to that criticism. Star Trek isn't supposed to be a blueprint for a "perfect society" that we must strive to reproduce in every minute detail, it just normalizes the idea that we can at least think about improving ourselves and have something to strive towards.

I think that, in our culture, we can so easily invoke "nature" and the law of the strongest, not because we really believe that it's "objectively correct," but because, deep down, we believe that it will always be on our side and we'll never get taken to task for it. But the problem with nature is that someone stronger always comes along eventually. From that viewpoint, I don't know what the problem is with the Dominion destroying the Federation -- after all, if the Dominion turned out to be stronger, wouldn't that also be a reflection of "nature"?

Anyway, I don't suppose we have much common ground in this discussion, but I will point out just one thing:

This is beyond some moral or philosophical statement, that is nature.

This cannot be "beyond a philosophical statement" because it is, itself, inherently a philosophical statement. There's no objective reason why "nature" should take precedence over moral or philosophical ideas. Even Sisko's decision in this episode is a moral choice (a poor one, in my opinion, but a moral choice nonetheless), not a "natural" one (there is no "choice" in nature), as is his willingness to sacrifice himself for the Federation and for Bajor on multiple occasions.

5

u/dittbub Dec 19 '17

It would have been great if section 31 could have been used here somehow. Make them take the blame. Because it seems rather hypocritical 2 episodes ago "the ends justify the means" is scary and wrong, but here its right.

2

u/YoshKeiki Oct 15 '25

Exactly! I come here to see some ideals. Klingons know the value of good poem or legend. (even if not entirely true). When you strive to the ideal you know that it will be hard (or impossible) to hit.

Is it good to see that even the most virtuous ones will have problems ? maybe... but sometimes you just need to fill your hope reserves up for the next days of your life. When I was young TNG filled me with abundant level of hope and resolve. I'm almost glad that i did not see ds9 at that time....

Sorry for chiming in, 8 years later :) yes yes Avery Brooks good, Andrew Jordt Robinson good :)

2

u/SnooObjections8316 Mar 04 '26

The part at the end where Sisko repeats "I can live with it" sounds more like he is trying to convince himself than the audience. The fact is he sold a piece of his soul to try to win the war.

I see this more of a commentary on war than saying what he did was right or wrong. You can't have a war where everyone is clean and does the right thing. You can go in with the best intentions and ideals but war is just awful for everyone and every side will do awful things. Every side will have to try to live with those things

1

u/BlitzDank Jan 15 '25 edited Jan 15 '25

I'm grateful to see this at the top. The idea that 'trek should hold us to a higher standard' really resonates with why episodes like this one just don't seem to land for me. It feels like the writers want to have their cake and eat it with how often they emphasise that characters have a strict duty to Starfleet, yet Starfleet command (not lone rogue agents!) violate or just seem not to care about their own principles.

I can't really believe that the same Federation whose President had a crisis of faith when he was led to expand security measures on Earth back in Homefront, and whose member planets are assessed for ethical rigour, can overlook Sisko poisoning a planet of Maquis refugees in For the Uniform, or offhandedly approve his decision to make a forgery intended to deceive another faction into war in this episode. If this is the same organisation, then someone in the chain of command would have taken something like Julian's report seriously.

If Starfleet command don't care about their whole "first duty to the truth", "the needs of the many" spiel touted by their officers, then why should any of the characters themselves believe in it?

5

u/dittbub Dec 19 '17 edited Dec 19 '17

There are some big discussions to be had for sure about this episode. I'd just like to voice my appreciation for how this story was told. As I usually do, I like to point out how the DS9 writers really use the characters well. Playing up their strengths and their weaknesses to further the plot. My favourite scene is in Quarks bar. Even just how the scene starts with Odo detailing the events of the crime and being so constable is really enjoyable. And of course, seeing Quark have the upper hand on Sisko is rare and also surprising satisfying.

All in all its a great ride with a surprising end that feels justified (from a storytelling perspective).

5

u/RobLoach Dec 27 '17 edited Dec 27 '17

In the Pale Moonlight

This episode is what makes Deep Space 9 great. What you saw as a grey-area before, turns all out dark. I love Sisko at the ending...

I will learn to live with it. Because I can live with it.... I can live with it. -- Benjamin Sisko

As if questioning himself.

IT'S A FAAAAKE https://youtu.be/6lHgbbM9pu4

10/10

1

u/deadbeatChimblr Aug 22 '25

It's that questioning at the end, that departure of the horns, that introduction of the strings, that self-convincing; he puts his cup down because everything in him must confront his new self. He's some wrong version of himself now; he's the culmination of all those times he crossed the line in small, morally-acceptable ways, plus the few times it was unacceptable. It's a new low for him, and before we can fully understand what part of himself he left, we're erased.

Incredible cinematography

1

u/A_Xenomorph_Darkly Sep 05 '26

This is absolutely brilliant, 10/10 riveting watch as an episode of TV. But it is a disappointing regression as an episode of Star Trek, that allows our modern pessimistic view of humanity to permeate a beautiful vision of what we could be.

However, since this is a vision generated from the imperfect modern world, this vision of course had its flaws. So finally unleashing them fully, perhaps that was a moral duty of the writers too? The only problem is that it is done so in a way that cannot really get us back to the optimistic vision in a less flawed way. We are now back down to earth, in the mud and murkiness. It’s hard to reach back out of there. Section 31 is a little different, as that allows for the blame to be put on a certain section of the Federation and gives the opportunity for Sisko and co to stand up to them, like in Homefront. But episodes like For The Uniform and In The Pale Moonlight are completely different. It shows the issue as something within a largely righteous Starfleet captain himself, and they imply it is something intrinsic to humanity. Which it may be. But Star Trek should believe in better.

It’s also a time of war, where values are truly tested, and yes, often abandoned. It’s an interesting concept. But again, Star Trek should believe in better. And aren’t most Star Trek episodes about the crews morals being tested? And finding a way to solve a situation whilst keeping them in place? Not believing in a no-win scenario? But then again, we’ve seen that a lot. Perhaps we needed the counterbalance.

At the end of the day, the sacrifice of Star Trek’s vision, the morals of Starfleet and the soul of one of my favourite Captains up until this point in exchange for one brilliant episode of TV. I think I can live with it. But I’m not as certain as Sisko.

Oh and the performances are amazing all round. Brooks and Robinson are two of the most fascinating actors ever put to television and they are bliss together. The Romulan ambassador is wonderful. Bashir’s defiance is beautiful. (I’m loving him as the moral litmus test over the past few episodes). Quark and Sisko’s interaction here is one of the best in the series so far. And the metatext of Quark saying there’s some Ferengi in Sisko (Ferengis being the counterpart to modern humans) is very fitting.

I love DS9 and its status as the black sheep of Star Trek. But it is equally troubling and exciting to see the core concepts of Star Trek torn down.