Merry Christmas one and all.
***
It has been pretty much two years since I've started this blog. As of late things have slowed down here. Being swamped with work, tutoring, teaching, school and a new relationship I find that when I do have free time the last thing I want to do is think. I do think but it never seems to be at a moment when posting it here is feasible.
***
I've added some new links to the side menu. I've been doing some reading and thinking concerning consumerism and its effects on society and people. Not necessarily something new as I've posted on these subjects previously but I thought I'd share a couple of websites I found interesting.
***
I've gotten hooked on the new Battlestar Galactica tv series. I managed to find the first two seasons online and have simply loved the show. I recently found myself watching an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation and was really suprised by the differences between the two shows.
Star Trek was birthed as a utopian concept. Rodenberry wanted to use a vision of utopia to critique and engage contemporary society. I was never a fan of the original series and can't really speak to it however having watched both TNG and DS9 I find that the Star Trek franchise has lost its way. In my opinion ST has become a show with two faces. The first face is a simple action adventure show. The second face is one of a preacher.
ST takes place in a future where humanity's faults have been irradicated and as such are left to self-righteous preaching towards other 'species' about how wrong they are and how humanity has found perfection. However I find the preacher rings hallow because there is no longer a connection with the society to which it is hoping to engage. I can't relate to any of the characters and as such the disconnect that exists works to defeat the message that they wish to impart. This of course defeats the original intent of the show: to engage society and create a forum for discussion.
The first face of ST, that of action adventure also fails Rodenberry's original vision. At best these shows or movies are decent science fiction but at worst they are just horrible. That isn't to say that they are bad episodes in the franchise just that when the writers go this route they lose sight of the utopian ideals of ST.
Battlestar Galactica however doesn't have any utopian imaginings. In some ways it tries to engage contemporary society, much like ST, however it does it more through an anti-utopian vision. In this re-imagined BSG, 99.9% of humanity has been wiped out by the fruits of its own creation; the Cylons a robotic race created by humanity to be its slaves and soldiers. However into this utopia reality called when the Cylons rebelled and a long and bloody war was waged. The war finally ended and the Cylons left the 12 Colonies and flew out into space not to be heard of again for 40 years. How did they reintroduce themselves? They nuked 12 planets.
What I like about this show is that it too has two faces, one that is action adventure and the other is social mirror. The difference between BSG and ST is that BSG doesn't have the utopian pretension of ST. The characters of BSG are displayed with their faults and weaknesses for all to see. This difference allows for a greater connection between the characters and the viewer as we are able to actually see ourselves in the situations presented on screen.
I believe that I have made it clear that I feel more of a connection with anti-utopian fiction however I do truly appreciate utopian fiction. Having studied utopian fiction I see its merits as a focal point on the horizon for us to strive towards. By pointing to the way things could be we can engage society and discuss the way things are. This was the original intent of Star Trek. I'll leave you with a quote from Oscar Wilde:
"It is through art, and through art only, that we can realize our perfection; through art and art only that we can shield ourselves from the sordid perils of actual existence."
***
Edit:
I watched a bit of Star Trek: First Conact during the holidays and there was this one scene where Picard is explaining the differences between the utopian future and the dystopian past that caught my attention. The woman asked how much a ship like Enterpise cost to build. Picard explained that the economics of the future worked differently and that they had no money. I personally see this as a primary element for utopia. So much of what I see that is wrong with the world today is driven by money and the desire for it that if we were to do away with it that we would be better off.
That is one thing that I appreciate about Star Trek.
