Why I Like Short Stories

I love short stories. I know some people don't like them because there isn't enough character development, or subplots, or there's not enough time to get involved in the story, or whatever. I think a well-written short story can be brilliant and very entertaining. I also like to occasionally be able to consume a story in a short chunk of time rather than starting three different novels or something like that.

I've never really understood the inherent hostility toward the short form writing. Sure, they're not to everybody's taste, but the amount of venom in this Wet Asphalt post just boggles my mind. Some of my favourite authors have both novels and short stories to their credit, and some of them (Robert Reed, for example) clearly love the craft of writing a good, focused short story. I don't buy the attitude that those who write short stories are slumming or marketing whores keeping their names out in the public, or anything like that.

Those are extreme examples of criticism, though. What about those who just don't like reading them?

Short stories can make you think as a reader. Some people don't like that, of course. They want everything handed to them on a platter with no real nuance. This attempt to engage readers' minds can result in some great stories that end rather ambiguously, forcing the reader to make up his/her own mind about what the story might have meant.

You can't do that in a novel. If a 550-page novel ends on an ambiguous note, I would probably feel cheated unless it was extraordinarily well-done. A short story, though? One that may take 20-30 minutes to read? I'm a bit more forgiving. I may not like how the story ended, but I don't feel robbed of my time once I have finished.

The short story allows for far more experimentation in tone and style as well. Sure, there are varying degrees of success or failure in these experiments. Again, if it fails, you haven't invested huge amounts of time and energy in the story. This can allow writers to do all sorts of things with (and to) their characters, knowing that the character may never come back.

One of my favourite short stories is "Story Kit" by Kij Johnson (published in Eclipse Four, edited by Jonathan Strahan), and I really didn't like it when I started reading it. It starts talking about six different story types (as stated by author Damon Knight) and explores a female writer trying to craft a story about Dido (from the Aeneid). Interspersed with this is the writer's attempts to deal with the failure of her marriage. One becomes a metaphor for the other, and by the end of the story you're really engaged with the writer's dilemma and heartache. It's a fascinating story, and I don't think the style would fit anything other than a short story.

What about the often-given reason for not liking short stories? The "just when I'm getting involved in the story, it ends" reasoning? I think that's looking at things the wrong way. No short story should leave the reader hanging so that they're "just getting involved" in it as the story draws to a conclusion. The narrative arc of the story should take the reader on the journey so that he/she doesn't even notice the length until it comes to its natural endpoint. If you're left "wanting more" because you feel the story is incomplete, then that's a failure on the writer's part. (As opposed to the reader wanting more of that author's work, which is actually a good thing)

How about the "I like to get involved in a story and the characters and a short story doesn't allow me to do that"? The craft of a short story is much different than a novel, and a good writer will pack enough characterization (even if it is done in shorthand) that you feel that you know the characters well enough for this not to be an issue. Yes, you won't get as much detail of the character's background if it's not important to the story, but I would argue that it's the same thing in a novel. Even with greater length, if it's not necessary for me to know that the main character likes tuna fish sandwiches, then I would hope the author wouldn't feel the need to tell me this.

Short stories don't allow quite the number of twists and turns that a novel can give, but they can still turn on a dime and surprise the reader. Many short stories do have a twist at the end, or at least a change in direction that comes at a shock to the reader. There are no subplots in a short story either, but that's beside the point of what a short story is.

One of the principle reasons I've always loved short stories, though, is the time element. I can read a story and then set the book down again if I want. I won't be stuck in the middle of a narrative. They make great reading for bus trips or something like that where your time is limited. I love novels too, but short stories make a perfect snack in between lengthy tomes, something satisfying to cleanse the pallet.

And you just might find yourself thinking more than you had anticipated as well.

There are some great short stories available online if you want to sample. Lightspeed Magazine hosts many of their stories free for reading without a subscription if you want to dip your toe in. If you're not into SF, then maybe some of the more "literary" stories found at Fish Publishing might be more to your liking?

Whatever the case, give a few a try. Keep in mind that not every short story is good, so try not to read one and say "nope, not for me." Try a few before giving up on them.

You might find yourself with even more great stuff to read.

So what about you? Are you a short story fan or hater? Let me know in the comments.

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 23 - Invasive Procedures

For some strange reason, whenever Star Trek: Deep Space Nine has an episode about Dax (Terry Farrell), the character herself is marginalized. "Invasive Procedures" marks the second episode where this has happened. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the episode (in some cases, it may heighten it because Farrell's acting can be spotty), but it is curious. The "Circle" trilogy ended on a flat note, so could "Invasive Procedures" bring it back up to the respectable level that we expect from this show? Unfortunately, no. I remember hating this episode when I first saw it, but watching it again has caused me to re-think it. Instead of being a waste of celluloid, it's just a very problematic episode with some good scenes that are pretty much wasted.

A plasma storm is sweeping through the area of space where the station floats, requiring that most of the crew be evacuated and the station be operated by a skeleton crew. Of course, that skeleton crew consists of all the regulars and nobody else, but at least they had Jake leave (that would have really stretched it). Odo (Rene Auberjonois) and O'Brien (Colm Meaney) are sweeping the docking area when they happen upon Quark (Armin Shimmerman) in an airlock. He claims he's pining for his brother and while Odo scoffs, they don't really do anything about it. Bad mistake.

A ship hails the station with a distress call, and when O'Brien and Odo go to meet it, they are swiftly overpowered by a raiding party of two Klingons, a Trill, and another humanoid. The crew is swiftly overpowered and subsequently finds that the Trill, Verad (John Glover) intends to steal the Dax symbiont from Jadzia, which would end up killing her. While Bashir (Siddig El Fadil) initially refuses to do the procedure, Jadzia insists that he do so to prevent anybody else from getting hurt. Once Verad gets the symbiont, Sisko (Avery Brooks) has to race against time to stop him and retrieve Dax before it's too late.

This episode suffers from one almost catastrophic failure: what Quark did is almost unforgivable. Kira (Nana Visitor) at least addresses the issue while they're all waiting in Ops for word about how Jadzia and Verad are doing (she tells him that no matter what happens, Quark is through on the station), but it's never addressed again. There's no way that the show is going to get rid of one its major characters, which means that there will be no repercussions. He does help in the resolution of the whole situation, but given the fact that they wouldn't be in it if it wasn't for him would seem to work against forgiving him, at least to the extent they seem to. And just to add insult to injury, in the execution of Quark's plan to save everybody, we get to hear more Ferengi screaming. Twice. Oh , joy.

The other problem with the episode is that it's predictable and, well, kind of dull. It's so predictable that even the characters can see the future. Sisko tells Mareel (Megan Gallagher) that Verad will change once he's joined. He won't be the same man. She denies it, saying that while he will be more confident, he will still be essentially the same man. Then, of course, she's proven wrong in scene after scene, and we get to see her face fall lower and lower. We got lots of Klingon yelling at people, which is to be expected when they show up (and so welcome, too!). There are barely any scenes in this episode that aren't telegraphed a mile away.

The guest cast is up and down. They are mostly competent, but only Glover excels in his role. He plays the two Verads (the weaker, hesitant one pre-Dax and the stronger, self-assured one post-joining) very well. He also plays the joining scene superbly too. You see him almost afraid, shivering. Then he's in pain as the symbiont is put into his stomach area. Then the look of ecstasy and enlightenment when the joining finally begins. Also of note is his passion when he talks about how he felt slighted when the Symbiosis Commission turned him down for joining. "They reduced my entire life to one word: 'unsuitable'." All in all, it's a great performance by Glover.

Tim Russ plays the main Klingon, and he's almost unrecognizable (he later went on to play Tuvok in Star Trek: Voyager, for the two or three of you reading this review who didn't know that). I thought he was doing a fabulous job losing himself in the role, and then I decided that he was playing it way too *loud*. He was almost shouting all of his lines, and we have seen Klingons before who don't do that. I think he was trying a bit too hard. Then there's Steve Rankin as the Klingon, Yeto (what a…non-Klingon name you've got there). His performance is pretty bad, especially his scene with Quark where he keeps saying "You stupid Ferengi!" Couldn't this scene have been jettisoned out into the plasma storm?

There is one scene (or two scenes, I guess, but they go together) that make this episode, though. Right before Bashir removes the symbiont from Jadzia, they share a quiet moment where Bashir apologizes to her and reassures her that he will do whatever he can for her. Then, when she wakes up after the surgery, Farrell plays the scene wonderfully. She feels empty, alone (she's had the symbiont for over two years now) and desperately scared. Bashir does his best to reassure her. These are two beautifully acted scenes.

Brooks also does well in his scenes with Verad, where he's trying to convince Verad to put the symbiont back. He's laughing and cutting up with Verad, trying to show Mareel just how different Verad is now that he's joined, and then tries to convince Verad. When that doesn't work, Brooks delivers his lines with the venom of a man who's just lost his best friend, murdered and taken over by the man standing in front of him. It's very nicely done.

Ultimately, an episode like this lives and dies by the quality of the acting involved. The story is hindered by the "idiot plot" syndrome, which requires the characters to act like morons in order for the episode to proceed. Thus, the actors have to carry it. Unfortunately, they don't. With the exception of a few scenes (mostly what I've already mentioned), they walk through the episode like they know it's just a placeholder for something more interesting coming up (at least I hope it's coming up). Let's hope that something is the next episode, because this one just doesn't cut it.

Note: There is a groan-worthy in-joke in this episode if you're a Star Trek fan. Verad and Sisko are reminiscing about their past and one of them mentions "The Cliffs of Bole." Cliff Bole, of course, has directed many, many, *many* Star Trek episodes. I did almost groan when I heard it.

Memorable Quote:

"I know. I know. He couldn't find a cup of water if you dropped him in a lake." - Quark (about Rom)

3 Stars

The Ethics of Online Journalism Correction

People make mistakes, especially writers. They use the wrong word sometimes, or they don't realize a sentence came out meaning the exact opposite of what they meant to say.

Reporters can be the same way, of course. Maybe they got a fact wrong, or further revelations make something they claim in a story untrue?

In the era of print journalism, corrections would have to be made in later editions. They would have a corrections box that would say something like "in yesterday's story on President Obama's speech, he was identified as President of the United Kingdom. He is, of course, President of the United States. The Journal-Post-Picayune regrets the error."

They didn't report every error, and accusations of getting the story wrong (intentionally or unintentionally) could still be leveled at a newspaper, but the fact that the story was written in a certain way would be indisputable. Somebody could grab yesterday's edition and show what was actually written.

With online journalism? For some reason, journalistic institutions don't seem to feel the need to do that anymore.

Sometimes it's relatively harmless, changing a misidentified person or the spelling of a name. Other times, though, it's particularly egregious and could easily be seen as the outlet attempting to cover its tracks.

Take the Associated Press story about the hostage stand-off in Alabama, where a man shot and killed a school bus driver and took his 5-year-old son hostage.

As shown on Bob Owens' blog, one term keeps getting changed.

When talking about what the man was known for in the neighborhood, the article originally said that he had patrolled his yard with a "flashlight and shotgun." It was later changed, with no notice, to "assault rifle." Hmmmmm. Think that might have something to do with the discussions currently going on in the United States?

Owens then notices them quietly (and again, without notice) changing it back to "shotgun," and then how it was subsequently changed to "firearm." He has a screengrab of the article stating it's an "assault rifle," however.

Commenters have pointed out that it was then changed to "long gun" with a statement that the gun had not been identified.

It's actually quite confusing, with one of the links mentioning a change now going to a more recent article that doesn't even mention how he used to patrol his yard.

No matter whether it was error or bias, where's the accountability? Why don't news organizations append the correction at the bottom of the article when they update it?

Even worse, I've seen some update or re-write whole articles at the same links without any notice whatsoever. If you receive a link to a news story where a friend of yours says "Can you believe the government did this?" and you can't see what your friend is getting upset about, it's very possible that the reason is because the article was edited between your friend sending it to you and you actually reading it and the offending issue is no longer there.

I'm not saying that every misspelling correction should be mentioned. If your article mentions the "Untied States of America" and you correct that to "United," fine. You don't need to tell the reader that the article has been changed. But when you get a fact wrong, or further information is added to the story, I believe it's the responsibility of the news organization to alert their readers to the change.

Something to the effect of "the above article originally said the man patrolled his yard with an assault rifle. Since there is conflicting information about what type of gun he used to patrol his yard, this has now been changed to 'long gun.'"

Perfect! Yes, they can still be accused of bias for using the original term ("yeah, sure it was a 'mistake'!"), but they can't be accused of trying to cover their tracks.

The number of people who trust the media is falling further and further all the time. Accusations of bias fly hot and heavy (and yes, full disclosure, I agree with a lot of the accusations). Actually noting corrections and changes to your articles won't change those accusations, but it would inhibit any accusations of them trying to hide what they're doing.

It would be a start.

I'm not letting bloggers off the hook. Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air always notes when he's made a correction or a change (I think the other bloggers over there do too; I just can't remember any specific instances). I try to also (though that would require an actual readership to hold me accountable).

Whitewashing your errors (or your bias) is never a good thing. It makes you look sneaky and just adds to the horrible reputation that journalists and journalistic organizations have.

"Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along" is a running joke on the Internet in regards to trying to get people to ignore something.

It's funny because it's true. Too often, that's the reaction of people in power trying to cover up their mistakes or their biases. Not acknowledging your changes is an excellent way to do that.

Edit (2/5/13): The LA Times gets it right in this story on how people don't want autographs anymore (something I may blog about later this week). Assuming that they don't change the article again at some point.

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 22 - The Siege

It's Star Trek tradition that the last part of a two-part story is going to stink. The trilogy that opened the second season of Deep Space Nine started out so wonderfully, with two great episodes. The conclusion had a lot to live up to. Would it be able to? Sadly, "The Siege" falls short, even more so because the setup was so outstanding. "The Siege" suffers from some overacting, some faulty plot logic, and a pedestrian feel. It certainly has its good moments, but what a letdown.

Having been ordered to abandon Deep Space Nine by the Federation, Sisko (Avery Brooks) is determined to get the information that the Cardassians are behind the Circle's coup attempt to the Bajoran Chamber of Ministers. With communications cut off, Sisko orders Kira (Nana Visitor) and Dax (Terry Farrell) to find another way down to Bajor. There are old Bajoran fighters abandoned on a Bajoran moon, and Kira asks to be dropped off there.

Meanwhile, the evacuation of non-essential personnel begins, but Quark (Armin Shimmerman) is his usual greedy self and starts selling seats on the departing runabouts, causing massive crowds at the docking bays. He's burned by his own brother, however, who has sold his seat to a Dabo girl and left Quark stranded on the station. With the Bajoran army coming to the station, can Sisko and his crew hold them off and keep them guessing long enough for Kira to accomplish her mission and end the coup?

"The Siege" suffers in many of the areas where the previous two episodes ("The Homecoming" and "The Circle") was strongest. The first two were very politically heavy with a nice action sequence to sweeten the pot. "The Siege" is mostly action with a little bit of politics. Some of the action is good (the sequence on the Bajoran flyer with Kira and Dax was quite good, both in dialogue and action), but a lot of it seemed inconsequential. I know there was a point to it within the story, but to the viewer it seemed extraneous. Worse yet, it was boring. I know that Sisko didn't want to hurt any Bajorans, but the phasers do have stun settings, you know. The fact that they couldn't hit anything was really strange. The fact that they missed so badly was even worse. There also didn't seem to be much tension during the battle scenes. Each person would calmly peer out over his/her cover, fire a shot that missed by 10 feet, then hunker down again. Am I supposed to enjoy this?

Warning: Fanboy paragraphs ahead!
Then there is a plot hole that almost sinks the entire episode, though this is really only a plot hole if you follow Star Trek, so you might not care. It speaks to the internal consistency of the show. Two years before this episode originally aired, Next Generation aired "Redemption," a two-part episode about a Klingon civil war. Captain Picard stated that they could not get involved in the civil war because of the Prime Directive preventing the Federation from involving itself in internal conflicts (which didn't really fit my definition of the Prime Directive anyway, but that's neither here nor there). However, they were able to involve themselves in the prevention of the Romulans from supplying the conspirators, even going so far as to destroy the conspiracy by exposing the Romulans as the strength behind the coup.

Now, two years later, Sisko and company are ordered off the station by the Federation because the conflict on Bajor is an internal conflict. When Sisko tells the admiral that the Cardassians are supplying the coup, the admiral asks if the Bajorans are aware of this. When Sisko says no, that he hasn't been able to get the information to the Bajorans because communications are cut off, the admiral says that since the conspiracy is internal, then it is an internal matter and the Prime Directive applies. Huh? This is the complete opposite of what happened before, and it really rubbed me the wrong way. Granted, this is a problem with "The Circle", but since it was put in that episode to set this episode up, I'll blame this one instead.
End of Fanboy paragraph

He doesn't even look good in this role

The plot was fairly standard and thus not that interesting, but sometimes that can be saved by good acting. Was it here? Well, no, not really. The regulars are fine (Visitor and Farrell are great, especially their banter when they're trying to get the fighter to fly), but surprisingly the guest cast lets the episode down a little bit. Some are criminally under-used (Beymer is great, but he only has two real scenes, not counting being included in some of the action). Louiser Fletcher is also almost non-existent as Vedek Winn, as is Philip Anglim as Bareil. Langella as Minister Jaro is almost comatose. He was mumbling a lot in the first two episodes, but he carried such power and menace that it almost added to the atmosphere. In "The Siege," he's sleep-walking. Steven Weber is over the top as Colonel Day. He shouts almost everything and overplays the arrogance that the character is supposed to have so much that it made me cringe whenever he opened his mouth. He also struts around a lot, much more than the character really called for. He was probably the weakest of the bunch.

There are some great scenes amidst the dross, though. Beymer is riveting in his scene at the docking bays. Sisko and Bashir (Siddig El Fadil) are having trouble keeping the crowds away because the runabouts are already full but more and more Bajorans are trying to get off the station. Beymer cuts through all that with a lovely speech ("Where are you running to?") and that calms them all down. Also, the scene between Miles (Colm Meaney) and Keiko (Rosalind Chao) is great as Keiko questions why Miles has to stay behind and help fight for the station instead of being with his family. The painful choice that Miles has to make when all that Keiko wants is for her family to be safe and together is wonderfully acted by both of them. Finally, the scene that produces the quote at the beginning of this review is also great. Brooks and Beymer play off each other beautifully, and we see again how uncomfortable Li Nalas is with the status that normal Bajorans have given him. He's a man who doesn't want all the attention and the power that would be his for taking if he wasn't so mild-mannered.

Sadly, though, this scene leads to the predictable ending of the episode. Anybody who didn't see it coming a mile away wasn't watching very closely. In fact, that's one of the major problems with the episode. It's predictable. It's rather dull, despite all the phaser blasts, and the acting doesn't help matters at all. The first two episodes were so good, making this even more of a letdown than it would be normally. It's certainly an ok episode, fine for blowing away 45 minutes of your time and you won't regret it, but it's not one to sit down and make time for.

What a missed opportunity.

Memorable Quotes:

"I'd die for my people." Li Nalas

"Sure you would. Dying gets you off the hook. The question is, are you willing to live for your people? Live the role they want you to play?" Sisko

3 Stars

Book Review - The Bird of the River by Kage Baker

Kage Baker was one of my favourite authors, and she will forever be missed by both science fiction and fantasy fans worldwide. Her death in 2010 was a blow to her fans. The reader in me is glad that she finished her "Company" series before she died, since I don't think anybody could bring justice to it like she could have. (Hey, maybe that's a good idea for next week's book post!)

Her last full novel before she died was The Bird of the River, and it's set in the fantasy world that she had created, along with The House of the Stag and The Anvil of the World. It's a beautiful novel, very low-key and yet so well-written that I could not put the book down. Her characterization abilities were fantastic, and even if the plot of one of her books was sub-par, you could glory in her rich characters.

This book had all of that.

My Curled Up With a Good Book review can be found here.

From the review:

"This is the story of a river boat named the Bird of the River and a young brother and sister who have to make their way on it after their drug-addicted mother dies in a horrible accident. They also have to figure out their place in the wider world, and thankfully their pseudo-family on the boat will help them with that. Young Eliss is the main character, a teenager who excels at being able to spot river snags that must be destroyed or maneuvered around. As the oldest, she has to take care of her half-brother, a boy with mixed heritage - he's half "Greenie," a race that is horribly looked down upon by the humans of this world. Add to the mix a new passenger who is travelling incognito to search for a lost member of his rich family and a ship's captain who gets wildly drunk every time they reach port, and the reader gets a sense that all is not right with Eliss's world."

Eliss is a beautiful character, a child who has had to grow up very quickly due to her mother's foibles and untimely death.

Reading one of Baker's books, you can lose yourself in the world she has created, only coming up for air after a couple of hours.

Baker went out on a high note with The Bird of the River, as it's up there among her best.

Check out next week's post for more Kage Baker goodness. There's a reason she's one of my top two favourite authors, and that I'm incredibly sad that I will never be able to read anything new by her again.

Star Trek: DS9 - Ep 21 - The Circle

(this review contains some spoilers for the first episode in the trilogy, "The Homecoming")

The middle part of any trilogy is usually the weakest of the bunch. It doesn't have the explosive beginning and it doesn't have the riveting ending. Instead, it's a transition, where things start to go even worse for the good guys. Star Trek has a reputation for having lackluster endings to its two-part episodes, but it's never had a trilogy before, so this was unexplored territory. Like a trooper, though, Deep Space Nine follows through with a solid outing that continues the trend of good episodes.

In "The Homecoming", Major Kira (Nana Visitor) rescued Li Nalas (Richard Beymer), a Bajoran Resistance hero, from a Cardassian prison camp, hoping that he could lead Bajor through the dark times that a radical group called the Circle was bringing about. Li claimed not to be the man that everybody thought he was, but Commander Sisko (Avery Brooks) convinced him that he could be that man. The episode ended with Li Nalas replacing Kira as Sisko's first officer.

As "The Circle" begins, Kira is trying to discover her place in the new regime. As she tries to pack and her friends try to convince her to fight for her job, Vedek Bereil (Philip Anglim) comes to her quarters and asks her to stay at the monastery. Meanwhile, the door to Sisko's quarters has been vandalized with the sign of the Circle, indicating that they can go anywhere on the station. Quark (Armin Shimmerman) has some important information for Odo (Rene Auberjonois) about who is supplying the Circle with weapons as the violence spills into the streets. With Kira trying to relax and "be useless for awhile" and Sisko trying everything he can to get her back, the Circle tightens its noose. Revolution is coming to Bajor, and there may not be room for the Federation after it's finished.

While the teaser is positively chilling with the sign of the Circle on Sisko's door, the opening scene after the credits is simply priceless. Kira is trying to pack and one after another of her friends comes to see her. Odo is after her to fight for her position, Bashir (Siddig El Fadil) is trying to figure out what is going on and just wants to say goodbye, and everybody else just makes the situation even more chaotic. It makes Bereil's entrance even more effective and startling. It's a wonderfully played scene by Visitor and the others, and Angelim brings a wonderful serenity to his role as Bereil. In fact, Angelim is outstanding throughout the episode, contrasting the intensity of the action and emotion with his detachment, even as he fights his growing attraction to Kira. The scenes between Kira and Bereil simply crackle with potential energy, just waiting to be released.

Which brings me to another great guest-starring turn, by Louise Fletcher. She hasn't changed since "In the Hands of the Prophets". In fact, her words and tone of voice are dripping with even more malevolence. The scene where she interrupts Bereil and Kira as they discuss their orb visions is simply wonderful. Fletcher is a veteran, and she brings the wonderful smarminess to the role of Vedek Winn that she brought to Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. She only has two scenes in this episode, but they are both intense.

Which brings us to Minister Jaro (Frank Langella, uncredited). What a guest cast they have brought together for this trilogy! They all bring class and style to their roles, with Langella being one of the best. He has a quiet menace to him, especially once his secret is revealed. The only problem is, once again, he seems to mumble. I'm not sure what it is, but when I can hear everybody else but not him, it's not a good thing. Still, subtitles fix that and he is otherwise fantastic.

I can also say the same for Richard Beymer. Li's very uncomfortable in his role as Sisko's first officer, and he's especially nervous with the status that Bajor has given him. "I don't even know what a Navarch (the title they have given him) does." When he's forced to command, he asks Dax (Terry Farrell) for advice, being completely out of his element. Sure, he's led fighters into battle, but command of a station? Beymer brings a quiet passion to the role, showing us a man who wants to do the right thing but isn't necessarily sure what that right thing is.

I've spent a lot of time on the guest cast, but the regulars are almost perfect as well. The opening scene mentioned above is classic, a nice bit of comic relief in the middle of a tension-filled episode. The Quark-Odo scene is quite good as well, where Quark gives Odo the information on the weapons shipment. Odo makes good use of his shape-shifting ability in finding out the secret of the Circle. There is not a bad performance in the bunch, but I have to give special kudos to Visitor. Her scenes with Bereil and opposite Jaro are well-acted.

Finally, there's the rest of the episode. What can I say about it? It carries forward the plot from the first episode and leaves us with a lovely cliffhanger for the final episode. The pieces are in place, our heroes know what is going on but can't communicate that fact to Bajor, and we're given hints that we're in for a rollicking conclusion.

There is a nice action sequence toward the end of the episode for those of you who like phaser blasts. It's well-choreographed and executed. It does suffer a bit from "Red Shirt Syndrome," but at least the men aren't killed. There is one minor niggle in the episode, though. When Kira is kidnapped, how does Quark know where she's being kept? Being an underhanded businessman, I can understand how he'd hear about the weapons trading, but knowing the secret hideout of a fanatical Bajoran sect? Please.

The normal let-down that occurs in a second episode does not happen here. Yes, it is a transition between the first and the last episode, but this one is just as interesting as the first. We were introduced to the problem in "The Homecoming," and "The Circle" shows us how things are even worse than we had figured. There's no running around incoherently or treading water while the show fills time until the final episode. Instead, the plot ratchets up another notch or two and things look even bleaker. I have to admit that I loved it, and I can't wait for the conclusion.

Memorable Quote

"We've got to leave! Well, I do, anyway. You can just turn into a couch." Quark

5 Stars

Mom: "I Don't Want My Preschooler to be a Gentleman"

What's this? Another post on chivalry and manners? Is this becoming the "chivalry and manners" blog? (Hmmm, maybe that's an idea...)

I couldn't help myself when I saw this post in the Style section of the New York Times (h/t: I believe it was Instapundit yet again, but it's been a week so I'm not sure).

In the "Motherlode" part of the Style section ("Motherlode?" As the name of a parenting column? Ain't that just adorable?), Lynn Messina writes "I don't want my preschooler to be a gentleman."

Messina opens the blog this way:

"My 4-year-old son, Emmett, swallows a spoonful of cereal and asks me if I know what a gentleman is. Surprised, I tell him I have some idea; then I ask what the word means to him.

“A gentleman lets girls go first,” he says, explaining that every day at naptime all the girls go to the bathroom before the boys."

She is horrified that her young boy "just got his first lesson in sexism" by a teacher who, she says, no doubt means well.

I personally would say that the teacher is making it way too simplistic, though maybe that's because of the age-level she's dealing with. I don't know.

Anyway, she goes on to lament that her views seem out of step with the mainstream. "Almost everyone I mention it to thinks it’s lovely and sweet. What’s the harm in teaching little boys to respect little girls?" (Because I guess respect is a bad thing?)

But wait, there's more! While she doesn't like it as a mother, she's horribly offended as a feminist. Because didn't we get rid of treating women differently thirty years ago? Perish the thought! It's horrible that men would treat with women with respect and courtesy even beyond what they would give to any man! You're an evil scumbag if you beat a woman, but you're also an evil scumbag keeping women down when you open the door for them or offer to lift a heavy suitcase!

Pure evil, it knows no bounds.

But she sees through men's evil plans:

"Letting girls use the bathroom first isn’t a show of respect. It is, rather, the first brick in the super high pedestal that allows men to exalt women out of sight. A true show of respect is paying us equally for the same work, not 77 cents on the dollar, which is the current average. That’s the world I want my son to live in and I seriously doubt it will ever happen as long as women believe men should hold the door open for them."

Yeah, because men just want women out of sight completely, and that's the only reason they would treat a woman with extra respect.

I want to highlight something Lee Habeeb wrote on National Review Online, called "The War Against Black Men," because I think it speaks to the cultural aspect of this issue.

Habeeb talks about how the nation (he's talking about Chicago, but I think it's a societal problem) doesn't have a gun problem, it has a father problem. Or lack thereof.

What pertains to my point is this:

"When young men don’t have fathers, they don’t learn to control their masculine impulses. They don’t have fathers to teach them how to channel their masculine impulses in productive ways.

When young men don’t have fathers, those men will seek out masculine love — masculine acceptance — where they can find it. Often, they find it in gangs."

He's not talking about how men treat women in this article. He's talking more about violence in general.

But it does bring to mind something that I also think is a problem in this society where men aren't taught to respect women, where misguided feminists think that treating a woman with an extra bit of respect and courtesy is somehow demeaning them. The combination of the two can be quite toxic.

When women aren't respected in society, you get this.

Fathers are an important aspect of that training. Boys learn from their fathers how to treat women, because they live every day seeing how their father treats their mother. There are other influences as well, of course. Evidently Messina's son's teacher is an influence too.

Of course, I'm not saying that it can't be taken too far, and some men do treat women this way because they don't think they are capable of doing anything themselves. Holding the door and carrying things for your wife doesn't mean anything when you also verbally demean her and treat her as useless and as somebody who should stay in the kitchen and be quiet.

But do we have to throw out the good stuff with the bad? Why does respect have to be thrown out with the condescension?

Messina goes on to say that in her mind, a gentleman lets other people go first, regardless of gender. "If two boys reach the top of the slide at the same time, a gentleman lets the other one go first." (why do I picture that and see two boys just constantly gesturing to each other for the other to go first, until they start fighting over who gets to go last?)

Her final paragraph is the kicker, though.

"It’s churlish to argue, so I let it go, and when, a few hours later in the park, I see him grab his soccer ball from a girl his own age, I feel a ridiculous rush of relief at his ungentlemanly behavior. Then I cross the field to remind him yet again how to share."

Why she seems to think that treating women with respect takes the place of basic civility in general, I don't know. Can't a boy learn to share without also losing the basic respect for women?

It is possible to have both, you know.