I haven't read James Parker's take on Battlestar Galactica, mostly because I'm afraid to--I'm only in the first season. But that shouldn't stop you from reading it here, and subscribing to the print magazine. You need to know who I am in this. I'm on contract to blog here, nothing else. So I have no direct incentive to push the print on you. Except this: I'm a writer and a reader. And I know that we live in an era where magazines are falling down around us. The Atlantic is one of maybe two or three rags where you can get a profile of Chuck Schumer, an analysis of Battlestar, a meditation on the end of white people, and some guy rambling about Michelle Obama.
Anyway, that's my lecture for the day. Also check out Parker's commentary below.
<
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
So, did you like 33 & Water better then the mini?
Parker takes the easy shot of comparing BSG and its religious take to Scientology, because it's a famous "science fiction religion". But the fact is, the creator of the 1970s version was Mormon, and there's been plenty written about the resemblance between that theology and some the institutions in BSG ("Quorum of Twelve", anyone?)
TNC:
There are some massive spoilers in Parker's essay so I would stay away from it.
Meh. The article seems pretty rambling and theme-less. Also, whoever wrote the sub-title ("Is Battlestar Galactica a great television epic—or proof that there is no such thing?") apparently didn't read the article, because Parker most assuredly did not seek to answer that question.
Also, the last paragraph references a future event (the reveal of the identity of the last Cylon) that already occurred. The paragraph therefore no longer makes sense.
A spectacularly banal and uninteresting approach to the show. And, yes--page 2 of the online version is a minefield of spoilers.
I recommend you read Alan Sepinwall's recaps/reviews of the episodes; he's very good at finding things inside that the rest of us haven't noticed, and he finds the continuing threads, even the finest of them, with great skill. Alas, I don't see his reviews from before season 2.5:
http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/search/label/Battlestar%20Galactica%20(Season%202.5)
although surely there in there somewhere.
Great reviews of seasons 3 and 4 can be found over at The House Next Door too...
http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/search/label/Battlestar%20Galactica
Okay, i was going to hold my tongue, but in the name of piling on, if this guy didn't have a limey accent this shit wouldn't fly.
There, I said it.
His description of Zarek is quite amusing in retrospect.
I'll echo the previous comments in saying that Parker's take is unfocused and pretentious.
But in particular I'd like to take issue with his commentary. You can sit there and give ANY DRAMA EVER the Mystery Science Theater treatment. For drama to work, you have to be involved emotionally. I could sit and make snarky comments about The Piano or Children of Men or Six Feet Under or any great drama that takes it self seriously and it would work.
Being ironic about big time emotion is a lame choice. Frankly, he just comes off like an asshole.
Can I also just add that I don't think he watched the whole series, because he claims the temple is an "alien temple", but any BSG devotee knows (sliiiiiiiiight spoiler alert)...
there are no aliens in Battlestar Galactica. This strikes me as a very surface level analysis from someone who doesn't watch the show.
Wow.. what a lame review. He obviously doesn't get it... or really have any desire to think about it. The amount of space he spends on the Dirk Benedict incident is telling--because, really, who cares what the old Starbuck thinks about this series?
Additionally, on the second page, he asks "Whither naturalism" about various themes in the series, but then shows that he really hasn't thought(or, perhaps worse, cannot think) about the questions he asks...i.e. "Can one be realistic about the religious intuitions of robots?"--um.. if you are talking about biological clones whose forefounders were artificially intelligent machines created by Humans--and whose ships are run by cyborgs.. then yes, I think think such questions become relevant and are handled interestingly. The whole show pushes the issue of Creation and the difference between what it means to be human/what it means to be alive/intelligent throughout the entire series in interesting ways. It is in this sense, that the naturalism of the show comes through... as self-aware biological machines, we humans ask these questions.. why shouldn't intelligent machines that we created also ask them.. especially when they come to mimic us at such an intimate level that we can interbreed with them.. and possibly come to different answers than their creators..
Sorry for the venting... but I find this piece WAY superficial...
Also, someone go find some old Sullie footage on YouTube. He's definitely tweeked up the Queen's English bit since he was in his 20s.
I am in complete agreement with Riise.
It has the feel of being written by someone who actually liked what little of the show they watched, but felt embarrassed about it, so they chose the easy, cynical route.
For any piece of fiction to work, and especially anything with an element of unreality to it, you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief for a minute and just go with it. If you're just going to step back and mock the robots and spaceships and mythology, you should probably be reviewing something else.
This guy was obviouly given a number of episodes to watch that were the favorite of someone. He did enough background work to know something of the creators. He decided he didn't like it and went snarky.
Yeah, this guy is both refusing to engage with BSG with its internal logic, and isn't much interested in the show as a cultural phenomenon either. So, let's see, not interested in the show itself, not interested in its interaction with things outside of itself ... kind of makes the whole excercise futile, doesn't it?
Much worse (though probably related) is the author's refusal to commit to any sort of thesis. I hereby sentence him Mr. Parker to write his next three essays in high school 5-paragraph essay style, in which the last sentence of the first paragraph shall be the thesis statement, followed by three paragraphs of argumentation toward said thesis.
Take five random comments from your original post about BSG; four out of the five have more intelligent and interesting things to say about the show than Mr. Parker.
Agree with Riise for the most part. However, I admit to not being too impressed with the last 1.5 seasons or so. I feel like several characters have gotten lost and/or shifted dramatically without the development that happened early in the show. I am not nearly as interested to see how all of this turns out as I was, say...a year ago.
Much like The Wire though, I plan to watch it all again when it concludes as I am positive I either missed or forgot extremely important points.
I could agree that the cylon mythology of the show is kinda out of control and they've moved those goalposts a few times, but that's not the entire point of the show, anyway. Look at (SPOILERS!!!)
the last few episodes. They ask a bunch of new questions about Earth, a bunch of new questions about the fifth...and then spend three episodes on NONE of that, but on a coup storyline (which was really pretty good). The cylon mythology is at MOST one aspect of a VERY full show, and I might argue that it actually serves more as an external locus for the Fleet. So to judge the whole show based on its weaknesses is kind of unfair.
If you haven't already stumbled across them, the official podcasts by Ron Moore and co for each episode are fantastic.
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Podcasts
If someone thinks Star Trek is pretty lame, are they likely to think the same about BSG?
Can't say for sure, but I don't like Star Trek and I love BSG.
I read that in the print magazine, and I will pile on here to say that it pretty much sucked. There is intelligent commentary to be had in taking apart the ways the show doesn't work by someone who cares, but this is like reading a takedown of the Sex and the City movie from someone who thought the tv show was lame, too.
DonBoy is right about Mormonism as a relevant influence to look at. They're a persecuted minority following their leader out into the desert, he's guided by mysterious scrolls, and so on into deep history of the early church. Especially for what Gaius is up to in the last few seasons, bless his wacky and self-absorbed little heart. (The scientology makes no sense at all as a comparison.)
Do you dislike Star Trek because it's all spaceships and robots and aliens? Because BSG has all of that. Okay, except the aliens.
Or maybe you don't like Star Trek because of the goofy onesies, constant reliance on deus ex machinae, sterile visual aesthetic, technobabble, and all-too-frequently uncomplicated and optimistic morality plays?
If you're in the second category, you might like BSG. It's much darker, has (imo) better acting and writing, is more able to stretch stories out, deals with social issues in more interesting ways, and they don't solve every problem by reconfiguring the deflector shields. Also, the characters don't look like they're all wearing pajamas.
Some people say that it's like "The West Wing Goes to Hell, In Space," but I think that's unfair to BSG. The West Wing was full of optimism--everyone means well, is basically honest, and most if not all problems can be solved if we just find the right idea. Battlestar Galactica makes none of these assumptions.
The original series had a good deal of Mormon allusions in it, but I think this BSG is more early-Christianity and Paganism references with other allusions. What Mormon references are in it are mostly a matter of what they've kept from the old series. I think Moore confirms this as, unlike Larson, Moore is not a Mormon or even particularly knowledgeable about that faith.
As in DS9 the religion is important, but somewhat vague. Generally Cylon religion is monotheistic, so often compared to Christianity or Islam, but its belief in a kind of cyclic-time is more Hindu or Dharmic. (Although some Muslim thinkers came close to the "this has all happened before and will happen again" viewpoint) Colonials seem to have several religions and are mostly polytheist. What either sides God/Gods want from them, or consider good and true, I'm not really sure. Going by something Starbuck said once divorce is apparently considered a grave sin, but it's common enough that might just mean they're equivalent to a society of lapsed Catholics.
The hell? That wasn't commentary. That was some git who hasn't figured out the essence of the relationship between Baltar and Six after three seasons. Seriously, after three seasons the commentator is still wondering if she's really there or not? Really?
FAIL.
Was it ambiguous in the first season? Yes. But this is commentary from someone who needs a timeline for Back to the Future part 1.
Primer (an independant film written by programmers) needs a timeline. This, not so much.
If you're in the second category, you might like BSG. It's much darker, has (imo) better acting and writing, is more able to stretch stories out, deals with social issues in more interesting ways, and they don't solve every problem by reconfiguring the deflector shields. Also, the characters don't look like they're all wearing pajamas.
That point about the reprogramming the deflector shields gets at what TNC said earlier about their using nukes rather than destructo rays, and you've given it a name--no machina ex deus. They avoid plot resolution by random bit of technology that Chief conveniently produces even though we had no idea it existed earlier in the episode. The tech is very now + faster than light drive. So they might have issues of finding tillium ore, or keeping the tillium refinery running, or repairing a faster than light drive, or finding more algae for the food processors to turn into food--stuff where the existing technology goes wrong or needs to be kept running--but new weird technology doesn't appear. Or it does in cylon guise, and with some existing limitations to its use.
Being ironic about big time emotion is a lame choice. Frankly, he just comes off like an asshole.
Ditto Riise. I'm over the tongue-in-cheek, not quite sure it's cool to love this as much as I do, so I'd better belittle it's complexity, while reveling (and reveling in) my own (faux) wit. Silly.
If you think the show's no good, just say so. If you're too ashamed about how invested you are in the show to approach it like a sincere critic, scholar, or fan (or best, all in one) then just don't write an article about it.
This has that delicate waftage of Google research about it, doesn't it? The 1970s creator had Mormon ties, Dirk Benedict ire from four years ago, a little wikipedia . . .and voila.
You know what;s annoying in an essayist? When most of his statements are simple blather. Example: Scientology takes space opera seriously, so "Hubbard might have smiled upon this show’s basic premise."
What? Look, whether you like the show or loathe it, it's one of the most thoroughly religiously skeptical and relativistic shows on television. The monotheists go genocidal under the belief that God has chosen them. The polytheists are shown falling into despair because the massive destruction of the war must show that their ARE no protective gods. Political leaders use prophecy and scripture for manipulative purposes. Cults form out of despair and their members are depicted as tragic dupes: Hubbard would love this?!
In fact, Moore and his script writers only get away with as much religious skepticism as they do because the show's on cable and has a tiny audience.
Whatevs on Parker, except essayists who sew a bunch of nonsequitors together with a thin gruel of wit are always wearying. How long till he follows up with the post: "People thought my essay was sh*tty. So, that means it's good!"
Well I think they have the "Sci-Fi" advantage of none of it being "real."
The Cylon's religion is not actually Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.
The human's religion seem pretty close to Hellenistic paganism, but Hellenistic Neo-Pagans aren't common enough to worry about upsetting. Besides it also has some clear differences.
So the viewer can think "well they think all their religions are false because of all of THEIR religions, as opposed to mine, are false."