Comments on: The Unbearable Weight of Reference

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:13:03 +0000

But the situation of genocide and the moral problem it poses to survivors *is* applicable, broadly speaking, to at least the 20th Century and arguably to more of human history overall.

More importantly, if we make the move to applicability instead of allegory, doesn’t that mean that it’s possible to take some part of a fiction and see it as having complex things to say about some real experience which is asymmetrical with it? An allegory consistently shadows a single referent; something which is applicable has a lot more plasticity to it. So precisely once you no longer see BSG as an *allegory* to the contemporary situation, you can find things of complex usefulness in what it has to say about occupation, or torture, or terrorism, etcetera.

By: Stephen Frug

Stephen Frug — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:31:12 +0000

My problem with BSG as a political allegory — or, indeed, as having any “applicability”, to use Tolkien’s word for what he likes as opposed to allegory — is that the opening move, the Cylon genocide of humanity, renders everything else either simply and flatly inapplicable or (much worse) gives it a seeming applicability which in fact distorts any thoughtful response to anything. (Blogger Abigail Nussbaum makes a version of this point here: http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2006/11/moving-into-new-circle-of-hell-and.html)

Basically, the problem is that the opening move is so out of scale that any attempt at applicability is deceptively reasonable. To think of the humans circa season 1 as the U.S. post 9-11, and read their discussions of the issues in this way, is wholly crazy, since Al Quadea didn’t massacre 99+% of the U.S. on 9/11. To think of the humans in early season 3 as Iraq post-invasion is wholly crazy, since the U.S. didn’t massacre 99+% of Iraq prior to beginning its occupation. Thus debates which superficially *sound* the same as post 9-11 or post-Iraq invasion debates are in fact radically and deceptively different, since they are occurring in such a radically different context. (If they were in fact simply different, this wouldn’t be a problem; it would just be SF. It’s that they sound superficially the same, that they are (to use the term from intro French class) faux amis. It makes you think that you can apply the situation when, really, you can’t.)

By: Jason Mittell

Jason Mittell — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:45:48 +0000

Tim – I totally agree that the politics of BSG are mostly ambiguous and open questions rather than provide answers. I found the conclusion of “Collaborators” quite uncomfortable, as it seems at first to connect directly to the military tribunal issue of today – it’s easy to see Zarick’s push for secrecy and invisible retribution as a critique of Bushism (which triggered happy nods of recognition for me). But he then raises some good points about the impossibility of tying a society back together in the wake of the events, which seems more about WWII and reads as more sympathetic. Ultimately, I couldn’t find a place that I felt was an agreeable parallel between the fictional and contemporary situations, which seems to be the kind of discomfort that many fans find unpleasant.

There are no easy answers – personally I admire the show for picking at the scabs of our most troublesome contemporary issues, but its ambiguity could be quite frustrating for someone looking for political confirmations & “dittos”, which seems to be the most popular mode of political discourse today.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:04:04 +0000

That’s true, except for the very beginning, when she didn’t really believe the Cylons would nuke the people who couldn’t warp away. But that was less about Cylons and more about her fierce desire to protect human beings. You’re right otherwise: she’s always been very ruthless about the Cylons.

By: David Chudzicki

David Chudzicki — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 04:38:04 +0000

“(In fact, the â€œliberal-signifiedâ€ President, who started as a bleeding-heart minister of education, is the one who firmly commits to the plan.)”

I’m not sure you can use the President’s support for the plan as evidence for its moral ambiguity. From the very beginning of the show onward, her “bleeding heart” seems not to apply to Cylons. (I’m not going to try to remember much specific evidence for this, but there was a fairly early episode where she’s being nice to one cylon, convinces him she sees him as a person, and once she has what she needs from him, remorselessly throws him out the airlock. Speaking of torture, I think the same Cylon is extensively tortured by Starbuck in the same episode.)

…but I don’t think this impeaches your point about moral ambiguity in the slightest.