(2x22) COGENITOR: No easy answers

[Aquarius]

This thread is for the discussion of "Cogenitor."

Now, I know this episode is one we all have strong opinions about. Make your point, but don't go in expecting to make any converts. Deal?

Now have at it.

[lfvoy]

I'll go ahead and lead. I've been having trouble participating in the chats because of my system setup but I've been watching the episodes.

I have a hard time watching this one, and it's not for the reason a lot of people think. No matter how I try to look at it, I can't get around the fact that Trip just seems out of character. He's curious, and he can't stand seeing mistreatment. But he's not obsessive or clueless, and he generally listens when he's told to leave something alone. I can understand him not liking the situation with the cogenitor, but crossing the line into interfering the way he did just doesn't seem right. The cogenitor's situation didn't fit any reasonable definition of abusive or dangerous -- only oppressive. Trip's seen oppression before ("Broken Bow," etc.); he fumed, but didn't interfere. What was it that pushed him across the line this time?

I also was less than comfortable seeing sides of him we never saw before and never saw again (i.e., the Go game). It seemed like the characterization was being sacrificed to make the point of the episode, and I've never cared for episodes that tried to hit us over the head that way...especially when we're talking about situations that really are ambiguous.

I want to like this episode, and had the subject matter been handled in a way that maintained characterization, I probably would. But as it is, I just can't find it very good. The writers were trying to send some sort of message that, unfortunately, got lost along the way.

[Hummingbird2]

I have a hard time watching this one, and it's not for the reason a lot of people think. No matter how I try to look at it, I can't get around the fact that Trip just seems out of character. He's curious, and he can't stand seeing mistreatment. But he's not obsessive or clueless, and he generally listens when he's told to leave something alone. I can understand him not liking the situation with the cogenitor, but crossing the line into interfering the way he did just doesn't seem right. The cogenitor's situation didn't fit any reasonable definition of abusive or dangerous -- only oppressive. Trip's seen oppression before ("Broken Bow," etc.); he fumed, but didn't interfere. What was it that pushed him across the line this time?

Oh, lfvoy, I agree 100%! While Trip has behaved impulsively in past episodes (Dead Stop comes to mind), there just didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for his behavior here. I guess you can tell that I really don't care for this one, can't you?

[Aquarius]

I think that part of the shift in Trip's characterization had less to do with the morality lesson and more to do with trying to break the hick/good ol' boy preconceptions some people had about him. Even Connor talks about this episode as being one of the examples where Trip "grew up" as it were.

[Honeybee]

Right. I think Trip has - since Broken Bow - been very proud of Earth's improvements. He's the one who brags to T'Pol, rightfully so, about how Earth has eliminated war and poverty in just a few generations. He takes pride in that.

And while I agree he's rather aggressive with Charles as first, he's 100% correct in his instincts that Charles is an intelligent, sentient person. I disagree with the easy dismissive-ness of "human rights" applying only to humans. Our term human rights applies to everyone, regardless of race. Last time I checked, we had pretty much agreed as a society that slavery is wrong. That's not something any human should ever be shamed about. In the Trek world, it should be called sentient being rights - but that's semantics. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the notion that the oppressors rules must be respected because they are in charge.

Secondly, Trip gets way too much of the blame. These aliens paraded their oppressed slave around humans with no respect for human sensitivity on these matters. They were as dismissive of Trip's concerns as they were of Charles's feelings. As a warp capable species, they should have been aware of the risks of bringing Charles aboard. I actually think it's a flaw in the writing, how clueless these otherwise charming people are.

More importantly, Trip is the only person who sees Charles as a person. Everyone - including Archer and T'Pol (talk about out of character) - see Charles as a thing (or maybe a plot point). At a certain point, Charles has agency. Charles asks for what Charles wants. Freedom. And to see that dismissed Dred Scott style is awful.

If I had been writing this - I would have had T'Pol step forward and advocate for Charles's asylum not just for moral reasons, but because once Charles becomes aware of Charles's abilities and becomes conscious of self - Charles is a real and serious threat to the alien society. One advocate, one person, one leader - could create a domino effect. If they wanted to protect this backwards society and their rules, then T'Pol should have recognized this danger.

I do think Archer must see himself in Trip's actions. From the rescue of the colonists from the Klingons to the Suliban prisoners - he's done way more broad things in the name of right, often without a hearing.

Now, none of this means that I don't understand the alien fear of not being able to procreate. However, if the cogenitors are so important, they should be honored members of society, not slaves.

The main issue I have here is that the episode is about Trip. But the situation is about Charles, and sadly, only Trip seems to recognize it. Even at the end, Archer seems to think Charles's death was inflicted on others - and has little empathy for Charles. Also, to blame Trip for this would be like blaming abolitionists on unhappy slaves. It just has no logic to it.

[Kylah618]

I have so many conflicting emotions about this episode that it's difficult to really form a solid opinion.

As a whole, it's not one of my favorites - for the reason mentioned above. On one hand, I feel like Trip was inflicting human morality and ideals on an alien culture. On the other hand, I can't say that he was wrong because I do agree that "human rights" should apply to all beings and not just humans. Morally, he was right. Diplomatically, he was wrong. So which do you go with?

Jon. I feel like a huge portion of his anger was more about losing his new friend than it was about Trip's actions. He hadn't had many positive first-contact experiences up to that point. Trip himself said that it was nice to have a first-contact that didn't involve powering up the weapons. So Jon finally has a good experience, and it blows up in his face. So I felt like a good deal of his anger was about that. And, to some degree, I feel like his anger was more at himself than Trip. Trip said that he did what he believed Jon would do, which means that Jon has set a piss-poor (in his mind) example. And, if we're talking strictly diplomatically, he has: the Suliban camp and the Klingons come to mind. Jon has a history of sticking his nose in where it didn't belong, and so it was somewhat hypocritical for him to get so angry at Trip for doing the same.

Even Connor talks about this episode as being one of the examples where Trip "grew up" as it were.

I'd agree with Connor. IMHO, the incident with Charles is the start of a turning point for Trip. That turning point started here and continued just a few episodes later with the death of his sister. After these two events, I see Trip become more considering of his actions before he makes a move. He becomes a better leader. He grew up.

But I would say that Jon grew up some here too. He realized that his crew does look to him as an example of what they should or should not do and that he hadn't been setting the best example. There were several points before that he questioned whether or not he'd made the right decision, but I think that this was the first time he had to come face-to-face with the consequences of his past actions. From here, I see Jon more mindful of his actions and taking the time to consider how they are portrayed to the crew.

Sadly, I also see this as a pivotal moment in the relationship between Jon and Trip and I never felt like it was quite the same afterwards. We see a couple of examples of them hanging out and spending time together, but they are few and far between.

[Aquarius]

I also see this ep as a pivotal moment for Trip in that his friendship with Jon is never the same again. On the one hand, I like that, because Trip's friendships are now allowed to develop more fully with Malcolm and, yes, T'Pol. With TnT 'shipper glasses on, I love that they become friends as well as lovers, so "Cogenitor" kind of opens that up for Trip -- I always imagined he started telling T'Pol things during neuropressure that he might've told Jon before.

Without 'shipper glasses, this is one of the things I wish we could've seen resolved. It's understandable that it wasn't in Season Three, because by definition Jon had to be obsessive about THE MISSION. I think that "Terra Prime" set things up nicely for Jon and Trip to become close again -- their friendship undoubtedly would've changed, but it was repairable, and I think that would've been a good character arc for Season Five.

I know that most of what I said doesn't relate directly to "Cogenitor," but I do feel that this episode was good for all kinds of character possibilities.

[Honeybee]

Actually, I think was Aquarius who quoted Connor in the upthread.

And I think there are some solid things about this episode - especially Connor's performance. It's certainly provocative.

And I want to say I like the idea of a "prime directive" episode where things go badly - but it seems like they wrote from that idea backward and didn't think things through as far as the writing goes. I think if the consequences had been portrayed as more muddled - I mean so they free Charles, what do they do with Charles? - it would have been better.

I can picture a situation where right and wrong wasn't so clear cut, but here the slavery metaphor is too strong for me to believe that Archer or Starfleet or even T'Pol would just dismiss a person asking for asylum because the slave masters are charming and quote Shakespeare.

Like Aquarius, I think this is strongest as a Trip character episode and I agree that the rift between Jon and Trip allows Trip to grow as a character.

In other words, I don't buy what the writers are selling as far Trip being wrong.

Now, if instead of suicide - we hear that months later, Charles fermented revolution and that their whole society had fallen into a panic and chaos ensued - well, there's some moral complexity I could get behind. But even then, it's not Trip's fault. Cultures clash, it's what happens when you make contact.

It reminds me of the 90s sci fi novel "The Sparrow". Humans go to another planet - and they are absolutely determined not to interfere with the alien culture. But like when Columbus stepped on to the New World, the die is cast. The humans transform the society by their presence. In that novel, it's portrayed as fundamentally arrogant to assume that the visitors are the "actors" and the "homeworlders" are not acting of their own free will, even though they are reacting to human presence.

[Kylah618]

Actually, I think was Aquarius who quoted Connor in the upthread.

And that's what I get for doing it by hand rather than hitting the "quote" button.

I'd like to find that novel, read it, and then watch this episode again. Hmmm...

[Honeybee]

It's a great book - The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russel.

And I do want to say I like a great deal of this episode. I love Connor's performance. I love the relationship between him and Charles, especially that it's not played as romantic but just a friendship/mentor thing. I love the performance of the actress who plays Charles. I think it's very dramatic. I like how charming the Vizians (sp?) are. I like that it's possible Malcolm gets laid (yeah!).

But at the core, I don't think that Archer is right or in character, and I don't think that either Archer or T'Pol would be so cold and dismissive of a sentient person asking for help/freedom. And I'm not talking Trip - I'm talking Charles. The writing feels off here, and I think it is a matter of Charles's situation not matching what the writers wanted to create with the prime directive quagmire. It's a good episode, I just don't like where the writers want to push me at the end.