Television has thrown up many unlikely television series in recent years which have gone on to become ratings bonanzas. Ten million people regularly tune in to watch the trials and tribulations of a New Jersey mob family. Almost fifteen million tune in to watch an overworked government agent try to save to world in 24 hours. Nearly ten million people watch the Byzantine tale of plane crash survivors on a mysterious island. Thirteen million watch impeccably dressed detectives who never heard of fluorescent lighting poke at human remains. Fifteen million tune in regularly to watch the antics of a lottery winning hick who found Buddha.
Truth is, you probably already watch plenty of shows that, if someone had explained the plot to you years ago, you would have rolled your eyes and said, "not in a million years." So the question is, if you were willing to give Tony Soprano and his therapist a chance, or Jack Bauer, or the Lostaways or Earl, why wouldn’t you take a chance on the best series on television, Battlestar Galactica?
Oops, I’ve lost you. I see your eyes glazing over. You don’t “do” science fiction. You prefer a little realism in your TV, thank you very much. You have vague memories of a cheesy '70s Star Wars rip-off with that name. Maybe you enjoyed it back then, because you were seven. Or maybe you missed it because you weren’t into sci-fi then, and you’re certainly not now. Now you’re thinking something clever like, “Sheesh, what’ll they bring back next — My Mother, The Car? Those Hollywood idiots can’t do anything original, can they?”
I can't deny it. Science fiction has a rap. Its followers are nerdy fanboys hypothesizing that maybe, really, we’re all just a dream in some android’s head. It’s Captain Kirk with a strategically ripped shirt battling a man in a gorilla suit with a lizard mask. It’s people getting themselves into impossible situations and then saving themselves with futuristic gadgets. They’re Westerns with laser guns.
Star Trek, Star Wars and, yes, the 1970s version of Battlestar Galactica, all fit into this goofy Buck Rogers interpretation of sci-fi. And, don’t get me wrong - full confession time - I’ve been known to enjoy those shows. But the reality is that true science fiction, hard science fiction, the science fiction of Heinlein, Dick, and Clark, was never meant to be Westerns in space. According to someone who cared enough to write a thesis on it, “the purpose of science fiction is to introduce scientific or technological novelties in order to create narratives that enable us to perceive everyday reality at a reflective distance.” It even has a name: cognitive estrangement.
Article comments
1 - Matthew
I don't think it's fair to describe Doctor Who as "lasers in space". In the UK it is a mainstream family show, getting 8-10 million viewers and up to 40% audience share (which is superbowl levels). It's certainly not as serious as Battlestar Galactica but it has moments of seriousness and its main appeal lies in the characterisation and the human drama of stories. Certainly it's quirky (but no more so than My Name is Earl) and its Britishness means that it's never going to be as mainstream in the US as it is in the UK, but it is designed to be mainstream popular entertainment, not niche sci-fi. And it certainly bears very little resemblance to any US sci-fi series.
It's on immediately before Battlestar Galactica and I'd say it's worth giving both shows a try.
2 - Deano
It is interesting that you would entitle your post "In defense of...".
Science fiction has long been relegated by critics to being a "second-class citizen", a genre ghetto that has, in the written format, rarely been considered literary or respected by critics, despite the occasional inroads of a William Gibson or others. Similarly I've heard many films and TV shows dismissed casually due to the fact that they were sci-fi, as if the setting automatically disqualifies them from depth of content, excellence of storyline or quality.
Battlestar Galactica has nothing to apologize for - it is one of the best dramatic shows on television and I don't think anyone should be shy about stating that fact. If you can't tune in or don't know what's going on, go to you local Blockbuster and rent the Season 1 and 2 DVD's, get caught up and dive right in. You will not be disappointed.
3 - Anna Creech
To add to Deano's comment: It would also help if you can pick up a copy of the SciFi channel mini-series that preceeded season one. Treat it like a three-hour long pilot and what follows will make more sense.
Personally, I can't watch Battlestar Galactica anymore because it is too gritty and real. I tried, but I like my sci-fi to be a little more hopeful than BSG. But, anyone who likes serious drama with high tension should definitely include it in their regular TV viewing.
Great essay!
4 - PB Judgeq
Wonderful essay. I am keeping a copy to give to friends who are sceptical about BSG.
I am an English teacher in Japan and I use BSG for my English for academic purposes class. It is a wonderful tool to get the students discussing and writing about issues in contemporary world events.
Thanks for a superb essay!
- PJ
5 - Lara
You hit every point exactly. Galactica has something for everyone- soap opera-esque character relationships, political themes, explosions, what have you.
Doctor Who and both Stargate shows are awesome to hardcore scifi fans like myself, but Galactica is the treasure of SciFi Channel. Thanks for your essay, which certainly does the show justice. :D
Lara
6 - Steve
Isn't Stargate more machine guns in space?
Anyway, loved the article...
7 - Christopher Rose
Stargate is actually about how humanity was fooled into believing in non-existent gods. Seems familiar to our current reality at all?
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Actually, Chris, there may be more to the story than just "Stargate," though the idea of the movie gives some clues. I won't bother you with the details, but it seems clear that there was pretty advanced technology around on the planet when we were just cavemen. So somebody had the technology, and used it.
There is a clue to the whole situation in Psalm 82:6-7, which deals with judgment. The line in the Hebrew:
"Aní amárti elohím atém u'v'nei elyón kulkhém. Avén t'mutún u'kh'aHád hasarím tiflú."
The setting is G-d speaking to an "audience." This is a standard translation into English from my Tana"kh.
"I said, 'You are angelic, sons of the Most High are you all. But like men shall you will die and like one of the princes shall you fall'"
But when I read the Hebrew, the meaning is much plainer.
"I said, 'you are gods, sons of the Most High you are. But you will die and fall like one of the princes.'"
In other words, people with advanced technology, who seemed to be like gods (and who were worshipped like gods) were being told by the Almighty - perhaps being reminded - that they would eventually die and fall like the princes over men they supported and manipulated.
This should sound very familiar to you. It is Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman "mythology." Except that these were not gods, they were people who lived a very long time and had much better technology than the 'savages' around them, folks like us, what the Sumerians called "black haired people." And the ancient Hebrews called these gods "nefilím" or fallen ones from the sky. The Sumerians called these fallen ones "anunaki." Go google it up. You may get some very interesting results.
9 - Christopher Rose
I love the ideas of the Stargate movie, which I've not yet seen, and the concepts of the original TV series, as they play right into my pre-existing postulate that the idea that we are supposed to worship some all-powerful absentee landlord "creator" is simply false. I hope you've noticed by now that I'm not saying the creature(s) don't exist, just that the idea of a "god" is wrong.
If you remember Ruvy, we were just touching on this subject and I was asking for more info, based on your beliefs, on the nature and offworld origin of this creature you call god, along with more about the alleged end of all things in about twenty years from now, when the recent hostilities in Lebanon diverted your focus and attention.
As I've tried to say before, it seems plausible, pretty clear in fact, that something very important in terms of the direction of human development happened some ten thousand or so years ago. Alien intervention is a theory that can't be discounted and deserves more consideration and research than it currently receives as we struggle to understand our origins and, indeed, our future.
Given all that, you can see why I feel such intense skepticism about and frustration with the "big three" religions, which block understanding the subject more deeply through overly rigid and probably misunderstood dogma...
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Let's get some vocabulary straight, Chris. Whatever G-d is He is not a "creature." That implies that He was created. G-d is the Creator, not the other way round. The term "entity" is far more appropriate.
You may have figured out by now that my ideas are not the 'standard Jew with a kippa' set handed out at the yeshivas. I had to wrestle with these concepts, and while the ideas that Schroeder presents are a neat package, they do not cover all the bases as well some other ideas, which are presently enshrouded in the la-la-land of the internet.
Schroeder has more solid evidence for his ideas, even if some cosmologists have trouble ith them. So, I generally stick with Schroeder, than discuss the ideas I'll bring up below.
The chief concept that backs the ideas that appeal to me more, those of Zechariah Sitchin, has the problem of talking about something that has to be found - a large planet with a strange orbit of 3,600 years around the sun that, like Jupiter, is a failed sun. If astronomers do find such a planet, with such an orbit, then Sitchin's theories about Sumerian "gods" really being inhabitants of this planet would be clinched.
So I generally do not mention these ideas at all. They are too easy to tear apart, and sound too crazy, even though they make an awful lot of sense. In addition, a lot of nut-cases have seized upon them, adding all sorts of idiocy - the reasons they are presently in la-la-land, instead of seriously debated.
11 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, as far as I'm concerned this god of yours, if it ever did exist outside of superstition, is most definitely a creature, at least enough like you and me that humans could understand, even converse with it.
You have no basis for saying he is the creator, except for the writings in some old books which, by your own words, were written many millenia after the events in question.
I think it's a good idea to discuss this kind of thing; just 'cos a few loons create all kinds of mystical nonsense and general idiocy should not stand in the way of sincere inquiry by people.
Of course, having an open mind rather than believing unquestioningly goes a long way too...