Friday, July 30, 2010

The Twilight Zone: Sci Fi Politics at its most profound


I have recently been viewing the Twilight Zone to beef up on my fifties science fiction and to expand my sci-fi encyclopedia efforts. I have to admit, I was very impressed, and that's something I wasn't expecting. While some episodes are routine, this show was considerably more daring than I remember it, particularly in addressing Cold War issues. Of particular interest to me were the episodes "Monsters on Maple Street" and "The Shelter", both of which ring out as stinging indictments of Cold War nuclear policies. Serling, without fanfare, made civil rights a prominent theme in several episodes and did a fine job of critiquing the dominant systems of racial discrimination then present in the world (and still present today). While class critiques are missing from The Twilight Zone, as they are from all science fiction series, Serling is relatively gutsy in taking on capitalists and moneymongers, and his heart is very clearly on the side of the common man and the little people. Even on the topic of artificial intelligence, Serling's Twilight Zone stands up remarkably well against much later entries in science fiction, such as Blake's 7 and the original BSG. Serling remains the definitive science fiction producer\writer of his or any time and I think it's reasonable to conclude that television science fiction might never have gotten off the ground without his help. So, Mr. Serling, cheers. I wish there were more like you.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Postcolonial TV Sci-Fi: Earth 2

Perhaps the most sophisticated series in approaching postcolonial themes is the short-lived Earth 2. Earth 2's political correctness made STNG look like an exercise in humor by David Chappelle. Virtually nothing politically incorrect was said, perhaps to the series detriment. On the plus side, the series concern with political correctness meant that the producers of Earth 2 took especial care to make sure that all sides of an issue were presented (for instance, Earth 2 has one of the most realistic portrayals of a working class character in sci-fi, in the form of Danzinger). The series took particular care to look at humans from the alien point of view, the aliens being Terrians and Grendlers. Unfortunately, however, the series had a tendency to resolve all the alien-human conflicts peacefully, easily, and without apparent effort on the part of the human beings involved. The Terrians were presented as Gaia-type aliens, condemning Earthers for the rape of their land. Therefore, while the aliens were portrayed positively, there was more than a touch of condescension to Native American culture and spirituality. Sci-fi has simply not been able to adequately deal with the "native", at least in cinematic format. Of all the series I've seen, only Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 truly had an understanding and sympathy for colonized populations. Earth 2 does too, to a limited extent, but that is unfortunately diluted by the clumsily-constructed plot devices and general ineptness of the script department.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Postcolonialism and Science Fiction: Star Trek, TOS

Well, I thought I'd begin a series on postcolonial thought and sci-fi, tracing the development of colonial themes in science fiction. Let's start with the original Star Trek. On the plus side, obviously, there is the Prime Directive, which voices a Western fear of interfering with less technologically developed cultures. There are, of course, some paternalistic aspects to the Prime Directive: It assumes, for instance, that technologically inferior cultures will also be less socially developed. But the Prime Directive also serves as a meaningful expression of distrust against the then dominant "Westerns" colonial narratives of shows like Bonanza and Gunsmoke. The practice of arming natives is condemned in "A Private LIttle War" , a particularly elegant attack on U.S. colonial policies in Vietnam. Less welcome critiques of colonialism come in "THe Apple" and "The Return of the Archons", in which Kirk seems to be an arbitrary decider of entire cultures's fates. Star Trek always had to balance the needs of weekly television with its desires to be politically correct, and in the case of postcolonial narratives, the series suffered by the demands of weekly television. However, compared to the traditional non-sci fi narratives of the 1960's, Star Trek: TOS was a quantum leap forward in sophisticating postcolonial arguments. It should therefore be celebrated, but with caution, for some of its episodes (see the Paradise Syndrome) betray an uneasy racism along with their appeal to techno anti-colonialism.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Reparative Therapy in Science Fiction TV

"I am female. I was born that way. I have had those feelings, those longings, all of my life. It is not unnatural. I am not sick because I feel this way. I do not need to be helped. I do not need to be cured. What I need, and what all of those who are like me need, is your understanding. And your compassion. We have not injured you in any way. And yet we are scorned and attacked. And all because we are different. What we do is no different from what you do. We talk and laugh. We complain about work. And we wonder about growing old. We talk about our families and we worry about the future. And we cry with each other when things seem hopeless. All of the loving things that you do with each other - that is what we do. And for that we are called misfits, and deviants and criminals. What right do you have to punish us? What right do you have to change us? What makes you think you can dictate how people love each other?"

(Star Trek Wikia)

Reparative therapy is an abusive form of therapy used against LGBT people, to try to make them straight. To my knowledge, only STNG has covered the reparative movement, in its episode "The Outcast". In part, reparative therapy is just not considered a "big" enough topic for sci-fi, and also many sci-fi producers probably believe reparative therapies will disappear in the future, a likely occurrence as ex-gay centers continue to close nationwide. But I believe it is a big enough issue that more series need to follow STNG's example. Outcast is an elegant, though overly-cautious, appeal to stop abusive therapy against LGBT people. It has occasionally been misread as being anti-LGBT, but I think the episode was specifically targeting reparative practices, which at the time were very much under public scrutiny. One thing "Outcast" does particularly well is flip some of the assumptions of the reparative therapy movement by making the J'naii asexual. I do agree with Jonathan Frakes, however, that a man should have played the role of Riker

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Atheists in Science Fiction Television

Despite the religious right's claims to the contrary, explicitly atheist characters are a rarity in television science fiction. Gaius Baltar starts off an unbeliever, but then seems to have religious visions. Adama, as well, in the reboot, has some atheist sounding ideals, but does not make atheism part of his daily life or experience. The only character I can recall from tv sci-fi that was explicitly stated to be an atheist was Michael Garibaldi from Babylon 5. JMS did a great job in making Garibaldi a 3 dimensional character, whose atheism was only a part of his character and did not define him in the way that religion defines the purveyors of the religious right. Garibaldi's occasional statements about atheism often provided some of the best lines of the show, and B5 was fully capable of showing both the best and worst aspects of Garibaldi's skeptical nature.
All this being said, there are a number of shows that do have a skeptical view of the universe that is in keeping with atheist thought. TOS and STNG often portrayed Kirk and Picard destroying alien gods, often computers or advanced beings. Generally, at least until Ds9, the metaphysical explanation in Star Trek was always the wrong one. But perhaps the most proudly skeptical series, and justly so, was Blake's 7. Blake's 7 (as well as its successor Firefly) always assumed the worst of people. The crew of the Liberator did not even care about metaphysical issues. According to the series, all the churches had been destroyed centuries ago. The one episode about religion in B7, "Cyngnus Alpha", portrayed a cultic leader who controlled the people of his religion using a fake medicine. One of the reasons I love B7 is its the only series I know of where the characters sincerely consider becoming drug pushers in order to support their cause!
I think science fiction needs to open up the portrayal of atheist characters. Some series have pointed in that direction, particularly Andromeda's fascinating portrayal of the Nietzscheans in their first few seasons. Atheists, like LGBT characters, need 3 dimensional portrayals. Garibaldi is a start, but I hope to see more such portrayals. At the same time, sci-fi really needs to open up to non-Western religions as well, particularly Hinduism and Buddhism. More complex portrayals of Muslim characters would also be a bonus, as of now there are literally none, a very unrealistic viewpoint.

Friday, July 23, 2010

The Science versus Military trope in science fiction


Pictured here is Edmund Gwynn, who plays a scientist in the fifties giant ants classic. The fifties are famous for their division of the world into science vs. military, a kind of substitute for science versus religion. Gwynn represents one of the rare portrayals where the scientist is clearly in charge. At the opposite end of the spectrum was 1951's The Thing, in which scientists' attempts to make peace with the alien, only ends in disaster. Science fiction television series, as a rule, have followed a mad scientist versus wise military in most series. Star Trek had several notable mad scientists, most notably Richard Daystorm, who had to be handled with kid gloves by the compassionate Star Fleet. BSG (the original) followed in this tradition, as did the new BSG, whose chief villain is the scientist Gaius Baltar. Doctor Who had many mad scientists: Davros, the Master (argueably), and Dr. Kettlewell (from Giant Robot), Tobias Vaughn, among many others. What is left us, then, is a tendency in modern science fiction to reject the mental for the physical, the intellectual for the jingoistic warrior. I find this trend deeply troubling, for what it says about American (and British) nationalism. Clearly, we need series that are much more critical of the military, not knockoffs of Stargate SG-1.

The problem of Gay saints

A post of mine from my other blog, that applies to Torchwood and sci-fi portrayals of LGBT characters.

One of my favorite blogs is by Kittredge Cherry, an LGBT activist who deals with queer art. Kittredge often blogs about the need for more positive spiritual portrayals of LGBT characters in art, and I agree with her on that. The day of the suicidal gay man and moody lesbian should have long ago past, at least as the standard categorization of gay and lesbian people.
Yet, at the same time, I think there is some danger in resorting solely to the "gay saint" image. Like mentally ill people and blacks, the LGBT community has been historically misrepresented in film, leading many LGBT people to conclude that this generation needs a kind of perpetual Sidney Poitier image. I think that kind of image can only harm LGBT people, because its as unrealistic as the demonization of the gay community in the past. Instead of having only negative portrayals, we have only positive portrayals, making LGBT characters as monochrome and unexciting as they were in the past. Occasionally, in an urge to promote a more tolerant vision of LGBT people, pro-LGBT activists and their allies target series that are clearly meant to be sympathetic to LGBT causes. The third season of Torchwood, for instance, gained flack for killing off one of its LGBT characters, even though the evidence seems to suggest that this was not done for any homophobic intent.
I think it is wonderful that LGBT people are being more positively portrayed in the media. But if we stick at simply the Poitier portrayals, the LGBT community will be as hampered artistically as the black community was by the Poitier image in the fifties and sixties. We need LGBT characters that are fully and richly human, which move the LGBT population into its "Shaft" and "Spike Lee" era. Only when LGBT people are accepted as fully fine and fully flawed as the rest of us, will the community feel truly at home in American society. That is my wish and prayer.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Klingon Bible

I thought you all might want to know about my next story, which since there's no hope of publishing it, will not violate any copyright restrictions. It's based on the esoteric adventures of a KLV Bible salesman, who goes to a sci-fi conference, ostensibly to save souls, but in reality to indulge in some of the "darker" aspects of Trek (talked about in a previous post). I'm hoping to make this as outrageous as it sounds.
What do you think of efforts to translate the Bible, Shakespeare, etc. into Klingon? Is it a tremendous waste of time, a sign of Western decadence, a harmless diversion? Personally, I'm not sure. I do, however, find Trekkies obsession with their favorite series more than a little unnerving, especially when considering how inferior Trek is to Doctor Who, Blake's 7, Farscape, Babylon 5, Firefly, and the BSG reboot. Come on guys! The time of Trek is gone. Let's get some new ideas already!

Telepaths in science fiction: The Eternal Mutant Super Jews of Sci-Fi

Telepathy and those gosh durn Jews just seem to go together like Abbot and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, Kirk and Spock. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not being anti-Semitic here. Rather, I am pointing out the peculiar tendency of sci-fi writers to link Jews with telepathy, sometimes to poke fun at anti-Semitism, at other times for more poisonous reasons. The first example of this I would highlight is Norman Spinrad's excellent novel, the Iron Dream. In this novel, the linkage is intentional. Spinrad's novel is actually a novel within a novel, written in the voice of Adolf Hitler, who has become a science fiction writer. Hitler's science fiction novel (Lords of the Swastika) is a tale of a rise of a sci-fi dictator to power, who then battles hordes of mutants, who Hitler uses as stand-ins for Slavs, and in the case of the lead mind-controlling mutants, Jews. Spinrad's novel is a hilarious send-up of Nazi kitsch in science fiction, highlighting the disturbing similarities between fascism and science fiction novels like Starship Troopers. Of course, given that context, the portrayal is quite justified.
However, two other portrayals that come to mind are much more disturbing. Both portrayals cast Jews and Nazis as coming from the same cloth. The first is Babylon 5's use of telepaths. Though rogue telepaths are sympathetic characters, the Psi Corps, the leading telepath organization, is an SS-like group, devoted to persecuting "mundanes". This fulfills the secular\Christian fantasy that the Holocaust was really the Jews' fault, and not our own. Later on, however, the rogue telepaths look for a homeland (a.k.a. the Vorlon homeworld a.k.a Israel), but to get this homeland must engage in terrorism against the "legitimate government". Telepaths have sex differently (like the stereotype of Jews), think differently (ditto), and inspire all kinds of anti-telepath conspiracy theories (again ditto). This kind of plotline obviously has problematic elements that I don't think JMS ever adequately addressed.
Perhaps the most disturbing novel series along this line is the Firebird trilogy, written by evangelical author Kathy Tyers. Here, the human telepaths in the series are undoubtedly meant to represent Jews. Tyers basically admits as much in her forward. In the series, bad, secular Nazi-Jew humans (the Shuhr) attack the forces of light, represented most prominently by the Sentinels, who are good, Messianic Christian Jews. In turn, of course, the Christian Jews annihilate the secular Jews, which is seen AS TOTALLY JUSTIFIED by the author.
I guess sci-fi blood libels die hard, and I don't blame solely writers like Tyers for contributing to them. Too many of my secular friends turn legitimate anti-Zionism into an excuse to racially bait Jews. You'd think we'd have learned by now. I guess not.

Farscape: The Apolitical success story

Normally, I am not a fan of apolitical sci-fi series, because their writing is usually weak. For example, Stargate turns into little more than a justification for military aggression, while Buck Rogers is prone to fits of unintentional comedy not befitting a true sci-fi series. Farscape, however, is unique. The series is not totally devoid of political intent: Peacekeeper society has some resemblances to Nazi Germany and New Age spirituality is featured prominently in several episodes. But, by and large, Farscape eschewed political commentary so it could instead focus on the interaction of the various characters in the cast, as well as tell an epic story with a minimum of studio interference. Farscape, for me, is one of the defining series of U.S. sci-fi, because it's the first series to truly take on the challenge of Blake's 7 and actually leave one in real doubt about the morality and ethics of our heroes. It is also the first sci-fi series on TV that truly posited an alien universe. Nothing in Farscape has been duplicated. Indeeed, the special effects and aliens in the series compare very favorably with much more expensive fare from George Lucas and . . . ahem, James Cameron.

What Farscape did was turn the sci-fi genre into an adult genre, removing the last vestiges of kiddieness that still lingered a little bit in Babylon 5 and Star Trek. Characters in Farscape made love, killed their enemies, showed unflattering moral flaws, and were in general nice bastards, rather than tragic heroes. For that, Farscape should be thanked. Without it's moral ambiguity, Firefly and BSG would never have got off the ground.

Science Fiction's brave stand against aversion therapy


Cinematic and televised sci-fi is not well known for its courage concerning politics. But science fiction has done a good job in condemning one particularly abusive practice: aversion therapy. Aversion therapy is the practice of trying to make people renounce a sexual or psychological process by the use of behavioral conditioning to create a new,"conditioned" person. Science fiction, aside from B.F. Skinner's nightmarish Walden Two, has always taken a stand against this practice. Clockwork Orange is the most famous example, a movie that dealt seriously with the pros and cons of trying to enforce the state's morality through the use of psychological conditioning. Also successful was the series The Prisoner, which dealt with aversion therapy in several episodes; Star Trek, which dealt with aversion therapy in two excellent episodes on the abuse of the mentally ill; and STNG. Now, in part, sci-fi's resentment of aversion therapy comes from the genre's mild anti-psychiatric bent, which I happen to disagree with. But all these series and movies also had a real concern that the state would use aversion therapy against political opponents: the mentally ill, prisoners, political detainees, and homosexuals. My only complaint, is that none of these series dealt with another group that uses aversion therapy frequently: religion, or to be more specific certain fundamentalist groups with prejudices against the mentally ill and LGBT people. As someone with OCD, I fell victim to one of these groups, was locked in a room for 6 hours, told I was cursed by God, and screamed at to repent of my disease or face that curse forever. That use of a.v. therapy has had a profound effect on my life. So, I can only thank Burgess and Rodenberry and Mcgoohan for having the courage to take on this practice when it was still in its infancy. I only wish people had listened to them.
Note: I have another blog, Against Biblical Counseling, that deals with abusive religious psychotherapies. Please do not mistake it with the site run by the Bobgans, which is itself psychiatrically abusive.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

"Our durn 'racists are dun' The portrayal of racists in science fiction

(According to the Star Wars novels,
the Emperor was a notorious racist, hence the
image).

One of my pet peeves with science fiction is the stupidity of its portrayals of racists. Apparently, to be a racist, you must either be a corporate executive or someone whose IQ is below 80. No where is there any indication that racism often comes from understandable but misguided concerns about economic and social competition with other racial groups. Instead, the portrayal of racist groups in science fiction aligns them with the "dumb working class", as if there's only nice regular Joe working class guys who don't complain, or on the other hand racist white snobs. Sorry to break it to you, Hollywood, but not every racist only graduated from the fourth grade. Science fiction series like Babylon 5 (i.e the Homeguard) spread the comfortable illusion that racism can be eliminated with education. British series are much more perceptive in this regard, with racism being used as a tool of government policy in Doctor Who (Genesis of the Daleks) and Blake's 7. Too often, too, the anti-racist character is identified with the white middle class - James T. Kirk, Picard, etc. Issues of racial separatism are rarely addressed, as every one lives in a multiculturalist harmony. This is problematic, I believe, because it assumes without cause that diversity is what everyone wants and that it is infinitely desirable. Yet many black separatists (and even a few white separatists) merely want to be left alone by those of other races, so much do they not trust those people. Science fiction has never been able to address the issue that we may, ultimately, not all want to get along.

For anyone interested in a more complex portrayal of racism than can be found in most Hollywood pics, I suggest you see two films: The Believer and This is England (neither sci-fi). These films are far more nuanced in their portrayal of race relations than is typical in Hollywood. The sci-fi novels of Octavia Butler as well as the sci-fi classic Black No More, are also a good place to start.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Sci-Fi Sex Fetishes and Rape


A couple of years ago, there was a great deal of controversy because of claims made by Toronto police that Star Trek was linked to pedophilia and sex fetishes, and that it served as an unhealthy outlet for male rape fantasies. According to Dr. Peter Mezan, a psychoanalyst in New York City, "There is an impulse that is common to perversion and to utopian thinking. The wish is to create a world in which differences make no difference. The great utopian thinkers have been immensely inspiring, but there is a reason that utopian communities have never worked out. In the name of equality of every sort and in the attempt to eliminate the tensions that normally divide us, they propose to create a marvelously unnatural world without the usual boundaries. But then it gets all fucked up."
I have included links to these images of women in sci-fi tv, to point out the likelihood of their being some truth to the Toronto police's assertions. Science fiction television and films have been at the forefront of objectifying women, treating them as mere sex objects, rather than as fully developed human beings with minds all of their own. Science fiction television officially condemns rape (see the episode "Violations" of TNG), but itself dresses women in outfits that urge men to merely view thse women as sexual playthings. This does not mean, of course, that women can't or shouldn't wear revealing clothing. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is women having to do so as a prerequisite of their job, for no artistic point. Again, situations vary. The sexuality in "The Devils" for instance, is about as strong as any seen in Western film, but the movie serves as a quite clear condemnation of the enforced chastity of nuns during 17th century France. I would argue that it is therefore justified. Princess Lea sporting a slave girl outfit, by contrast, clearly was meant only to entice male viewers with dreams of chaining a woman by the neck. It is S & M for the kiddie set, and I'm not sure I'm really comfortable with that.
It is entirely possible to make women sexually appealing and yet not exploit them at the same time. One of the finest examples of this process occurred in the original V, in which Faye Grant played Julie Parrish, a sexy resistance leader who nevertheless was not their for eye candy, but served as an example of an intelligent, charming, and important part of the cast. Delenn in Babylon 5, or Starbuck in the reboot of the new BSG also don't always take their clothes off, and yet still remain fundamentally attractive women.
Is science fiction linked to rape? It's hard to say. But clearly, trating women as pinup posters for alien sex fantasies may not be the ideal way of promoting a healthy view of the female body. If science fiction is to sincerely protest rape, it must also protest the pornographization of the female body that creates the sexist attitudes that cause rape. Otherwise, science fiction is merely reinforcing societal prejudices, not liberating us from them.


Conquest of the Planet of the Apes: What Should have Been the most radical sci-fi movie


Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia, talking about Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. Most sci-fi fans do not realize that Conquest was a direct allegory on the Watts race riots of 1965. The film's original ending would have daringly had the Apes killing all their human oppressors, but the studio forced the filmmakers to tone down the script, for fear of offending people. Even still, Conquest is the most politically radical of a fairly radical series of movies. In my opinion, film sci-fi experienced its pinnacle in the late 60's and early 70's, with radical films like Punishment Park, Privilege, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, and A Clockwork Orange breaking new ground in what could be told through science fiction narrative. Even relatively minor fair, from this era, such as Soylent Green and Silent Running, tried to be politically relevant. Then Star Wars came along and ruined everything. Far from being the zenith of the genre, Star Wars represented its utter debasement to "kiddie" interests: ray guns, droids, and the like. It is only now, with films like District 9 and Gattaca, that we are seeing a return to politically relevant sci-fi. Rumors are that the new Apes movie will be a take on the Conquest mythology. Here's hoping. It couldn't come at a more auspicious time.

"Caesar has Breck marched out to be executed. MacDonald appeals to Caesar's humanity to show mercy to his former persecutor. Caesar ignores him, and declares henceforth apes everywhere will repeat the revolt that happened in the Ape Management complex. The revolution will lead inevitably to mankind's fall after which the apes will dominate the Earth and enslave the few remaining humans. Breck and all the other humans are then beaten to death as the film abruptly ends.

Test audiences reacted badly to the original ending. The studio re-edited the ending with existing footage. The plot twist of the chimpanzee Lisa saying the word "No" was added to the film via dubbing a new voice-over and Roddy McDowall was brought back to record new dialogue. The new ending allowed Caesar to show some degree of mercy and to leave the audience with the hope of peaceful co-existence between apes and humans. This ending was also changed in hopes of getting a G rating from the MPAA as the previous films had, however the film was given a PG rating.

In 2008, a 5-disc Blu-ray Disc set was released, to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the movies, with all five films with new extras. This set release contains the original and theatrical cut of Conquest. It contains more footage of graphic violence during the climatic battle scenes and the original dark ending. This version is also released on a separate Blu-ray Disc, but it has yet to be released on regular DVD. This version also shows on the Fox Movie Channel often. Fans also cite that "Conquest", even with all the changes, was the most daring and most unique of all the "Apes" sequels."

Monday, July 19, 2010

The Arts and Sci-Fi Television


Science fiction television has never really done a good job of portraying the arts. STNG had a rather pretentious view of the arts, showcased by numerous allusions to Shakespeare and company. Babylon 5, meanwhile, while art itself, did not do so well in those episodes that dealt with literarily significant figures. Take for example, Michael York's truly dreadful performance in "A Late Delivery from Avalon" and the equally putrid retelling of the Grail legend that wasted the talent of all-time great actor David Warner. Then there's Commander Kang (or was it Chang, I can't remember) in Star Trek VI, with his mouthed renditions of the Great Bard's works.
Perhaps the best series for dealing with the arts has been the new Doctor Who, which has offered entertaining and original takes on Dickens, Shakespeare, and Agatha Cristie. Also well done was the STNG episodes concerning Mark Twain, which featured a cameo from my all-time favorite author, Jack London (not in the flesh, of course.). In general, however, sci-fi television does not assume a high level of intelligence on the part of its audiences, though it does so more than most other genres.
All this begs the question: What science fiction series do you consider art? For me, Blake's 7, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica are all definitely forms of artistic television, going beyond the simple boundaries of mere entertainment. Firefly, Farscape, Doctor Who, The Twilight Zone, Max Headroom, Dollhouse, and a few other series also deserve attention by literary and film critics. But as my students always remind me, art is in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps every series can be viewed as art, even Buck Rogers. Well, then again, maybe not . . .

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Best Hitler stand ins


So, I decided to make a list of my best sci-fi Hitler stand ins. Scorpius is on that list of course. He is suitably evil and though not concerned with genetic purity, he does have that certain sense of menace that all great villains have. From Doctor Who, I would nominate Davros, particularly in the episode Genesis of the Daleks. Davros is intensely committed to genetic purity, and has that desire for self-perpetuation that is at the heart of all genetic dictatorships. Servalen, from Blake's 7, has that Nazi-like demeanor and uncaring nature for other life, characteristic of all the best of the worst dictatotrs. Star Trek never really gave us a sufficiently menacing dictator, but Khan Noonian Singh wasn't bad. Finally, Babylon 5 gave us the eponymous President Clark and his henchmen among the Shadows. Which sci-fi dictator would you rank first (from this list or any other). Personally, my vote would go for Scorpius or Davros. Who do you think is science fiction's ultimate baddie?

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Conservatism in Science Fiction Television

Conservatism gets a bad wrap in science fiction (often deservedly so). However, science fiction television also tends to chicken out when dealing with conservative ideas. There seems to be a great willingness to critique social conservatism. DS9 condemns creationism, STNG anti-gay and anti-abortion activism, and BSG examines anti-terrorist rhetoric. However, I would argue that social conservatism, by and large, is a distraction and a dangerous distraction at that. Within a generation or two, virtually all Americans, including evangelicals and conservative Catholics, will be in support of gay rights. The abortion controversy may linger on longer, but clearly the religious
right is ultimately going to lose that battle as well. By contrast, economic and governmental conservatism, particularly the former, are rarely critiqued in science fiction. We do have the Ferengi in TNG, the proto-capitalists of the universe, but if anything, they seem like a Fascist caricature of Jews (which some fans have suggested was exactly the racist point), rather than a serious, thoughtful analysis of economic conservatives, libertarians, and neo-cons. Babylon 5 probably did the best job of analyzing the dangers of conservative thought, with its depiction of President Clark's gradual decline from conservatism to fascism. Despite the prevalence of Tea Party thought in recent years, no series has really addressed the Tea Party issue either. Maybe it is just too new. I do think, however, that the critiques of science fiction television towards social conservatism are stupidly reductionistic, rarely examining the complexity of religious and cultural taboos. Again, Babylon 5 did a much better job, particularly "Confessions and Lamentations", a cutting, deeply moving exploration of the self-harm caused by homophobia and anti-AIDs rhetoric. Sci-fi television also seems reluctant to engage conservatives in dialogue or permit conservatives to have any voice in sci-fi television. Only two series, bnth British, have really engaged political conservatism. The first, the Prisoner, was an exceptional piece of libertarian production, widely considered to be the best sci-fi series (perhaps the best series) ever made. Patrick Mcgoohan,

the show's creator, explored themes of individualism and social conformity in a way that appealed to both the socially conservative right and the liberal left. The second series, 1990, I have never seen, but it sounds like an excellent examination of the over-bureaucratization of Britain during the 1970's. Perhaps, if conservatives were given more respect by television producers, and listened to seriously, they would be more willing to listen to their opponents in return.


Space Hookers: Prostitution and Pornography in the Final Fronteir

Prostitution is one of those forbidden subjects in science fiction. No sixties show really got close to the issue, except perhaps for the trophy wives of "Mudd's women". Clearly, however, the Orionian slave girls in the series were meant as a rather unfortunately positive comment on sexual slavery. Even Gene Rodenberry admitted that that characterization was sexist. The first official space hooker that I know about, in tv sci-fi, was Cassiopiea in the original BSG, who was a socialator, a kind of high price Geisha. Cassi' space hooker origins were quickly dropped however, when the network felt that she was simply too controversial and sexual a character (Remembering Battlestar Galactica).
Inara (pictured above), from Firefly, was the most impressive depiction of prostitution in science fiction television, being neither sexually exploitive, nor morally condemning, but just realistic about how prostitution would evolve in a future society. In Firefly society, Companions (the Firefly equivalent of prostitutes) have in some ways turned the tables on the pimps of previous eras, and serve as a kind of space age geisha or courtesan, with corresponding rank and privilege. Companions provide psychotherapy, choose their own clients, and are viewed as a form of nobility in Firefly society. Wheddon's ability to critique prostitution's many negatives, while still providing an interesting analysis of how the practice might change, is one of the truly innovative aspects of Firefly. Wheddon's series Dollhouse also imagines how prostitution might be used in the future. Both Dollhouse and Caprica warn of the potential problems of "futureporn", that is virtual pornography that condemns A.I. life to sexual servitude. I think this is an important issue that badly needs addressing, and not in the underused way that it was done in STNG episodes.. Unfortunately, modern sci-fi series seem reluctant, in general, to tackle the issue of sexual exploitation through pornography (I hail more from the anti-porn aspects of feminism, rather than the pro). Therefore, it seems of prime importance to me that future series deal with this issue, whether positvely or negatively. I think Dollhouse got close, but it's a major issue that science fiction television still has not adequately explored.




Friday, July 16, 2010

The Political Wisdom of Kerr Avon

"I am not expendable, I'm not stupid and I'm not going."


Avon: [about the Rebellion's new figurehead] He is strongly identified with rebels, you see, and very popular with rabbles. They will follow him, and he will fight to the last drop of *their* blood. Idealism is a wonderful thing. All you really need is someone rational to put it to proper use

Kerr Avon: Show me someone who believes in anything and I will show you a fool

Kerr Avon: I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in order to prove that you care, or, indeed, why it should be necessary to prove it at all.

Kerr Avon is the ultimate in nihilistic pessimism. Unlike the loving Mr. Spock, who is never far from hugging Kirk and company, Avon is prone to kill the one's he loves. He kills his best friend, one of the heroes of the series, kills his lover, is willing to be a drugpusher to further the terrorist cause, and nearly kills another friend in order to save himself from crash-landing on a planet. And he's the hero - the villains are worse. Blake's 7 is the only science fiction series I've seen that really takes its pessimistic statements about human nature seriously. Avon does not believe in idealism, and takes his relativistic ethics to their logical conclusions, routinely threatening to kill his friends, his enemies, and even small cuddly aliens. Avon doesn't believe in idealism and the producers of Blake's 7, particularly in the last season continually reinforced the series's notion that rebellion against authority is ultimately futile, because the government is all powerful. This is a depressing message, and Kerr Avon a tragic messenger, but Blake's 7 is unique in how honest it is with its viewers. It tells us "We're fools. We are the mess. We are what's wrong with the world." And for that, this series deserves to be remembered as some of the best science fiction ever to grace the small screen.

Weapons Fire rate, Accuracy in Sci-Fi


Science fiction television shows are famous for laser pistols, plasma guns, etc., so I thought it would be fun to examine how these shows apply weapons technology, particularly fire rates, and what it says about these series.

When it comes to space combat, clearly the reboot BSG and Babylon 5 did the best job. These two series tried to make such combat work within the relative constraints of zero g, and even though they used fighter craft, they did not do the crazy gyrations of X-Wings or the old Colonial Vipers. Babylon 5 combat, in particular, stuck rigidly to this Zero-g application, even when it made the battles a bit slow at times. Star Trek wasn't terribly bad in this regard either. Unrealistic space fights, in any case, seem to be more characteristic of sci-fi movies then television (Transformers, for instance).

Ground weapons, on the other hand, are rarely portrayed realistically. Take Star Trek's phasers or the blasters of the old BSG colonials. These weapons were portrayed as the height of technological advancement, yet their fire rate was so slow that it would have made more sense to just use SMG's and other ballistic weaponry. Indeed, few sci-fi shows have solved this problem. Only Babylon 5 created energy weapons with high enough fire rates to convince the viewer that the weapons are more deadly than those used today. Even the great Farscape series's weapons fired somewhat slowly. That is why I commend the reboot BSG for using ballistic weaponry like that used today. Realistically, I don't think energy weapons, as they stand today, could be used for anything other than tank-killing. BSG simply makes more sense.

I think there is another important reason to keep using the ballistic weaponry. If we have to show weaponry on television, we should show weaponry that has real bloody consequences. BSG does this, but most other sci-fi series have shied away from showing the true human cost of weapons fire. Perhaps if more American sci-fi series showed blown up Cylon children, and not fade aways, we wouldn't be killing real children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Series like Farscape and Star Trek, though good, too often allow people to fantasize about violence without having to deal with the true consequence of that violence. It's time for that to change.

The stupidity of STNG abortion + genetic engineering politics

I finally figured out how to work the copy and paste function, so I was able to paste this quote from Wikipedia on the STNG episode "Up the Long Ladder" and its relationship to abortion and genetic engineering politics.

"Up the Long Ladder" was criticized from two directions. Snodgrass recalled, "I got enormous flack from the right to life coalition because they destroyed the clones. They thought I was condoning abortion. In fact, I did put a line in Riker's mouth that was very pro-choice and the right to life coalition went crazy. He says I told you that you can't clone me and you did it against my will, and I have the right to have control over my own body. That's my feeling and it was soapbox, and it was one I got to get on. I was supported by Maurice all the way." (Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages)

Now, please don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning pro-choicers here, who have many excellent points (I happen to be on the opposite side of the aisle on this issue, though I lean heavily left on almost all others). I merely want to point out that Snodgrass's particular methodology of promoting pro-choice politics in this episode is quite problematic. First of all, an adult clone is not a fetus, and should not be equated with one. It is a fully rational, fully adult being living totally outside a womb. There is no issue of embryonic parasitism here, which is one of the main justifications for a pro-choice position (and a good justification, at that). Nor do clones fall under the second major argument in favor of a pro-choice position: that fetuses are human, but not persons. This position, advocated by Peter Singer, argues that to be a person, a human being must be capable of feeling pain and interacting cognitively with the world. While the Singerian position can be somewhat problematic (since it can be used to justify infanticide and certain forms of euthanasia), it is logically consistent and even though I'm pro-life\anti-abortion, I do not see it as fundamentally unethical. The problem in this episode, however, is that Riker's clone is fully sentient and fully alive. No one questions this. Riker's justification for killing the clone is that he was "cloned against his will". Again, it's very understandable to argue that a woman shouldn't be forced to carry a child to term if she's a victim of sexual assault, but the situation here is simply not analagous. A clone exists outside of the womb, and forceable cloning, while reprehensible, in this episode creates fully alive adult beings (a tragic scientific inaccuracy). You can abort a fetus before it comes to term, but I don't think any rape victim, pro-choice or pro-life, would argue she has the right to kill her child after she's given birth to it.

STNG's simplistic approach to abortion and cloning\genetics technology has severely hampered the series over the years. In Federation society, genetically engineered people are legally discriminated against, yet the Federation is held up as an ideal. Clones and A.I.'s are always shown as "just short" of fully human, a position which denigrates these lifeforms unjustly. Promoting one's personal political viewpoints on abortion can be productive, but not if it comes at the expense of life that no one disagrees is human.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Appeasement in Science Fiction

I recently finished another BSG episode, in the Eastern Alliance story arc. As is typical in the old BSG, the tone is anti-appeasement. Anti-appeasement sci-fi themes are fairly common. V condemned appeasement, as did an episode of Babylon 5. Even relatively sophisticated takes on fascism (Genesis of the Daleks, for instance) and warmongering tend to view appeasement as a de facto bad. Obviously, this viewpoint stems from Neville Chamberlain's tragic missteps with Hitler. Yet, I am not sure how wise it is to always portray appeasement as evil. There have been times where acts of appeasement could have alleviated much suffering - for instance, in Saddam's Iraq. Other times, anti-appeasement rhetoric is used against regimes that have been more wronged by the U.S. than we have been by them. For instance, anti-appeasement rhetoric is commonly used against Cuba, which had quite reasonable fears for its safety during the 50's and 60's (U.S. involvement in Cuba is a rather sordid tale of coup-making and imperialism, for those who don't know). The theme of appeasement is interesting in the original BSG, because it contrasts rather sharply with several episodes in the series that promoted pascifistic politics. Apparently, BSG wanted to have its cake and eat it too. But I think the show's rather naive faith in the military (a faith that sometimes the modern BSG seems to share), ultimately limits its success when compared to non-military oriented shows, like Blake's 7, Firefly, and Farscape, which can take far more critical views of government and politics, and still get away with it.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

BSG's Eastern Alliance and fascist kitsch

I have begun the three-story arc in the original BSG concerning the fascistic-like Eastern Alliance. Frankly, I am rather disappointed with this arc, even offended by it. The best sci-fi series on fascism, such as Blake's 7, Babylon 5, and Doctor Who's Dalek storylines, try to make important political statements about the nature of fascism. Babylon 5, for instance, seeks to highlight how fascist states evolve from democratic governments. It does an excellent job of pointing out how these states manage to flip the loyalties of ordinary people (V is also exceptional in this regard), Blake's 7's strength is in its portrayal of what a Nazi universe would have looked like, and its portrayal is brutally, unremittingly chilling, as the Nazi-like Federation takes its exterminationist policies to the level of the near-absurd, but still believable and frightening. By contrast with these excellent portrayals, the Eastern Alliance is noticeably an amateurish effort. Other than their very effective Nazi-like uniforms, the Alliance has little sense of menace. Instead, the Alliance fights against committed "Nationalists", a convenient term for the Western powers in BSG. Fascism, in BSG, is a mere stand in for communism, trying to equate what Russia did with Nazi Germany's excesses. The problem is, Hitler was reacting to a democratic government, whereas the Communists were reacting to a brutal Czarist regime that had oppressed Russia for centuries. Fascism, as a philosophy, is pretty much inherently evil. Communism's evil or goodness appears to be dependent on what government is in power. Certainly, socialist regimes in Western Europe have worked rather well, whereas China and Soviet Russia have caused great suffering.

But that's besides the point. The original BSG had potential. The intrinsic story idea was interesting, and capable of sustaining a successful series for several seasons (as it did with the reboot). But it's cartoonish depiction of Council politics, laser guns, and freaky children who you want to gun down before they destroy the Fleet, makes it embarrassing by contemporary standards. It shows me, more than ever, how much more advanced British sci-fi was in the late 70's and early 80's, compared to what America was offering. Blake's 7 consistently dealt with issues of contemporary relevance, and even Doctor Who improved under Christopher Bidmead's script editorship (I'm still trying to wrap my head around Logopolis and Castrovalva). By contrast, all America could do was produce Flash-Gordon rip off serials for the general public, a reflection not on the BSG team (which I think wanted to make a good show and had good ideas), but on the network execs who helped tank BSG before it could develop a proper storyline.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Science Fiction as a Fascist Enterprise

I am currently making my way through the second V miniseries, after watching the first one. As most of you no doubt know, V is an allegory, rather heavy handed, about fascism. Other science fiction series have conducted similar allegories over the years. Babylon 5's Earth plot thread was largely about fascism, as was the Dalek plot thread in Doctor Who (particularly after the introduction of Davros). Blake's 7, too, critiqued fascism in its own inimitable fashion.

Yet for me, science fiction itself can often be fascistic, particularly in its promotion of crude racialisms. This is most evidently seen in the Social Darwinian aspects of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers and the works of H.G. Wells, both of which promoted a brutal "tooth and claw" philosophy that had more to do with 20th century capitalist ethics than it had to do with true Darwinian biology. Christian social critic James Herrick has called this tendency in science fiction "The Myth of the Spiritual Race" and points out its similarity to Aryan ubermensch philosophies, such as Hitler's. One need not agree with Herrick's personal philosophy to see that their is some validity to his claims. Norman Spinrad, for instance, famously critiqued those same racialisms in his novel Iron Dream. Personally, I am always a little uncomfortable with the wise-Zen like races of science fiction, such as the Dorsai, the Minbarri, and the Vulcans. There is an underlying hint of white worship here that deeply unsettles me. I think it would be better if science fiction refrained from constructing these kind of simplistic racial systems, with the good wise white men and the evil dark skinned aliens, but science fiction, unfortunately, is unlikely to do this anytime soon.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Holoaddiction

This is from a Brit tabloid, but I'm pretty sure it's true, as I heard about it several years ago. My students four years ago thought I was more than a bit nuts when I warned of the possibilities of virtual sex getting out of hand, including the possibilities of online pedophilia, rape of virtual characters, etc. Having done enough research into transhumanism, I knew that more than likely I would be unfortunately proved right, and sure enough, its happened. Japanese gaming companies now sell rape simulators like Rapelay, which have provoked outrage in the west.
With all that being said, it begs a question about the holodeck? Does it have an ESRB rating? And should it? The most obvious danger of the holodeck is that it would allow people to act out ANY thought or fantasy. Imagine a Nazi sympathizer in the 24th century, reenacting the Shoah? Or a white separatist reenacting slavery? There is literally no limit to what can be done with the holodeck, and that is the direction current computer and A.I. technology is taking us. Can we really trust a machine that makes any fantasy come true, that allows any desire to be fulfilled? I for one, am a little reluctant to play God to my A.I. creations. I hope the rest of the human race agrees with those sentiments. Otherwise, Reginald Barclay is going to be doing a little more than kissing Counselor Troi on the holodeck . . . if you know what I mean!

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Star Trek Next Generation and Mental Illness

I think I've posted on this before, but you should really check out STNG's treatment of mental illness. Particularly the episode "Frame of Mind". STNG manages to be sensitive to abuses in mental health care without joining the fanatic anti-psychiatric bandwagon of certain psychologists and science fiction writers (including the one we dare not speak his name . . . I think you know who I'm talking about). My computer here does not let me copy and paste dialogue, so I can't highlight the excellent aspects of this episode. I think it's significant that STNG is the first series to have a professional counselor on board its ship, and one of the only series to deal realistically with mental illness, through the character of Reginald Barclay. British series have also dealt with mental illness, particularly Blake's 7 and The Prisoner, but have tended to take a somewhat anti-psychiatric bent, not because they are against the mentally ill, but because they were made in an era where psychiatric abuse was more widespread. STNG also dealt with the possibility of new mental illnesses, namely holoaddiction, that is addiction to the virtual reality of the holodeck. I think tomorrow I will deal with that particularly fascinating, though underexplored part, of STNG.

Genesis of the Dalek Military Industrial Complex

One episode of Doctor Who that I find particularly interesting is "Genesis of the Daleks", clearly one of the best episodes of the old series. "Genesis" tells the story of the creation of the Daleks, which the Doctor hopelessly seeks to avert. What makes the episode interesting, besides its overall dystopian gloom, is its depiction of the Elite, a group of Kaled scientists charged with winning the war against the Thals for the Kaled people (the Kaleds are the progenitors of the Daleks). The Elite start off as a think tank, hoping to create weapons that will end the Kaled-Thal war. However, they find that this is impossible, so they direct their mission to the survival of their race, by creating a travel machine (the Dalek) for Kaled mutations. The Elite's research, however, is perverted by Davros, who turns this survival mechanism into the ultimate weapon, the Dalek. Significantly, Davros does not program that weapon with a conscience, only a means to perpetuate the species.
I believe "Genesis of the Daleks" to be the first science fiction episode to deal seriously with the military-industrial complex, and its effect on governmental policy. The Elite are so powerful and so fanatical that Davros destroys their own government and people, rather than let the work of military research be stopped. Much like Lockheed Martin and company, Davros's research is self-serving and aimed at egotistical goals (self-perpetuation in place of money), rather than the survival of his people. "Genesis," therefore, serves as a powerful reminder of the costs of military research, a reminder that dare not go unheeded.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Sci-Fi Political Thematic Encylopedia

I have been working slowly over the last few months on a sci-fi television political thematic encyclopedia, covering how a variety of television programs deal with issues of race, class, sexuality, gender, fascism, terrorism, religion, conservatism, homophobia, libertarianism, abortion, illegal immigration, Marxism, genetic engineering, cloning, artificial intelligence, and about 30 other topics. It is a massive undertaking. For right now, I am concentrating solely on space operas, and I obviously cannot cover everyone, since the financial costs of purchasing all those sets would be restrictive, and I wouldn't have the time to watch every series.

Here is the list of series I feel are significant enough to definitely be covered with a short explanation of my reasons why:

Alien Nation, Caprica, Firefly, Farscape, Star Trek, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, Babylon 5, BSG (original), BSG (reboot), Blake's Seven, Doctor Who (original), Doctor Who (reboot), Earth 2, Crusade, Space Above and Beyond, Space 1999, Andromeda, Torchwood, V (original . . . in later editions I may cover the reboot, but I'm trying to limit shows post 2007. Note that with V I am only using the two original miniseries. I don't consider the actual first original series, back in 1985, as canonical, as the original producer was no longer at the helm and the show clearly suffered from this. Similarly I don't blame Glen Larson for Galactica 1980, even though he was at the helm, and so I don't include that either).

Major Canon Space Operas I don't cover: Earth Final Conflict, Lost in Space, Red Dwarf, Lexx, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, Stargate Universe, Tomorrow People, UFO.

My reasoning: The Star Trek series are self-explanatory. Whether you like them or not, Star Trek has put a defining stamp on American sci-fi, so I cover each Trek series, even the otherwise marginal Enterprise. For a similar reason, I cover Doctor Who and its reboots, since they are foundational to British sci-fi, like them or not. Firefly, though short, was good. So was Space Above and Beyond and to a lesser extent, Earth 2. They aren't major shows, but they are politically unusual enough to warrant inclusion. Babylon 5 defines post 1993 sci-fi, so its inclusion, along with Crusade, are obvious. Babylon 5, BSG, Firefly, and Farscape all relied heavily on Blake's Seven, which is why I included that series. Of the series I list here, Space 1999 is probably the most marginal. However, it was the first attempt to create a major post-Star Trek series. The original BSG is also relatively marginal, a one series show with some serious writing flaws. I include it, in part to be a BSG completist, and also because the original BSG marked a critical point in American sci-fi. Alien Nation and V, though not the equal of nineties series, were important enough within the rather sparse 1980's, to merit consideration.

Buck Rogers was obviously fluff, and while I may get to it if I have time, it's not high on my list. Earth Final Conflict was very interesting at points, but suffered from hampered writing. I would include it, if I could obtain all the DVD sets, but there's copyright issues. Several relatively good British programs I decided not to include: The Tommorow People, UFO, Red Dwarf, and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Tommorow People, though it ran a long time, wasn't a major genre influence, neither was UFO. I like Red Dwarf and think I would like Hitchhiker, but I decided not to do comedies so I wouldn't have to handle crap like Mork and Mindy or Futurama. If I get time, I may do Red Dwarf alone, because it is probably the fourth most important British sci-fi series (after B7, Dr. Who, and the Prisoner). Probably my most controversial omission is the Stargate series. Frankly, I find the writing in Stargate putridly bad (a statement that is itself not particularly well written, but I'm going on no sleep here). In addition, the number of seasons of these series would make covering a marginal series like SG-1 unfeasible for the present, especially if I want to cover any major non space-operas.

Non-Space Operas

Ones I hope to cover: Dollhouse, Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, X-Files, Prisoner, Dark Angel, Max Headroom.

Ones I won't cover: Jeremiah, Jericho, Cold Lazarus, Outer Limits (new), Logan's Run, 1990, Planet of the Apes, Quantum Leap, Sliders, Seaquest, Survivors, 4400, Heroes.

My reasoning: Dollhouse has a genuine science-fiction idea and sounds intelligently written (I haven't watched it yet). The original Outer Limits and the original Twilight Zone were, in my opinion, top 25 shows, so they definitely warrant inclusion if I get the time (though occassionally Twilight Zone is more fantasy than sci-fi. X-Files was, after Babylon 5, the most important science fiction show of its decade, and certainly the definitve Earth-bound post Prisoner series. The Prisoner is often ranked as the greatest sci-fi show ever, and I think there is definitely reason to support that viewpoint. Max Headroom was the first attempt at using cyberpunk in sci-fi tv. Obviously it should be included. Dark Angel is more borderline, but there's enough interesting elements that I think it would make for some interesting analysis.

As for the series I reject, Jeremiah was good, but just not genre significant enough. Jericho and Survivors I reject because I don't really want to deal with post-apocalyptic sci-fi, a form of sci-fi I find slightly too respectable and mainstream (though I do regret giving up on both these series, which sound excellent). I would love to do Cold Lazarus, but there's hangups with its DVD release. Logan's Run and Planet of the Apes were not well enough written to warrant a look, nor was Seaquest. 1990 is not available on DVD. I wish it was, as it represents, along with The Prisoner, the only right-leaning sci-fi series, and therefore would make for some interesting discussion. Quantum Leap, for me, is really a fantasy series, not sci-fi. Seaquest, despite the special effects, was marginal. 4400 and Sliders while good, simply weren't significant enough for me to personally take the time to watch them. Leaving Sliders out is really the only difficult choice.

Series that are good but that I don't consider sci-fi: Flash Forward, Lost, Buffy, True Blood, etc. A lot of these series are good, but the sci-fi elements are so minimal that I don't think I can justly merit buying them or taking the time to watch them.

So, you're probably wondering which of these series I own: Of the non-space operas, only Outer Limits and the Prisoner. Dollhouse isn't too expensive, and the X-Files has complete transcripts online, so I don't have to watch the show. Max Headroom is also cheap, and coming out soon, and Dark Angel is reasonably priced. That means only Twilight Zone will bite deep into my pocket, if I decide to cover these series.

Of the space operas: I own Firefly, Farscape, Babylon 5, BSG (old), BSG (reboot), Blake's Seven, Buck Rogers, about 40 old Doctor Whos and 1 season of the new Doctor Who, Earth 2, Red Dwarf, Space ABove and Beyond, Space 1999, UFO, V, and a season of Torchwood. All the Star Trek series I can find exact transcripts online, which is good, as their price is way out of my range. Crusade is relatively cheap, which means my main expenditures will be on buying Doctor Who and Torchwood seasons and episodes. I may not include every Who episode, particularly some politically marginal ones like The Romans, Space Musuem, and the Chase.

So wish me luck on this political extravaganza, that will probably take me 10 years to research and another 10 years to complete

Friday, July 9, 2010

Babylon 5 on religion

Babylon 5 was one of the most interesting series in its treatment of religion. Brother Theo promoted a relatively promising view of Catholicism that acknowledged its ambiguity. G'kar became an exalted spiritual leader. I found the Minbarri's complex notions of religion to be one of the first realistic portrayals of how an advanced alien culture might view religious experience (G'kar himself eventually comes to this view). The episode "Parliament of Dreams" realistically portrays a multicultural religious movement. About the only thing missing from Babylon 5 is a realistic treatment of evangelical religion and Islam. I would argue that historically these two religious movements have faired rather badly at the hands of sci-fi television writers. Fundamentalism in particular, was a target for derision by the writers of STNG and DS9 (anyone remember when Vedek Winn goes "creationist wacko" on Keiko Obrien). Islam, meanwhile, has never been adequately shown in any sci-fi series. Indeed, in sci-fi television, the assumption seems to be that only Christianity (Catholicism and an occasional liberal Protestant) and Judaism exist. Examples of detailed analyses of other religions are rather scare. The Doctor Who episode "Kinda" explores some Buddhist themes, and Star Trek Voyager condescendingly dealt with Native American religion, but overall most sci-fi characters are Christian, secular, New Age, or (on rare occassion) Jewish in outlook. Surely there's enough complexity in the world to now deal with religions other than the traditional ones America has gifted us with. And I also think we need more nuanced treatments of sci-fi fundamentalism, not Stargate SG-1 and DS9, but the reboot of Battlestar Galactica and the excellent Dune miniseries