![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When I write, I’m very aware of the theme that I am presenting. I know that I’m not supposed to be. I’ve heard lots and lots of writers expound on how the theme of their book appears only at the end and they are amazed to find out what it was they were trying to say. Yeah. Maybe. That simply doesn’t work for me.
I’m not talking about writing a sermon or presenting propaganda. I’m talking about exploring an issue and being able to present a philosophical or moral issue in such a way that the reader or viewer can intellectually come to an independent conclusion about that topic; a conclusion beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing with a conclusion that the writer presented in the work. In a well written piece, the author presents the argument and trusts that the audience will spend some time looking at the implications of the argument. Keep in mind that the actual conclusion is secondary to the intellectual exercise of considering all the angles of the argument.
Now Battlestar Galactica usually does a masterful job of this. I don’t always watch BG, mind, but I have seen more episodes than I have missed. Actually, the thing I love best about the show is the podcast with the writer/executive producer who discusses the entire show. I love listening to the reasoning behind creative decisions
Tonight’s episode, which wasn’t bad, was really only meh in most respects (interestingly enough, in the pod cast, they totally agree that it’s only meh and come up with the exact reasons why), but I found the ending to be solid. The ending was believable and complex and didn’t make any grand moral statement. In other words, it was typical Galactica and everything a want in a complex and interesting show.
Galactica does a wonderful job at presenting morally and ethically complex situations, complicated with extenuating circumstances and conflicting goals – none of which are clearly right or wrong. It usually doesn’t end with a clear statement of which way is absolutely right. You watch the show and you can come to you own conclusions on what you believe.
I really never realized how good the show is on doing that until they didn’t get it right. The two parter that started off the second half of the season was absolutely wonderful – until the very end. It’s not necessary to know the whole plot, suffice to say that the Battlestar Pegasus, equal in power to the Galactica, shows up, and it is commanded by Admiral Kane. Being an Admiral she outranks our intrepid Captain Adama and rightfully takes over command of the fleet. Unfortunately, the war with the Cylons has pushed her completely over the edge. Not only does she condone and encourage the physical and sexual torture of captured Cylons, but she sees the civilian fleet as hindrance to the complete and totally eradication of the enemy.
In fact, you find out that when the Pegasus first survived the attack, it had several civilian ships with it. Seeing that these civilian ships were a liability, she ordered them to be left behind. Not before, however, culling any civilians from the ships that she felt could be useful aboard the Pegasus. Just the useful ones, mind. Not their families nor their friends. When some of the people naturally protested this, Kane ordered their families killed. So the first ones who said no got to watch the ones they love murdered by the military.
At the end of the episode, Kane is killed. That part I’m actually happy about, however, at the funeral, they blow it. Starbuck is talking and she says: I, um, only knew Admiral Cain for a short time, so what I have to say about her will be short. She faced things. She looked them right in the eye and she didn't flinch. That's something that we do a lot around here. We second-guess. We worry. When I think about what she went through after the attack-- all alone, one ship, no help, no hope-- she didn't give up. She didn't worry. She didn't second-guess. She acted. She did what she thought needed to be done, and the Pegasus survived. Might be hard to admit, or hard to hear, but I think that we were safer with her... than we are without.
At which point I went: Bullshit. I doubt that the civilians were safe with her around. I’m sure they could have polled the people whose families she executed and they would not have felt safe with her around. Any commander who enjoys the rape and torture of prisoners is not a safe person to have around. Kane sacrificed every good and noble thing about humanity in order to continue toward the goal of destroying the enemy.
Still, I would have been okay with the episode if there would have been a counter point to what Starbuck said. If that would have happened, Starbuck’s opinion would have just been Starbuck’s opinion. Only that point was never revisited. Although there were two other plot points that were touched on by the end of the show, Starbuck’s final statement of “we were safer with her... than we are without” was left as the shows only commentary on Kane’s entire existence.
In order to disagree with the comment, you have to disagree with the entire show.
And that, I feel, is a very important lesson to keep in mind when writing. An author needs to present equally strong and legitimate points and counter-points in order to be able to truly reach an audience. If you don’t, you’re only going to be preaching to the choir. Which is fine if that’s the audience you want, but it really doesn’t provide the challenge or satisfaction of reaching beyond the obvious.
Galactica is good because it usually doesn’t demand agreement with a moral statement in order to enjoy the show and it allows its audience the intellectual freedom to form its own, independent conclusions. It’s something that I am striving to attain in my own ramblings.
I’m not talking about writing a sermon or presenting propaganda. I’m talking about exploring an issue and being able to present a philosophical or moral issue in such a way that the reader or viewer can intellectually come to an independent conclusion about that topic; a conclusion beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing with a conclusion that the writer presented in the work. In a well written piece, the author presents the argument and trusts that the audience will spend some time looking at the implications of the argument. Keep in mind that the actual conclusion is secondary to the intellectual exercise of considering all the angles of the argument.
Now Battlestar Galactica usually does a masterful job of this. I don’t always watch BG, mind, but I have seen more episodes than I have missed. Actually, the thing I love best about the show is the podcast with the writer/executive producer who discusses the entire show. I love listening to the reasoning behind creative decisions
Tonight’s episode, which wasn’t bad, was really only meh in most respects (interestingly enough, in the pod cast, they totally agree that it’s only meh and come up with the exact reasons why), but I found the ending to be solid. The ending was believable and complex and didn’t make any grand moral statement. In other words, it was typical Galactica and everything a want in a complex and interesting show.
Galactica does a wonderful job at presenting morally and ethically complex situations, complicated with extenuating circumstances and conflicting goals – none of which are clearly right or wrong. It usually doesn’t end with a clear statement of which way is absolutely right. You watch the show and you can come to you own conclusions on what you believe.
I really never realized how good the show is on doing that until they didn’t get it right. The two parter that started off the second half of the season was absolutely wonderful – until the very end. It’s not necessary to know the whole plot, suffice to say that the Battlestar Pegasus, equal in power to the Galactica, shows up, and it is commanded by Admiral Kane. Being an Admiral she outranks our intrepid Captain Adama and rightfully takes over command of the fleet. Unfortunately, the war with the Cylons has pushed her completely over the edge. Not only does she condone and encourage the physical and sexual torture of captured Cylons, but she sees the civilian fleet as hindrance to the complete and totally eradication of the enemy.
In fact, you find out that when the Pegasus first survived the attack, it had several civilian ships with it. Seeing that these civilian ships were a liability, she ordered them to be left behind. Not before, however, culling any civilians from the ships that she felt could be useful aboard the Pegasus. Just the useful ones, mind. Not their families nor their friends. When some of the people naturally protested this, Kane ordered their families killed. So the first ones who said no got to watch the ones they love murdered by the military.
At the end of the episode, Kane is killed. That part I’m actually happy about, however, at the funeral, they blow it. Starbuck is talking and she says: I, um, only knew Admiral Cain for a short time, so what I have to say about her will be short. She faced things. She looked them right in the eye and she didn't flinch. That's something that we do a lot around here. We second-guess. We worry. When I think about what she went through after the attack-- all alone, one ship, no help, no hope-- she didn't give up. She didn't worry. She didn't second-guess. She acted. She did what she thought needed to be done, and the Pegasus survived. Might be hard to admit, or hard to hear, but I think that we were safer with her... than we are without.
At which point I went: Bullshit. I doubt that the civilians were safe with her around. I’m sure they could have polled the people whose families she executed and they would not have felt safe with her around. Any commander who enjoys the rape and torture of prisoners is not a safe person to have around. Kane sacrificed every good and noble thing about humanity in order to continue toward the goal of destroying the enemy.
Still, I would have been okay with the episode if there would have been a counter point to what Starbuck said. If that would have happened, Starbuck’s opinion would have just been Starbuck’s opinion. Only that point was never revisited. Although there were two other plot points that were touched on by the end of the show, Starbuck’s final statement of “we were safer with her... than we are without” was left as the shows only commentary on Kane’s entire existence.
In order to disagree with the comment, you have to disagree with the entire show.
And that, I feel, is a very important lesson to keep in mind when writing. An author needs to present equally strong and legitimate points and counter-points in order to be able to truly reach an audience. If you don’t, you’re only going to be preaching to the choir. Which is fine if that’s the audience you want, but it really doesn’t provide the challenge or satisfaction of reaching beyond the obvious.
Galactica is good because it usually doesn’t demand agreement with a moral statement in order to enjoy the show and it allows its audience the intellectual freedom to form its own, independent conclusions. It’s something that I am striving to attain in my own ramblings.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-28 07:30 pm (UTC)From:And it was very jarring that no one disagreed with Kara.