In defence of science fictiontliJanuary 14 2008, 22:05:02 UTC
From a comment left by MDG: All sci-fi dialogue comes across as overblown and cringey. I disagree. I disagree so much with that statement. Science fiction, by virtue of its very name, is removed from the world we know, can inhabit a whole new universe in some cases, and the very best of the genre manages to do this while also proffering strong parallels and insights into our world. Arguably this can’t not be done at all - we must have something to relate to within the science fiction medium, otherwise it becomes irrelevant. While I admit that yes, there is sci-fi that is dated and cringe-inducing (see Star Trek: The Original Series and the earliest episodes of The Next Generation), there are also products of the genre that are nothing short of mind-blowing.
I refer Your Honours to the new series of Battlestar Galactica. (Having already written a 3500 word academic essay on the show and its parallels to post-9/11 America, I am biased. And unashamedly so. But I digress.)
The new series of Battlestar Galactica is not cheesy. It is not overblown. And it sure as frak isn’t ‘cringey’. Here we have a ragtag fleet of some 50,000 humans, the last of their race, desperately trying to outrun an army of Cylon machines that decimated their home worlds and find Earth. This is where the science fiction aspect stops. From here we have a drama about a group of people trying to keep hold of what makes them human without descending into lawlessness, chaos and self destruction; as one character eloquently and passionately puts it, “we’re not a civilisation anymore. We are a gang, and we’re on the run and we have to fight to survive. We have to break rules, we have to bend laws. We have to improvise!”
Perhaps this is my academic bias and pride in my previous work showing through, but I don’t see that above quote as anything other than what it appears to be - a reflection on a post-apocalyptic society with which we can all identify. There are deliberate echoes of post-9/11 America in the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, and while the scales of disaster are so vastly different, this show above all others of its time and genre leaves the viewer with no choice but to re-examine the world around them, and to question the morals of leaders and the consequences of actions.
This parallel is perhaps more poignant because of the two core species in Battlestar Galactica - the fleeing humans and the Cylons hell bent on their annihilation - the most simplistic comparison is that the humans are the Afghans and Iraqis, and the Cylons are the Americans and allied forces.
Admittedly this moves beyond the original comment, which pertains only to science fiction dialogue, but any dialogue is begotten of actions, and actions are begotten of circumstance. And circumstance in this context is the situation that forms the universe and storyline of the novel, film or television show. And this is also an argument solely about Battlestar Galactica, which limits the scope of the argument’s impact. But quite frankly, I don’t care. Battlestar Galactica is a well-conceived, superbly written and acted science fiction saga. It is also by far the most intelligent of its genre around today. The universe and situations may be far removed from what we are familiar with, but the characters are human; flawed, capable of mistakes and in so many cases of ambiguous morals and willing to do almost whatever it takes to ensure the survival of their race.
To repeat the point: this is, quite simply, science fiction at its best.
Re: In defence of science fictiont_eylaJanuary 14 2008, 22:34:00 UTC
This is where the science fiction aspect stops. But why does it have to stop?
Hee. I think this is why I don't like BSG. I don't argue with anything you said above, except with the statement about it being the most intelligent of its genre around. Because, quite honestly, I don't consider BSG a real science fiction show. Sure, it has a science fiction setting, and science fiction characters, and science fiction bad guys. But what does the show do with these things? It cannibalizes them to turn itself into a show with the classic sort of meaning while mostly discarding what science fiction is all about (I say mostly, because I know there are science fictional aspects in there, which are, however, mostly left-overs from the old show).
I don't want to say I don't think BSG is a good show. It is. But it's not a show in my tastes, because of the reasons I pointed out. This might sound a little cheesy, but BSG makes the idealist in me queasy. Since I wonder, why does a science fiction show that could be brilliant and awesome on its own have to try and "be like all the others", i. e. using the science fiction aspects merely as a tool to be like any other of the "deep and well-thought-through" shows out there.
In my opinion, BSG is not a good example to present in defense of science fiction. Not because I think it's bad, but because I think its ideas don't have much to do with science fiction. There are many people who say they don't like BSG because they think it's too dark. I guess this is where the difference between science fiction and what BSG is doing shows best: as wihluta said, what science fiction does is give hope for the future. BSG doesn't give hope. Like House, it usually presents situations in which the main characters are ethically just as or more unethical as the bad guys, and the outlook is not only inconvenient, but downright desperate. You can see this tone in House, too - main characters with questionable ethics and an outlook on life that's rather depressing. It's more about the here and now than it is about the future, as far as the meaning is concerned.
It surely is a well-thought-through show with some continuity and good characters, and I agree with most of what you said. Aside, you know, the science fiction aspect ;).
Oh, and TOS might be dated, but it is not cringe-inducing. I love me my crazy whacked-out 60ies shows xD.
Re: In defence of science fictiontliJanuary 14 2008, 22:46:30 UTC
But why does it have to stop? That's not quite what I meant. And while I try to think of what I meant ;)... yeah, what I was trying to say is that that is where the traditional definition of science fiction, so to speak, stops. It's not to say BSG's any better than any other science fiction show out there; it was to some extent created to reflect modern society, which limits its scope somewhat. And yes, it is pessimistic and dark, which also goes back to its nature as a mirror of sorts.
I concede my argument was overblown, probably because I nearly gave myself an aneurysm trying to make the arguments in my original essay flow and make sense to someone who wasn't me (ie, the guy marking it), which was partly what I was trying to condense for this. I also started out arguing dialogue, and moved into entire scope... again overblown. I would also like to take the opportunity to slightly amend my statement regarding TOS; it's dated and (to me) cringeworthy in terms of its dialogue and "black and white" standpoint. And although I stand by my argument that BSG is good science fiction, I think this may also be another example of, yeah, of my fingers moving too fast for my brain to comprehend exactly what it is that I'm trying to say. Nothing new there really :)
Re: In defence of science fictiont_eylaJanuary 14 2008, 22:54:41 UTC
That's exactly what I meant. BSG is trying to be a mirror, while science fiction is trying to be a telescope.
But, yeah. As I said. Not saying it's a bad show. It's surely interesting, for people who like that sort of thing. Just not the science fiction show I'd pick if someone asked me to tell them a good sci-fi show.
And TOS is awesome. From the bouncing cardboard rocks to the tunnels made out of tin foil. Bubblewrap aliens ftw! xD
I disagree. I disagree so much with that statement. Science fiction, by virtue of its very name, is removed from the world we know, can inhabit a whole new universe in some cases, and the very best of the genre manages to do this while also proffering strong parallels and insights into our world. Arguably this can’t not be done at all - we must have something to relate to within the science fiction medium, otherwise it becomes irrelevant. While I admit that yes, there is sci-fi that is dated and cringe-inducing (see Star Trek: The Original Series and the earliest episodes of The Next Generation), there are also products of the genre that are nothing short of mind-blowing.
I refer Your Honours to the new series of Battlestar Galactica. (Having already written a 3500 word academic essay on the show and its parallels to post-9/11 America, I am biased. And unashamedly so. But I digress.)
The new series of Battlestar Galactica is not cheesy. It is not overblown. And it sure as frak isn’t ‘cringey’. Here we have a ragtag fleet of some 50,000 humans, the last of their race, desperately trying to outrun an army of Cylon machines that decimated their home worlds and find Earth. This is where the science fiction aspect stops. From here we have a drama about a group of people trying to keep hold of what makes them human without descending into lawlessness, chaos and self destruction; as one character eloquently and passionately puts it, “we’re not a civilisation anymore. We are a gang, and we’re on the run and we have to fight to survive. We have to break rules, we have to bend laws. We have to improvise!”
Perhaps this is my academic bias and pride in my previous work showing through, but I don’t see that above quote as anything other than what it appears to be - a reflection on a post-apocalyptic society with which we can all identify. There are deliberate echoes of post-9/11 America in the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, and while the scales of disaster are so vastly different, this show above all others of its time and genre leaves the viewer with no choice but to re-examine the world around them, and to question the morals of leaders and the consequences of actions.
This parallel is perhaps more poignant because of the two core species in Battlestar Galactica - the fleeing humans and the Cylons hell bent on their annihilation - the most simplistic comparison is that the humans are the Afghans and Iraqis, and the Cylons are the Americans and allied forces.
Admittedly this moves beyond the original comment, which pertains only to science fiction dialogue, but any dialogue is begotten of actions, and actions are begotten of circumstance. And circumstance in this context is the situation that forms the universe and storyline of the novel, film or television show. And this is also an argument solely about Battlestar Galactica, which limits the scope of the argument’s impact. But quite frankly, I don’t care. Battlestar Galactica is a well-conceived, superbly written and acted science fiction saga. It is also by far the most intelligent of its genre around today. The universe and situations may be far removed from what we are familiar with, but the characters are human; flawed, capable of mistakes and in so many cases of ambiguous morals and willing to do almost whatever it takes to ensure the survival of their race.
To repeat the point: this is, quite simply, science fiction at its best.
Reply
But why does it have to stop?
Hee. I think this is why I don't like BSG. I don't argue with anything you said above, except with the statement about it being the most intelligent of its genre around. Because, quite honestly, I don't consider BSG a real science fiction show. Sure, it has a science fiction setting, and science fiction characters, and science fiction bad guys. But what does the show do with these things? It cannibalizes them to turn itself into a show with the classic sort of meaning while mostly discarding what science fiction is all about (I say mostly, because I know there are science fictional aspects in there, which are, however, mostly left-overs from the old show).
I don't want to say I don't think BSG is a good show. It is. But it's not a show in my tastes, because of the reasons I pointed out. This might sound a little cheesy, but BSG makes the idealist in me queasy. Since I wonder, why does a science fiction show that could be brilliant and awesome on its own have to try and "be like all the others", i. e. using the science fiction aspects merely as a tool to be like any other of the "deep and well-thought-through" shows out there.
In my opinion, BSG is not a good example to present in defense of science fiction. Not because I think it's bad, but because I think its ideas don't have much to do with science fiction. There are many people who say they don't like BSG because they think it's too dark. I guess this is where the difference between science fiction and what BSG is doing shows best: as wihluta said, what science fiction does is give hope for the future. BSG doesn't give hope. Like House, it usually presents situations in which the main characters are ethically just as or more unethical as the bad guys, and the outlook is not only inconvenient, but downright desperate. You can see this tone in House, too - main characters with questionable ethics and an outlook on life that's rather depressing. It's more about the here and now than it is about the future, as far as the meaning is concerned.
It surely is a well-thought-through show with some continuity and good characters, and I agree with most of what you said. Aside, you know, the science fiction aspect ;).
Oh, and TOS might be dated, but it is not cringe-inducing. I love me my crazy whacked-out 60ies shows xD.
Reply
That's not quite what I meant. And while I try to think of what I meant ;)... yeah, what I was trying to say is that that is where the traditional definition of science fiction, so to speak, stops. It's not to say BSG's any better than any other science fiction show out there; it was to some extent created to reflect modern society, which limits its scope somewhat. And yes, it is pessimistic and dark, which also goes back to its nature as a mirror of sorts.
I concede my argument was overblown, probably because I nearly gave myself an aneurysm trying to make the arguments in my original essay flow and make sense to someone who wasn't me (ie, the guy marking it), which was partly what I was trying to condense for this. I also started out arguing dialogue, and moved into entire scope... again overblown. I would also like to take the opportunity to slightly amend my statement regarding TOS; it's dated and (to me) cringeworthy in terms of its dialogue and "black and white" standpoint. And although I stand by my argument that BSG is good science fiction, I think this may also be another example of, yeah, of my fingers moving too fast for my brain to comprehend exactly what it is that I'm trying to say. Nothing new there really :)
Reply
But, yeah. As I said. Not saying it's a bad show. It's surely interesting, for people who like that sort of thing. Just not the science fiction show I'd pick if someone asked me to tell them a good sci-fi show.
And TOS is awesome. From the bouncing cardboard rocks to the tunnels made out of tin foil. Bubblewrap aliens ftw! xD
Reply
I wouldn't either, because it is largely atypical.
And yes, TOS was lots of fun. I need to go back and find some of the eps again, methinks... I don't remember watching any of it in years!
Reply
this is a wonderful metaphor!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment