#Now that we got the perspectives of 'why Starfleet and Picards friends think this relationship is not good for Picard' covered I am going

[yourbuerokrat2]

havent stopped thinking about q's biggest relationship problem being strafleet/people who care about picard. like on one hand its gotta be frustrating for q but worse for picard bc these are the people he trusts and sure picard is usually sure of his choices and sticks to his guns but people whos opinion you value doubting you and being concerned has got to take its toll. and that would def cause friction in their relationship w/ q's only option would really be to make nice w picards friends and that would just be. a disaster. but it would also be really funny and kinda like a scott pilgrim situation where instead of battling exes hes gotta prove he has good intentions. first opponent starfleet, then picards main crew, and finally guinan.

I think if Picard started something with Q after ST:TNG the reactions would not be that negative or sceptical because there is evidence that Q actually cares about Picard (saved his life twice) and that he also lends a helping hand in The Trial.

But anything before Tapestry? Especially after Amanda, where the TNG crew has become aware that Qs can cause someone to become attractad/fall in love with them and that apparently to Q it was not much of a big deal? After all, Data could point out in his usual neutral way, all Q would have to do is increase a few of Picards hormones when he is around like testosterone, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin and vasopressin. Something everyone who is aware of what Q is would be done with a snap of his fingers.

And even though this is an interesting dark scenario, I don't see Q doing something like this.

But can you blame others thinking that Q might do that?

So, this is something I like thinking about as well, so there is quite a rant:

Imagine you are a higher up in Starfleet, more of a pencil-pusher but you are stil respected and have a good amount of power. And then you hear the rumors. That the entity known as Q, the one whose file you have only briefly read through on one occassion after you had been informed about The Trial Humanity was seemingly put on by the Q Continuum. And let's be honest, especially on paper reading that someone who could possibly be put on death-row has started a relationship, and a romantic one at that, with the very Judge of the Trial and on whose opinion not only that persons but also most everyone that person values life depends on, doesn't sound exactly healthy, does it? Add to that Q being the one who introduced the Enterprise to the Borg (and I highly doubt a lot of people agree that Q had wanted to 'help' them in some way and there is also the bad sidetaste that Q throwing the Enterprise at the Borg and then snapping them back was what had caused the Borg Collective to get interested in Picard and you can't deny that (whatever his intentions may have been) Q is at least partially responsible for Locutus), reading a file about how Q had put some of Picards crew in a game with Death Penalty Boxes... and you get what I am saying.

Janeway and Sisko are well.. Janeway and Sisko. But I can actually see some in Starfleet recognizing and treating Q for the very real threat that he is especially if they never met Q and have a lot more safer jobs/positions.

Add to that having actually met Captain Jean-Luc Picard a few times via video meetings or in personal. A bit awkward if you try to make small talk and talk about personal lifes but generally very professional, has a bit of a proverbial stick up his arse and not exactly someone you can even imagine would so much as willingly be in the same room as someone who could very much consider blowing up a solar system as something fun.

With the crew, there would be a bit of a nuance considering most of them actually met Q. Again, the earlier in TNG the more questionable this relationship looks.

Riker: Riker at one point seemed more amused by Qs presence than anything. But then again, he was the one who had suddenly fallen in love/become attracted to Amanda not entirely out of his own accord, which would make him at least just a tad bit suspicious of the Captain telling him about having started something with Q. Also Riker is a bit of a mother hen when it comes to Picard and with Q he can't do anything to help his captain if something goes wrong. Q decides he wants to kidnapp Picard to somewhere more 'fun' or just doesn't want to 'share' Picard with his crew anymore? Well, the Captain is now gone and the Enterprise will never be able to contact him or find him again. Remember the Shuttle Craft scene?

Worf: Worf hates Q. Q in Worfs eyes is incredibly dishonourable and if it's after Deja Q in Worfs opinion they should have killed him when they had the chance. He would totally belief that Q brain/hormonedwashed or in some other form manipulated the Captain into this. Whatever Qs intentions with the Captain are Worf doesn't think they are good. Probably something despicable.

Beverly: Own personal, difficult feelings aside, when she pictures Jean-Luc with anyone besides herself it's usually someone.. a lot nicer. And kinder. less of a nuissance and a potential threat. And someone who would not have turned her into a dog. Her opinion of Q is not as bad as Worfs, but she probably doesn't see Q as someone capable of wanting a serious romantic relationship and uses her close friend more as a distraction/toy than anything. In her mind, Q is probably one hell of a selfish partner and considering her differences with Q because of Amanda probably would think that Q did at least something to the Captain.

Geordi: Well, Q did not exactly do a great impression on him the time he was a human, but Geordi has made friends with people he had been told were evil and his enemy. And he finds it somehow difficult to believe that someone who gave Data the ability to laugh is truelly evil. But he can't disagree that the Captains, to them, sudden feelings for Q are suspicious and that he thought that Captain Picard would ever go for someone who like Q personality wise. And godlike-entity-who-could-destroy-their-warp-core-with-a-snap-of-his-finger-wise.

Data: Data is more fascinated by this, not really understanding due to to the vast differences in species and previous recorded and documented meetings between Picard and Q he had made the conclusion that Q must at must be as fond of the Captain as one would be of a pet at most. So this was a rather interesting development. He trusts the Captain but Data is also aware of the possiblities Qs power might bring. Nevertheless (provided this is after Deja Q) from his own previous interactions with Q he can't see the entity actually do something bad or badly intentioned regarding them or their Captain.

Deanna: Hard to tell. If it's after Déja Q she had felt Qs emotions that time on the Bridge. And besides the terror she had felt quite a few different emotions coming the entity and so she could be very much aware of Qs 'interest' in the Captain. Wether she thinks that Q would have bad intentions (or perhaps better to say good intentions that due to the incredibly different nature of beings between Q and Picard could result into bad actions) or if he would go as far as manipulating Picards biology is debatable.

Guinan: She and Q must have had beef. And if you remember how Q was in the beginning of TNG and how careless he treated other peoples lifes, again the game and turned Tasha into ice and generally didn't seem to care about anything I can see a Q before Star Trek acting quite.. unfavourably towards other species. We never find out why Q2 complains how he regularly has to apologize because of things Q did and what Q did to the Calamarians. Her overall opinion of Q is pretty low. And she cares about Picard a lot.

Would you want your best friend to be with someone who you have heard and have seen treat others like toys and who seems indifferent at best towards the pain and suffering of others? To be in a relationship where the power dynamic is so utterly in the favour of someone you think to be quite dangerous and untrustworthy?

[paperwick]

This is my not spoiler free take on Picard.

This is a mess of a post, but I’m still trying to work through my thoughts. If I was still in college, I would watch the series one more time and write an essay, but we’ll have to settle for this stream of consciousness under the cut. (My apologies to mobile users). 

The main theme of Picard is about ‘killing for a cause’. It tries to explore this through several character’s arcs: primarily Soji, Sutra, Agnes Jirati, Seven of Nine, Rizzo, and Oh. (I don’t include Elnor because, though he kills for a cause, there’s no character development for him in this respect.)

There’s loosely a theme of “Should I kill to prevent more death/disaster?” vs “Should I kill so I might not be killed?”. 

I’m mostly gonna leave out Seven because her development on this is really non-existent, but the writers use her as a positive example of “killing to prevent more death/disaster” as a foil to Rizzo, Oh, and Agnes. I honestly feel this comparison is falsely equivalent, because Seven wasn’t wiping out an entire race or murdering an innocent man when she killed two very guilty murders. Is it right to kill murderers? Who knows, the show doesn’t REALLY touch on it so neither will we.

Here’s the scene: a faction of organics (Rizzo, Oh, Agnes) believe that synthetic life spells doom for all organic life and are seeking to destroy them. In response to total annihilation, the synthetics (Soji, Sutra) are willing to annihilate all of organic life to permanently remove the threat. Picard insists both are wrong and that there is always a more peaceful solution. 

It’s all pretty black and white, with very few grey areas of opinion. 

It drives me nuts because there’s so much ROOM in this to open up the conversation about the role of violence in independence and in survival. How far do you pursue peaceful solutions before it gives way to violence? What are the consequences of being peaceful too long? Is it ethical to use excessive force if it’s the only means to survive?

But they break it down into harshly black and white scenarios. “All life must die so that we might survive.” “If we fight back at all, we lose our humanity.” There’s no subtly, no real moral exploration. 

There’s room in the show to explore how killing might effect how events unfold. But every time it happens, it’s the dead-end of that storyline. Maddox had already told them all they needed to know, what further damage could he even do when Agnes killed him? Bjayzl was no longer a threat to them. Rizzo was no longer a pusher in the story, they’d both fulfilled her plot-purpose when Seven killed them.��

There’s room to explore how similar synthetic life is to organic life, in their humanity and morality, and lack there-of at times, in their will and desperation to survive. But we constantly come back to androids not being “real”. It’s always about their function, never really their humanity. The writing from all angles, throughout the season, is that synthetic life is somehow less real. Nonequivalent. And we never really touch on that either, it’s wildly frustrating.

So we have Sutra, who is willing to destroy all organic life to save her and her family, representing a hard extreme. Oh wants to destroy all synthetic life to protect organic life, representing the other extreme. And Picard is firmly in the middle, saying we can all live in peace and harmony. 

And that’s the end of the conversation. 

There’s a moment where Soji tells Picard that he can’t be the voice of synthetic life, and that was a great moment. The androids can take up their own cause instead of relying on a third party for protection.

But then the writers turn around and have Picard be that voice anyway, against their will, to prove that the peaceful solution is the better solution. And he has to because there’s no grey area in these moments. It’s “choose to kill literally everyone in the galaxy or choose to kill no one”. Where’s the “choose to fight the people who actively want us dead” part of the conversation?

In response to “how can the marginalized defend and empower themselves”, we’re told “make friends with less marginalized people.” But they aren’t even the operative force in that solution. It’s Picard alone. They don’t get to add their voices to the mix. It was all out of their hands to begin with. Starfleet walks in all deus ex machina because one man asks them to show up. 

When Agnes killed Maddox, their point was that she was doing it to save organic life. We never explore why she thinks it was the right thing to do. What was she afraid of him doing? He was already dying, his death was unnecessary, all we’re given is that she was haunted by the vision Oh thrust upon her. And then we spend the rest of the season redeeming her because she “felt bad about killing him” and was “out of her mind” when she did it. SURELY she had a reason for doing it at the time? Even a really bad one? Was she worried he’d created another synthetic lifeform? Was she worried he might be integral to helping the androids fight back? Fuck if I know, we never really touch on it. 

The most blow back Agnes gets from literal murder is a slap on the wrist from Picard and Dr. Soong. She was supposed to turn herself in, but that didn’t happen in the end. We pleasantly forget she killed a helpless man because she and the pilot are in love, and “she knows she was wrong”. 

As it stands, it was just an excuse to inject needless drama into the show. But there is a real and current need for us to talk about people ‘killing for a cause’. 

We see it in our own lives on the news and in our daily lives, and it’s a mind-fuck. 

How governments “root out terrorists” and kill innocent civilians in the process. They say “it saved more lives than we took”. Did it? There’s a conversation to be had there, and a necessary one if we want to continue to look ourselves in the eyes. 

When a foreign country arranges for another’s leading revolutionary to be assassinated, do they have the right to do that? No, but they seem to think so and encourage their population to believe so. There’s a conversation to be had there. 

When the government (Oh) instructs their citizens (Agnes) that this other peoples is dangerous and will be the death of them, and gently encourages their citizens to harass that other party, the citizens will take the law into their own hands. It’s wrong, but many people seem to think it’s appropriate. Whether it’s race, religion, nationality, populations are constantly being guided towards believing other peoples are a threat to themselves. And there’s a conversation to be had there. A dire one. 

Instead of developing a commentary about this senseless act of murder, the show focuses on redeeming Agnes’ character. She was “crazy” at the time, her mind filled with “poison” from Oh. Which in a way is true, people become brainwashed by those in authority and act horribly, but she never faces the consequences of her actions. She ultimately suffers no consequences for murdering a man. And she does very little to truly redeem herself. She saves Picard to save the androids. Everyone seems to go, “oh no, she spilled the milk” and gently clean it up for her. 

Do I want her burned at the stake? Not really, she did help them in the end, she did seem to have growth, but to get away scot-free is just an insult to the crime she committed. Maddox was denied justice. I think there could have been a real conversation about people coming back from getting “red-pilled”, but it’s hard to walk back on murder. 

Overall there was a frustrating lack of real commentary. The deeper conversation here might’ve been “How can we navigate and defend ourselves in a world where others seek to undermine and destroy us?” and “Does the government have the right to dictate who should live or die?”. The first one is the harder question but so necessary, with so much room to empower people. The second is very straight forward, but one that a lot of people are struggling with right now because of a warped perspective promoted by their government (at least in America). 

What we got was “total annihilation of any group is bad” and OF COURSE IT IS. I know we’re having an issue with people believing that again, but even so, the show did not really deliver that message super well either. The final note on it was “there’s a ‘peaceful’ solution to total annihilation, but really only if you have a defensive force equal to that trying to destroy you”. The androids didn’t have any real say in their defense other than “we decided not to kill everyone.” 

UGH, I could go on, but the message of the series is so muddled. I keep coming back around to how poor the writing is. How punchy and action-packed it wasted its time being, instead of really working through the core problems. Instead of making a strong statement. 

Star Trek to me is about challenging how you think/feel. It’s about opening our minds and encouraging us to be better than what we are. It hasn’t always hit the mark, there are dozens and dozens of episodes where they shoot themselves in the foot they were so off the mark, but the spirit of it is to challenge your given perceptions. Especially relevant to the time it’s being made. 

Give us more LGBT relationships other than 1 second of on-screen handholding in the final shot, and maybe write something that actually shakes people’s hearts and challenges what the general population takes for granted.