Garak knows the rules. Always be polite, until it's time to not be polite. Pulaski started out rude. There's no excuse for that.
Pulaski really came around though. Remember how genuinely happy she was for Data when he kicked that smug alien's ass in Stratagema? And she was encouraging him not to give up throughout the episode when he was having a bit of a crisis from initially losing. I hated her at first but she's grown on me.
Well yeah, that's the standard character redemption arc. Just saying as an opening impression she was rude and arrogant, and first impressions matter.
as an opening impression she was rude and arrogant
So was McCoy. And Bashir. And The Doctor. If anything, Crusher is the odd one out here and I think that's just because Roddenberry wanted her to be "motherly" for his self-insert Wesley.
Yes, but those were all men (or programmed to appear as men), so it's okay for them to be rude and arrogant.
Garak can probably also do that trachea move.
-- unless you're the right type of man
This is the real emphasis.
... Is this really a thing?
I love both of these characters, for different reasons.
Garak is... morally dubious, quite often, but amusingly clever about it. He is at least very self aware that he is kind of a piece of shit.
Pulaski is goddamned genius and a hero, doesn't put up with too much bullshit, but displays her sardonic wit when the situation permits.
People dislike her because she was a dick to Data in the beginning, and that she's mostly an attempt at making a female Dr. McCoy. I'm really glad the writers gave her a bit of a redemption arc with her relationship to Data though, it makes for an interesting bit of character development for both of them.
She has entire adventures with Data, in the holodeck!
I guess maybe if you watched the show as it aired, yeah you could have some sympathetic animosity... but she's just like, busy, and has no time for bullshit, and Data sometimes does not realize he is doing a bullshit.
Like I'm autistic and highly identify with Data... people being a dick to you for seemingly no reason you can understand, this is extremely relatable and normal for an autist.
I'd argue the two of them, Data and Pulaski, in particular serve as a great model of how a neurotypical and autist can learn how to interact with each other; she indulges his special interest and they go on a Sherlock Holmes adventure together!
And in so doing, he learns about things she notices, knows, and values, that were not apparent to him before... and the same in reverse... they each respect each other more after that, and learn a bit how to avoid frustrating the other.
Data is autistic coded for sure. And yeah, you get it! They end up having a great relationship. I guess people could complain that it's just a rehash of the McCoy and Spock dynamic but, if nothing else, I'm glad she was around for a season just for Data's character growth.
Edit: This might be a bit of a hot take but I think Picard is more of a dick to Data in general, especially in the early seasons.
Data is autistic coded for sure.
The funny thing is, it was completely unintentional. Spiner has said he had no idea when he was doing the show that Data was appealing to neurodivergent people, and also said he's glad he didn't know at the time, because being aware of it and trying to appeal to them might have ruined the performance.
That's interesting! Especially given how Picard and some of the others treat him. You could have fooled me saying it was written into the show that way.
It seems that writing a character that has no emotion just naturally lends itself to comparisons with neurodivergence.
Also his tendency to info dump, his inability to fully judge social situations, how his "emotional" needs get dismissed by some people (cough picard cough). There's just a lot of social things going on with Data that feel familiar.
No I don't think that's a hot take at all, which is why I'm confused/incredulous that Pulaski is apparently a dick... no, you're right, Picard is more often shown being pretty curt with Data in the earlier episodes.
But again, most of the time, this makes sense... dude has quite a lot on his shoulders, and Data often has trouble basically getting to the point, in terms of 'what is the potentially relevant and actionable information needed in a high stakes situation'.
I disliked Pulaski at first because she wasn't Crusher. Then, as the season went on, I quickly started to prefer Pulaski. But somehow, Crusher returned...
It was the writing and acting. Garak was well written and acted, the character was ambiguous with loyalty and had an arc to it.
Pulaski was fairly flat, constantly seemed angry or strident, and yes, was attacking a fan favorite character. Not very well written despite the sense the character made.
It wasn’t about any good or bad deeds, it was how the characters made you feel while watching them.
I genuinely liked Pulaski and still do despite the internet consensus, but I think a part of the hate was a reaction to Gates having been sidelined after season one. She was a feminist and did horrible things like ask for equal pay, so the menfolk producers figured they could cut her and get someone more compliant. Source for this: had a chat with her at a convention, same thing happened to Terry Farrel.
Also Dr. Pulaski only had one season to explore the character. Illem Garak had the full run of Deep Space 9 and was the audience's window into the Cardassians. They're almost incompairible.
I kinda agree with that, except that there are plenty of side characters that are far more interesting and better written than Pulaski, yet they might only get a few episodes to establish themselves vs Pulaski’s year.
So I definitely think it falls in the writing/directing/actor’s purview that the character seemed so shallow and controversial.
That's a good point, Ensign Ro was only in a handful of episodes over a few series and was way less shallow. Just as controversial. At least the Trekkies I knew back then were not fans of the Bejorans.
Garak is just super fun. I sure had a weird experience rewatching Hellraiser for the first time in a while though.
I always liked her character arch though. She started out curmudgeonly but began to warm up. I always wonder what would have happened if McFadden hadn’t come back.
Rikers stepmom has soo many possibilities
How is he supposed to know the cardassian government is doing any of those things when he's just a simple tailor
Charisma is not about of being good or bad, but for the ability of attracting people.
Donald Trump?
I wouldn't say that he has Charisma, he attracts the idiots though.
He does have charisma, or at least used to. He's declined significantly. Hitler was charismatic as well.
By that logic, unfortunately, almost half of American voters would be idiots.
I'm sorry, but if you are attracted by Trump, you are nothing else.
We like bad guys. Not just Trekkers. Look how many Star Wars fans love Darth Vader and other Sith. Look how many Potterheads like Draco Malfoy (this is mostly because of the movies and Tom Felton being the biggest Potterhead on set, and a brotherly figure to Emma Watson) and Snape (to be fair, Alan Rickman). Look at just about any anime. My Hero Academia is an easy one. All the main villains are loved. The bully kid was a fan favorite as well.
Garak is complicated and mysterious. We only learned the truth of who he is near the end. Then all his dubious actions make sense. Meanwhile she was straight forward and boring.
You can’t put this solely on the fans, writers make characters loveable or off putting. Women characters are very often written in a way that make people hate them. Skyler from Breaking Bad is a good example, she’s hated because she is only shown when she interferes in Walters life in some way. We know what Walter does for fun, but we never see Skyler do fun things and thus feel less sympathy for her, even if the ways in which she interferes in Walters business is almost always justified while Walter destroys much of her life.
I never got Pulaski hate. I like Pulaski. I also like Garak.
how dare she tho
Why is the meme presenting moralistic points as reasons to like/dislike a character when that has nothing to do with how engaging a fictional character can be? People like characters that are engaging, compelling, and entertaining, not because they are objectively good and perform good actions.
It's kinda like saying "This circle is red and this circle is blue. Guess which circle the fandom likes more?" and then completely disregarding the fact that one circle is simply drawn way better.
My dislike for Polaski is unrelated to how she treated Data. I find her personality kind of flat, and when it does show through, it's grating.
They wanted a second McCoy and they got the first Karen.
All the pleasure of shore leave, none of the holodeck glitches.
Rule 1 — Be Civil, Not Klingon
This is a vacation planet, not the neutral zone.
Rule 2 — No Prohibited Cargo
Some things aren’t welcome aboard.
Rule 3 — Keep It Trek
Posts should be Star Trek memes or Trek-adjacent humor.
Rule 4 — Gatekeeping Belongs in a Black Hole
You’re welcome to have your own opinions on what counts as “real” Star Trek but forcing your view on others or pretending it’s the only valid one? That’s not the Starfleet way.
Everyone’s Trek is valid, from TOS purists to Lower Decks shitposters, and you don't get to dictate what is real or not for everyone.
If you see a post that violates the rules, or that doesn't inspire Jamaharon, report it so the mods can handle it.
Otherwise grab a horga’hn, order a Risan Mai Tai, and enjoy your shore leave.
