The philosophy of Starbuck
I've finished the re-imagined -- a feat of epic screenwriting and one of the greatest productions in the history of television. Much has been written about the theological, political and ethical themes explored directly or indirectly in Battlestar, and I now feel free to read some of that commentary without fear of spoilers. En route to joining the Battlestar discussion community, I've returned to , where we first encounter a character called "Starbuck'.
Don't let the fact that a major coffee house chain is named after Melville's Quaker intellectual. Starbuck's role in the journey of the Pequod (in pursuit of the whale) has much in common with Kara Thrace's role in the journey of Galactica (in pursuit of Earth). Kara, nicknamed Starbuck, does not fear death; she fears being forgotten. Being forgotten is the ultimate form of loneliness and abandonment.
This is Melville:
"Uncommonly conscientious for a seaman, and endued with a deep natural reverence, the wild watery loneliness of his life did therefore strongly incline him to superstition; but to that sort of superstition, which in some organization seems rather to spring, somehow, from intelligence than from ignorance... [H]is far-away domestic memories of his young Cape wife and child, tend[ed] to bend him ... from the original ruggedness of his nature, and open him still further to those latent influences which, in some honest-hearted men, restrain the gush of dare-devil daring, so often evinced by others in the more perilous vicissitudes of the fishery. "I will have no man in my boat," said Starbuck, "who is not afraid of a whale." By this, he seemed to mean, not only that the most reliable and useful courage was that which arises from the fair estimation of the encountered peril, but that an utterly fearless man is a far more dangerous comrade than a coward."
-- Starbuck, first mate of the Pequod, speaking in Moby-Dick, Chapter 26.
Comment number 1.
At 21st Sep 2009, jayfurneaux wrote:No more unbelievable than the Bible I guess.
‘Will we evolve to the point whereby we don’t need beliefs in supernatural explanations or deities or a promise of a life after death to feel at one with the universe?’ might be a more ambitious theme for a SiFi mini series.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21st Sep 2009, Jay7878 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 21st Sep 2009, gveale wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 21st Sep 2009, gveale wrote:Just checked wiki. :Lo and behold, I was right. When you can spot the twist in the first series...
Still, 6 was nice to behold.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 21st Sep 2009, gveale wrote:‘Will we evolve to the point whereby we don’t need beliefs in supernatural explanations or deities or a promise of a life after death to feel at one with the universe?’
That would be Star Trek: the Next Generation. And it brought in Hollywood's bastardised versions of Buddhism and Hinduism to bridge the gap.
GV
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 21st Sep 2009, Will_Crawley wrote:I am currently reading John Carey's superb biography of William Golding, which I can't recommend highly enough. On page 151, in a section dealing with Golding's difficulties getting Lord of the Flies published, Carey reveals that the professional reader employed by Faber and Faber at the time -- Polly Perkins -- gave this stunning review to her employers:
"Absurd & uninteresting fantasy about the explosion of an atom bomb on the Colonies. A group of children who land in jungle-country near New Guinea. Rubbish & dull. Pointless."
I can't help wondering what Ms Perkins would have made of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined). I suspect her precis and evaluation might have sounded rather similar to gveale's account on this thread. With one possible difference: Ms Perkins would not have been so lacking in consideration to other readers that she would attempt casual plot-spoilers.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 21st Sep 2009, John Wright wrote:Thanks for the spoiler GV, I was going to watch it! Grr!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 21st Sep 2009, gveale wrote:WHOOOPS!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 21st Sep 2009, gveale wrote:Where's the durn moderator when you need one? (-:
Feel free to complain about those posts, and have 'em removed.
But seriously, you didn't see that ending coming?!!
I am only judging BG on one series. I didn't feel that it was moving beyond "BladeRunner". Certainly not even close to "12 Monkeys". It really must improve if it can be mentioned in the same post as "Lord of the Flies". For a TV series that has handles modern anxieties with more depth, I'd place a bet on Channel 4's "Ultraviolet". (Achieving in six episodes what "BG" couldn't in the whole first series).
So in my defence, I've no problem with fantasy, pointless or otherwise. I've no problem with popular culture - quite the opposite. And I'm standing by my opinion of series 1.
I had serious problems with the structure - the Cylons were too ambiguous to prove a threat.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 21st Sep 2009, gveale wrote:Now that I think of it, I'm a bit irritated that I can't dis a TV show on a Beeb blog without being called a "Polly" (-;
And Jay gave the link that allowed me to check! He put the idea in my head. The devil made me do it!
Is any of this helping?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 21st Sep 2009, petermorrow wrote:Is it a sin to be distracted by the lady in the red dress, or is that the other thread?
Marcus, quick, a dark room! (but if you could arrange for Mrs. Red Dress to be there too that would be great, I'd rather not be on my own!)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 21st Sep 2009, Will_Crawley wrote:Maybe, GV -- like in so much great writing -- the test of the greatness is not where the story ends but how it gets there.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 22nd Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:petermorrow;
"Marcus, quick, a dark room! (but if you could arrange for Mrs. Red Dress to be there too that would be great..."
I am not a pimp, this is not a brothel. Across the street and two doors down on your left. (BTW, Mrs. Red Dress is on vacation this week. I only found out yesterday.) Back to scriptures. Now where was I?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 22nd Sep 2009, gveale wrote:Will
My comments only apply to the first series. BUT..
I think predictability on that level is a serious flaw, and I think the Cylons were too ambiguous to maintain a sense of threat. Most of the issues surrounding the 'human' cylons had been cut and paste from "BladeRunner".
I think that "Ultraviolet" handled contemporary anxieties with greater skill in less time and on a fraction of the budget. For example - I'll take a guess and say that paedophilia wasn't tackled by'BG'. "Ultraviolet" was also prepared to address religious issues, and use the 'C' word whilst doing so - "Christianity". It's also instructive to compare the casts. Jack Davenport and Idris Elba hover on the verge of the Hollywood A-list. Susannah Harker and Philip Quast could, well, act. BGs producers confused screen presence for acting.
Perhaps it raised it's game. But I'm tired of reading statements in the Guardian like "Battlestar Galactica is the only award-winning drama that dares tackle the war on terror" . (Law and Order? The West Wing?) Or that "the show has morphed into a stinging allegorical critique of America’s three-year occupation of Iraq". Well maybe it did, but not until Spielberg did the same in his remake of 'War of the Worlds'.
And so forth.
A lot of this comes down to taste, I suppose. But given better examples of the genre, I think I was within my rights to lose interest.
GV
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 22nd Sep 2009, gveale wrote:PeterM
You can get distracted. But you can't go out of your way to stay distracted. Especially in a dark room.
GV
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 22nd Sep 2009, Will_Crawley wrote:GV, you have every right to be unimpressed by any creative product! You just can't publish spoilers on the blog (hence their removal). I will say this about your theory: I had the same theory after the first series; then in subsequent series the writers throw spanners at that theory in one way or another, which led me to revise then re-revise my theory of where the story was going. The writing throughout the entire series is consistently superb. I say that as a West Wing fanatic (but the WW's writing dips after the departure of Sorkin). The West Wing undoubtedly references issues related to the war on terror, but in subsequent series Battlestar takes on the political, ethical and philosophical issues raised by that chapter in America's history with extraordinary maturity and directness. TIME lists Battlestar in the top 100 TV productions of all time; I can see why. The show is also unusual in earning both critical acclaim and cult-like popularity. Check out the books by philosophers and theologians exploring Battlestar's themes and ideas. At the risk of sounding like a Galactican evangelist: give it another chance, GV; you won't regret it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 23rd Sep 2009, gveale wrote:Well, there is a danger in evaluating a programme on its first series when it's fighting for re-commission.
Nettiquette demands a big #SPOILER WARNING#. Which I neglected. Apologies.
GV
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 23rd Sep 2009, John Wright wrote:I forgive you GV. No I don't. Yes I do.
I mean, I FORGIVE you. Go in peace, son.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 23rd Sep 2009, gveale wrote:John
Is there something I should say in Latin at this point?
Glad I caught your attention. Have you been following the internet advertising campaign for "Paranormal Activity"?
This could be HUGE for the net, and your style of journalism. Or it could fall flat on it's face. But I'd bet Septembers pay cheque on an unprecedented profit margin for this movie.
No posters, no trailers, nothing at Cannes. Just Tweeters, Facebook, blogs, and chatrooms. You don't get the movie to your town unless you Log On and request it.
Spielberg's in on this, and he defined the Summer Blockbuster. The media's in for a paradigm shift if all goes according to plan.
GV
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 25th Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:Aliens searching for salvation destined for earth was explored on "The Twilight Zone" forty years ago. Also about that time, revolt of man made creatures against the human race was explored in Planet of the Apes" its sequels and TV show as well as elsewhere such as The Twilight Zone. I'm sure one thing that is not explored in this new Galactica is the immorality of the travelers bringing their war with the Cylons to inflict earth with becoming part of their battleground.
One difference between any fiction such as the fairy tales in the bible and science fiction which are fairy tales of the modern mind and real science is that you can actually do something with real science and engineering. Of course the down side is that it takes a lifetime of very hard work to become a scientist or engineer, usually you only work in a limited specialized area of knowledge, and there are no guarantees of success or happy outcomes. Sometimes I think real scientists are too influenced by sci fi. The prospect of building self sustaining colonies on the moon or Mars seems very dim, not soon, not for centuries if ever. Take the sandstorms that hit Australia for a few days, extend it for months without stop, add the climate of Antarctica, remove most of the air, and add a perpetual rain of deadly cosmic rays because there is no magnetic field to block them and that's a good time on Mars. Now add a voyage that is many times the length of Columbus' journey to the new world and no native materials or living things to help sustain life once you get there and you have just a glimmer of the enormity of such a task and how preposterous these stories really are. It's hard enough just to sustain a small space station manned by a small crew with periodic resupply in near earth orbit.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)