The House Next Door

Regarding the episode's hints of Solzhenitsyn and the USSR, I'm glad you brought them up, because I thought maybe it was just me. Between the bleached-out color scheme, the documentary camerawork (a BSG staple), the terrain somewhere between desert and East European forest, the daylight mass executions, etc., the whole thing felt very Eastern Bloc. I thought especially of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan -- although the religious/racial (species-l?) tension felt more like the Balkans circa the early 90s. You're right, though -- the show keeps things loosely allegorical. It's easy to see why viewers would think of Iraq first and foremost, since that quagmire is on the front pages every day, but in a different frame of mind, or in a different country, you might easily think of another conflict between occupier and insurgency, from pretty much any era you can name.

What the series seems to be suggesting instead is simply that when humans are oppressed, they will rebel, and when they do, no one should be surprised.

This is the crux of this warlike show. My husband was watching it and reading the reviews afterwards and was surprised how how people were just blown away by how "edgy" the show was because it incorporated suicide bombings, but for him, in this era of war, it was only natural to include it because now, that is part of war. It wouldn't be a realistic display of war and occupation without it. All that to say it didn't surprise him or blow him away.

I really enjoyed D'Anna's visit to the prophetess/seer. It was comical in a way that was a relief, in stark contrast to the rest of the show. I mean, it was a relief when people were saved, but even as people were saved, there was still more to do. Nothing was settled. I was glad that Ellen was found out so early, but still Tigh has to deal with that. He was willing to kill the human police division, will he be willing to do the same with his wife.

I like the female spin of this article. I didn't really notice it on the show because I really am used to strong women in the show. I mean, the scene that just really stands out for me from the premiere is Starbuck stabbing the cylon to death, wiping the blood from her hand then sitting down demurely to eat. Even though she was trapped, she never gave up. That showed her fighting side. Exodus, Pt. 1 showed a maternal side she didn't know she had. When that baby got hurt, I wonder if she remembered every hurtful thing her mother did to her and the promises she made to never be like her? I am really interested in seeing that side played out and the question I have be answered as they make their way back into space.

As far as the cylons go, while they seem to want to operate on consensus, it always seems as if the females are in control somehow. While there are more men (the doctor, the one hold Starbuck, the preacher, the scarily blank looking one) it, at times, feels as if there are more women. I can't wait to know what all 12 models are.

Overall, this post on ep. 41 was quite thoughtful. For those who feel BSG has come too close to supporting the Iraqi insurgency, I think this might be the wrong question. Yes, there are clear parallels between the insurgency on New Caprica and the Iraqi insurgency, and the show is using its contemporary resonance to great effect. And yes, BSG wants its viewers to seriously think about what motivates insurgents, what it might feel like to be occupied by a power, even one who acts (or some of its members want to act) in the name of a greater good. But there are more complex questions here as well. Roslin confronts Tigh over the morality of suicide bombings. Cylons suffer as humans (this isn't Terminator). We feel sympathy for Jammer and those that join the New Caprica Police in an attempt to stave off the violence of the insurgency.

Moreover, BSG has never restricted itself to one allusion. In the search for Earth, we see resonance with the Israelites of the Old Testament. Enlightenment rationalism confronts mysticism, and we're not sure whose side to be on. We have questions of order versus democracy and freedom, and the answer of which one should be valued more is never obvious. Through these overlapping appeals, the viewer is forced to engage with new and radically different perspectives. It's not a call to one side or the other, just an appeal to think.

Todd VanDer Werff wrote: While literary science fiction has grown beyond this (thanks to a wide variety of female science fiction writers, from Ursula K. LeGuin to Connie Willis),

Have you ever ever read anything pre-1980? Heinlein -
"Podkayne of Mars" (1963), Dr. Susan Calvin, "I, Robot" (1950),
Analog, Omni, Fantasy and Science Fiction magazines?

continued: theatrical films often cling to the old pulp roles, plus the odd variation on Princess Leia (James Cameron excepted).

Movies? How about Lt. Ripley ("Alien"), Laura Croft ("Tomb
Raider"), "Tank Girl", "Waterworld" - there are others.

continued: On television, things are worse; even a character as resourceful and intelligent as Scully on The X-Files found herself in peril more often than her male partner.

TV? "Bablyon 5" (DeLenn, Ivanova, Alexander, Winters),
"Space: Above and Beyond" (Vansen, Damphousse), "Farscape"
with Sun, Chiana and Zhaan, "Stargate" both versions "SG1" and "Atlantis"?

As a good friend said to me just recently, if anything scifi has historically been more than friendly to women giving them positive roles beyond the available bimbo.

With respect to Cali, allow me to present an opposing viewpoint.

To me at least, Cali represents the very antithesis of your point about strength, courage and vitality of BSG's women. Cali has shown the inability to follow a superior's orders due to cowardice,
failed to confront Tyrol in his affair with Sharon, "forgave" him after Tyrol beat and almost killed her - it's almost as if Cali is portraying the hopeless female caught in an abusive relationship. Given the fact that when presented an opportunity to stand with her fellow prisoners, she ran away rather than at least mount some kind of distraction or counter to the impending prisoner execution. It seems to me that Cali is a beaten and shallow character with little redeeming value.

With respect to BSG and allegory to the current world situation, you said, What the series seems to be suggesting instead is simply that when humans are oppressed, they will rebel, and when they do, no one should be surprised.

I honestly don't know how this very romantic concept manages to survive in this day and age. One only has to witness current and historical conditions of our world where oppression ruled/rules the day to understand that humans don't rebel or stand up to oppressors - they are to busy surviving. It takes leadership, idealism, courage and charisma to begin to engage oppressive governing and that is a rare and elusive thing.

Where I agree with you is the positive character of Laura (Not Hannah) Roslin who is clearly the strongest female presence in the show and one well worth investing time in cheering for. McDonnell portrays Roslin in a very human way with strength, character and all the attendent failings of character that occur when faced with life or death decisions.

continued (allegory to Iraq and war in general): "However, it's worth noting that while Galactica is allegorically inclined, it is not simplistic."

With all due respect, yes it is.

BSG's military is built on the Western European tradition of duty, honor and loyalty - faith, family and character. It is built that way intentionally because all those virtues of the western tradidion, while simple in concept, are complicated and even Byzantine in practice.

In "Precipice" we witness something so inimical to western military tradition as to be painful. There is a significant difference between one-way missions against an identifiable target and the mass execution of relatively innocent people in a effort to eliminate a target. It was what it was - allegory about suicide bombers and the supposedly "desperate" situation they find themselves in. It was an intrusion of personal political beliefs into the script to make a point. One could make the point about POW escapes in recent world conflicts like WWII or Korea, but again, these were largely military men with a military tradition - civilian populations aren't a consideration in this context.

The BSG writers seem to have forgotten that these are military personnel with a defined hierarchy. While self-sacrifice is a commodity of the military war experience, it is a high value commodity and is never thrown away just to make a point. Further, tradition states emphatically that if the high value target against which you are expending a high value asset does not appear or conduct itself such that the mission is compromised, you abort and attempt it again.

The whole suicide scenario was also flawed within the precepts of self-sacrifice in that a commander would never, ever put what is a basically an unstable personality into a "do it and die" situation if only because loss and grief are much too complex emotions to ensure a result. Additionally, the structure of "one-way" missions is never totally one-way within our tradition - there is always a way to complete the mission and escape - however small that chance may be - there is always an out.

It seemed to me that they wanted to make a larger point about desperation and suicide bombings rather than think it through in a "what would a strong military faced with such a situation do"? That was unfortunate because it was a stark and startling intrusion into a scenario which could have been so much more.

What the BSG writer's and directors have done is take a noble and complex tradition and reduced it to simple terms - which is unfortunate.

sheik: For what it's worth, that Hannah/Laura Roslin error was an editing mistake (i.e., mine) and not Todd's.

You make good points about the show's treatment of suicide bombing and collateral damage, particularly within (as you point out) a basically Western military organization and cultural mindset. However, I'd argue that BSG intentionally plays mix-and-match with that sort of stuff to confound viewers, so I not only accept that, I look forward to it.

Also, regarding this: "The whole suicide scenario was also flawed within the precepts of self-sacrifice in that a commander would never, ever put what is a basically an unstable personality into a "do it and die" situation if only because loss and grief are much too complex emotions to ensure a result." I am a bit confused as to your objection. Do you mean a commander within the Western military tradition would never do this? Because we've seen a lot of evidence post-9/11 to suggest that in other cultures, properly trained and/or indoctrinated people -- who are presumably at the end of their mental tether otherwise they'd never consider taking part in such a thing -- are quite capable of carrying out a mission that is virtually guaranteed to end their death. Mental/emotional instability seems, if not a prerequisite, then certainly not an insurmountable obstacle to making sure the mission goes off without a hitch.

Next, I think you're reading Todd a bit too literally when you call him out on this:

With respect to BSG and allegory to the current world situation, you said, "What the series seems to be suggesting instead is simply that when humans are oppressed, they will rebel, and when they do, no one should be surprised." ... I honestly don't know how this very romantic concept manages to survive in this day and age. One only has to witness current and historical conditions of our world where oppression ruled/rules the day to understand that humans don't rebel or stand up to oppressors - they are to busy surviving. It takes leadership, idealism, courage and charisma to begin to engage oppressive governing and that is a rare and elusive thing.

I don't think he was saying that when people are oppressed, they'll all stand up and fight, because that doesn't happen in life, or on BSG either. I think you're more in agreement on this specific observation than you might think, though for purposes of this discussion, Todd's wording could have been more explicit. It's always a handful of dissidents or insurgents who stick their necks out first, and then the general population -- the sheep with plenty to lose -- either support them or don't.

Finally, I have to disagree with you that Waterworld offered heroines who diverged from the Princess Leia model. It's been 11 years since I saw the movie, but I seem to remember Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Marjorino's characters being fairly passive (albiet superficially spunky) with the bulk of heroic action being reserved for Costner's Mariner character. And no fair bringing up Ripley as a counterexample ("James Cameron excepted"), because while she debuted in a Ridley Scott film, Cameron made her a lot more Starbuck-y, and the heroines of the Tank Girl and Lara Croft movies are very Cameron-esque.

Out of curiosity, are you past or present military? Or have you just done a lot of reading and thinking about the culture and traditions?

sheik:

First, sorry I didn't see your comment until just recently. I have a tendency to stop checking these pieces for such after a few days.

Also, I'm not sure I can adequately respond to EVERYthing you say at this point (have to get to bed sometime), but I think I can hone in a bit on your questions about female heroes in science fiction.

My prevailing philosophy when it comes to feminist criticism (which I'm, admittedly, no expert at) is that it's not that a show HAS a female hero, but, rather, HOW that female hero is utilized. To cite a piece I wrote a long time ago, Trixie on Deadwood, who makes her own destiny, is a prostitute but also a feminist hero. But I would make the argument that Sydney Bristow on Alias, an ass-kicker if ever there was one, isn't REALLY a feminist hero. For one thing, her whole life is dictated to her by the men in it. And, for another, what she really wants is to have babies with a nice boy. This is not to say that these are unworthy goals or anything, but both traits are stereotypically drawn from the Western idea of womanhood.

Of course, there are degrees -- Sydney Bristow is leagues more of a feminist hero than Donna Reed's character on her titular show, but one must also consider the times when these characters arose. Sydney is post-Buffy and Xena. Her blow for the ass-kicking woman is considerably dulled by the fact that she was several steps down the line to getting there (and, what's more, Buffy and Xena are FAR more in control of their own destinies).

And that's where I would differ with you. Many, MANY of the characters you listed (especially the TV ones, though, admittedly, I'm not well-versed on Farscape) are first and foremost WOMEN who happen to be strong personalities secondly, rather than the other way around. In Alien, Ripley is a woman who is forced to be a warrior. In Aliens, she's a warrior who is incidentally a woman. It's sort of an incremental difference, but an important one all the same.

Certainly science fiction has done more for female characters than, say, fantasy or the Western, but when one compares the female characters found in science fiction to those in straight dramas or in, say, mysteries, SF comes up wanting (and I've read a LOT of pre-1980 SF, just to assure you). Yes, there are bright lights here and there (especially in the literary realm, as you've pointed out with a fine list of examples), but the vast tide of female characters in science fiction weren't horribly exemplary -- again, a female character needn't be a "bimbo" to be offensive or uninteresting.

A lot of my problems came from speaking in incredibly general terms in this article. I'll try to couch these terms better in the future, but one can't list every possible exception to what one says or it ends up being an unreadable mishmash.

But, yes, Roslin. Number one forever!