I'm mostly willing to agree with everything you said, except the part about there being few challenging ideas in science fiction. I thnk the best writers in the field are consistently engaged with interesting and challenging ideas. Otherwise I don't think I'd stay interested. I've almost stopped reading fantasy despite the fact that there are enormously talented writers working in the genre for pretty much that reason -- it constantly re-works the same themes in the same way. It is backwards looking and not forward looking. (I'm aware that there are exceptions to this.) I know its not very productive arguing over either definitions of genre or matters of taste -- I did after all admit that BSG was very well written and usually well acted. I don't think it has nearly the resonance of a Phillip K. Dick novel, or of Blade Runner. I probably did oversimplify the machine-human motif in BSG -- casual viewers usually see much less than true fans. The Dickian themes of the n ature of reality and identity certainly could be explored without the Cylons or any science fiction elements at all, for that matter. Shakespeare was doing it centuries ago, noir writers like Cornell Woolrich -- and directors like Hitchcock -- were doing it in the forties and fifties and even a novel like The Bourne Identity (not the grossly simplified movie version) grapple with those ideas. Albeit in very different ways. I agree that 2001 appears dated, but I would maintain that the ideas in 2001 and its sequels, and other Clarke novels, continue to be challenging and engaging.
Anyway, I hate it when someone criticizes my favorite shows, so I guess I should have known better. ----- Original Message ----- From: William T Goodall<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 6:28 PM Subject: Re: Battlestar Galactica On 9 Apr 2008, at 01:22, Olin Elliott wrote: > > I have to admit that I don't get the Battlestar Galactica craze. I > have tried diligently to watch it and though I recognize the quality > of the storylines -- I think it is written just about as well as any > drama currently on television -- and characterizations, it doesn't > grab me. I think there are two reason for that, primarily. One, > I'm really just tired of the cold, calculating machines seeking to > wipe out flawed-but-noble humanity theme. BSG is more ambiguous than that. In this version the Cylons were created as slaves who then rebelled. They also have religion which is not machinelike at all. It's more like Philip K Dick, or even the movie version Blade Runner. > It seems to be everywhere in mass market sci-fi, from BSG to the > Sarah Connor Chronicles. They even turned Isaac Asimov's > wonderfully smart robot stories into an excuse for Will smith to > shoot up evil robots. I think it's a failure of imagination, taking > the most common track about the future of man's relationship to > technology. Second, I just don't see that BSG, while it might be > good drama, is good science fiction. Sure, it has a science fiction > background, other planets, set on a space ship, etc. but that that > doesn't make it sc > ience fiction. It makes it some kind of science fiction. Not hard sf perhaps but that has always been a very small niche in the sf field. > If I re-write the plot of a western to give the cowboys ray guns > instead of six-shooters, its still a western. It's a space opera actually :) > Star Wars is still a fantasy no matter how many jumps to hyperspace > the Millennium Falcon makes. Most of BSG's plotlines could be set > in totally different locales -- it wouldn't matter for instance if > the Cylons were any evil empire anywhere in history, you could still > tell basically the same stories about the fleeing refugees. The fleeing refugees aren't really the point of the story. That's just to add tension and drive things along. The story is about the nature of reality and identity and Dickian themes like that. Those are stories that can't be told without the artificial Cylon race to contrast with the humans. > What BSG lacks, and what defines science fiction for me, are ideas > -- new and challenging ideas about science, society, humanity, > aliens -- etc. etc. etc. I've been reading sf for forty years and there are very few new and challenging ideas in sf. Most ideas have been recycled many many times in slight variations and permutations. > The society on the Galactica looks pretty much like 20th century > society on Earth. Most societies in SF do, apart from whatever 'what if' is driving the story. Imagining a complete, consistent, plausible world is a bit much to ask for a story! Silly costumes and humanoid aliens with a few latex bumps aren't science fiction either. Look at 2001 - lots of experts were consulted at vast expense to get the 'future look' and it actually looks more dated and wrong than if they hadn't bothered. > BSG may be a very well written and produced tv drama, but it just > doesn't seem like good science fiction to me. It's science fiction and it's good even if it's not good science fiction Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk<http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/> Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/<http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/> "I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If so, then Microsoft would have great products." - Steve Jobs _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l<http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l> _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
