Picture of Dorian Gray

I just finished the Picture of Dorian Gray, which is a mythic fantasy-like novel by Oscar Wilde. It is a really interesting take on the corruption of the aesthetic ideal. What is so fascinating about the novel is that Wilde satirizes himself, particularly his well known reputation for being a dandy. Reading Dorian Gray is a tremendously sad experience, when knowing the facts of Wilde's life (He was put on trial for being gay, and sent to a jail that physically broke him. He died shortly after his release from prison). Wilde's writing, I think, should be the starting point for gay science fiction aesthetics, as he is a brilliant artistic theorist. His work has spawned more re-interpretations than any gay sci-fi\fantasy artist, with the exception of Samuel Delany. So please, check Dorian Gray out.

British Invaders: Best Sci-Fi Podcast out there

I just wanted to spend a post talking about British Invaders , which I believe is the best sci-fi podcast out there right now, along with the Babylon 5 Podcast. What makes British Invaders so unique is that its two hosts are utterly charming (and quite non-American in outlook. One's Canadian and one's British). Moreover, British Invaders deals with major British sci-fi series not normally covered in other podcasts, such as Survivors, Blake's 7, and Red Dwarf. The episodes are not too long (I actually wish they were a little longer, say 45 minutes), but the guys do a great job at expressing their love for British sci-fi. I especially recommend you check out their excellent description of Survivors, which really made me want to check out that series, as well as their episodes on Blake's 7. Keep it coming, British Invaders! We love you.

What is your favorite Earthside sci-fi program?

Normally, I am more a fan of space opera than earthbound science fiction. My favorite space operas are Farscape, Babylon 5, Doctor Who, Blake's 7, and to a lesser extent, the new Battlestar Galacatica. But I was wondering what your guys favorite Earthbound series are. To me, the top two Earthbound series are The Prisoner and Max Headroom. I think the Prisoner set the surrealist tone for so much of the Earth-centered sci-fi that came after it, only it did it much better. Max Headroom, meanwhile, was the definitive cyberpunk show. Politically, Earthbound series tend to emphasize paranoia and distrust of the government, healthy attributes in a state-controlled era of media-spinned, entertainment-saturated American citizens. Many of the top earthbound series have leaned heavily left, particularly Max Headroom and The X-Files. My fear with earthbound sci-fi is not that it will supplant space operas (though it is doing that), but that it will no longer be creative. I just can't get that interested in what's going on in Lost's island or in the parallel universes of Fringe. Neither series, right now at least, appeals to me. I want some real sci-fi ideas, and some new ones, not recycled and inferior copies of great Prisoner and X-Files episodes. The age of remakes and quasi-sci fi should be over. A return to cyberpunk, to thoughful space opera, to outlandish science fiction ideas, should begin.

Buck Rogers, or Stupidity Made Manifest

So, I'm watching Buck Rogers for my sci-fi Encylopedia. It's truly abysmal. The series has some of the worst acting ever, even if it is meant to be camp. Politically, it says absolutely nothing, except that the capital of the new world order will naturally be in Chicago (because Mayor Daley did such a good job there in the 1960's, the 25th century naturally had to follow suit). The sexual politics of the series are deeply repulsive. I mean all the eye candy is gorgeous, but I don't like seeing women being objectified the way Buck Rogers so clearly does. Even when compared to series like the old Battlestar Galactica, Buck looks weak. At least the old BSG had some heart, and even one or two characters you could care about. And the dumb android in this series, Twiki, is even worse than Boxey's daggit. All I want to do is put a gun to Twiki's head and pull the trigger. God, what a series.

Original Outer Limits vs. Sequel: No contest

I just wanted to say how much I prefer the original Outer Limits to its sequel series. The original series had an alien every week, and always was full of interesting ideas. Politically, it was foreword looking and maintained one's interest in how the series would unfold. By contrast, the sequel series was full of crappy special effects and crappy story lines, often having to recycle from the old series just to come up with good plots. There were a few good episodes, including a quite moving Holocaust time travel story, but overall the series drowned in its own mediocrity. It is my hope that future television series do follow the original's example, not its inferior ripoff.

The Holocaust and Contemporary Science Fiction

Contemporary science fiction, particularly television science fiction, does not often deal with the Holocaust, and when it does it does so in relatively allegorical terms. The most concrete references to it occur in "Genesis of the Daleks" and the 3rd and 4th seasons of Babylon 5, but both series ultimately shy away from the precipice. I think that for the genre to evolve, it has to be willing to take such portrayals to the hilt. For instance, a depiction of an interstellar Nazi state could be a major work of art, if done correctly, and a good cautionary tale as well. Some of the best depictions of the Holocaust have come from alternative history tales, such as The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H., Boys from Brazil, After Dachau, and Iron Dream. These are truly memorable portrayals of evil that deserve and demand a second reading. More complex visions of fascism, such as those offered in movies like The Believer and books like Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. Realizing that Nazism has a perverse fascination on us that is not always salutatory will go a long way to at least partially mitigating its evils. I hope that in the future, television sci-fi can have the courage to show the Shoah, in the hopes of creating a more productive dialogue about what might have been, had the Nazis won the war.

Category: Politics

Stop Suppressing Politically Controversial Sci-Fi

I am beginning to get more than a little paranoid about the apparent suppression of politically risky sci-fi. Norman Spinrad's latest novel, Osama the Gun, can't get published in the States because it deals with a future terrorist attack in a nuanced manner. Spinrad's famous novel Iron Dream, which portrays Hitler as a science fiction writer, mysteriously has gone out of print, despite the fact that it is considered one of the major explorations of Hitler's ideology in contemporary sci-fi. Spinrad is a major writer, but I fear he's ticked off so many people by being honest that he's suffering a kind of unofficial censorship today.
Similarly, until quite recently, Peter Watkins's films were out of circulation. Watkins sci-fi is some of the most politically radical ever filmed, particularly Privilege, which mocked government control of the entertainment industry and youth culture. That this excellent film was unavailable for close to forty years is a travesty. We need more artists like Watkins and Spinrad, not less.
And while you're at it, will someone finally release Blake's 7 here in the States? Don't worry, we can handle the bleakness. What we can't handle is a science fiction genre that refuses to take risks.

The Moral Ambiguity Divide

Science fiction television is divided into basically two halves: series that present basic battles between good and evil and tend to see the universe in terms of absolutes, and series which stress moral ambiguity. Here's how I'd divide the series:

Absolutist shows: Star Trek, TNG, Voyager, Enterprise, SG-1, Doctor Who (original), BSG (original), Buck Rogers, The Prisoner, Earth 2, V (original), Twilight Zone, Outer Limits

Ambiguity shows: Andromeda, Firefly, Farscape, Blake's 7, BSG (reboot), Torchwood, DS9, X Files

In the Middle: Babylon 5, Crusade, Doctor Who (reboot)

This is obviously not a full list of series. Which kind of series you like tends to depend a lot on your cultural and ideological background. As a rule, though I hold to some absolutist beliefs, I prefer the more ambiguous shows, because the writing is much better. Of my favorite series, only the original Doctor Who and The Prisoner are absolutist. Some of the other absolutist shows are fine, like The Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, but as a whole I just don't think these absolutist shows can match the nuanced characterizations of Farscape, Blake's 7 and Babylon 5. On the other hand, some shows have taken the ambiguity so far, such as Firefly and the BSG (reboot), that their characters are essentially cyphers and lack the depth of personality of a Kerr Avon or a G'kar. My other problem with the more ambiguous series, particularly with the new BSG (reboot), is that they sometimes sound too sympathetic to horrendous ideas, like the government eliminating certain civil rights during a time of war. I for one was more than a little pissed when Rosselin outlawed abortion for the good of the body politic in the new BSG, and I'm a pro-lifer! I thought Rosselin should stick to her guns and not give in to the "ends justify the means" rhetoric that has come to characterize the entire rebooted BSG franchise. I think JMS's position on Babylon 5, in which there are always choices, but always consequences to one's choices, is less likely to lead to this kind of relativistic anything-goes approach to civil rights and legal morality. But then again, I do like Blake's 7, which takes BSG's ambiguity and ramps it up ten degrees. I guess, though, that is because there is no sanctimonious pretense to moral strength on the part of Kerr Avon, which makes Blake's 7 more palatable than BSG, with BSG's constant desire to stay "relevant". Long term, I think Blake's 7 has been far more significant to the genre, because it refused to give some of the cheapened answers to moral questions that BSG delights in. Just my opinion though. Tell me what you think.

Category: Science fiction politico, science fiction politics

Wolf and Iron

I thought you guys might all want to take a look at Wolf and Iron, by Gordon Dickson. Wolf and Iron is interesting because its one of the first novels to posit a post-apocalyptic scenario not based on nuclear or biological warfare, but instead on economic collapse. Personally, I find this scenario less compelling, than say a oil-less world or something like that, but it does make for some interesting reading. The hero essentially treks through America, meanwhile explaining how the American economy collapsed due to its failure to live up to capitalist principles. The novel is absolutely brutal in its depiction of survivalism, and for that alone, it deserves a look. Think of it as a poor man's The Road.

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.

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

Mutoids and the Ethics of Genetic Engineering

The woman in the picture is a Mutoid, a genetically modified human being from the Blake's Seven series, who is made vampiric through her modifications. One thing I especially appreciate about Blake's 7 is that it always challenges the core assumptions of the "heroic" cast. In the episode from which this is taken, Duel, Blake and Commander Travis are forced to engage in a fight for survival because both men are considered ideological fanatics by the two powerful priestesses who have captured them. Though Blake is clearly seen as the better of the two individuals, the program does not let him off the hook, rightly pointing out that in some ways Blake is like a terrorist. 30 years before John Crichton carried a nuke
into the Scarran council chamber, Blake was making one small stride for terrorists everywhere.

But I digress. I wanted to talk about genetic engineering and the Mutoids. The Mutoids are hardly positive characters - they prey on humans for their blood except when constrained by the Federation. Yet, the portrayal of the genetically engineered in Blake's 7 is a positive advancement on similar portrayals in Star Trek (1966-68). In Star Trek, Khan Noonian Singh and his followers are depicted as barbarians who the Federation has a moral right and duty to discriminate against, on the basis of their dangerous "genes". The Mutoids, on the other hand, show the dangers of such discrimination. As a species, they are preyed upon by the Terran Federation (not the UFP), because of their genetic vulnerabilities. Indeed, I don't know that American sci-fi has yet attempted a morally neutral analysis of genetic enhancement technology, as it is too often lumped together with Nazi eugenics policies. Therefore, it's quite interesting to see how British and American science fiction contrastingly show the enhanced as victims (Blake's 7) and victimizers (Star Trek). Who, ultimately, is right?