by Susan J. Paxton
While doing research for my article
on the permutations the Battlestar Galactica premiere underwent in the process from
inception to TV screen, I came across a considerable amount of interesting information
about the series that had nothing to do with the trial and error making of the premiere,
from Alan Levi’s reminiscences about plastic snow in a heatwave to numerous anti-BG
magazine articles. One of the more interesting is an article by Mark Seigal printed in Science
Fiction Studies, a Canadian-based magazine of SF criticism. His article,
“Science-Fiction Characterization and TV’s Battle for the Stars” appeared
in volume 7 (1980) of the publication.
Seigal’s aim in his article is to demonstrate how successful or
unsuccessful certain media SF projects are in their characterization. As he himself puts
it, “What I intend to argue is that the relative success or failure of a given TV SF
series—the success, say, of Star Trek versus the failure of Battlestar
Galactica, for instance—depends primarily on the creation of stereotyped
characters of the romance variety”—i.e. one- or two-dimensional and
idealized—“who are also individuals at least to the extent of being recognizably
different from one another.”
After an interesting but disposable series of digressions about
character stereotyping, the history of science fiction on TV, and the rehabilitation of
media SF by Star Wars in 1977, Seigal begins his discussion of characterizations
with a look at the characters of Star Wars. The characterization of Star Wars,
he says, were unabashedly romantic and stereotypical, but purposely so, each one crafted
to display one particular element: Obi-wan Kenobi is spiritual wisdom, Darth Vader power
corrupted, Luke Skywalker youthful idealism. This is true as far as it goes, and Lucas did
a good job in making his characters instantly identifiable and yet still interesting in
spite of the fact that they can be fairly completely summed up by one-liners.
Seigal then comments regretfully, “Unfortunately, Battlestar
Galactica abandoned the romance-type characterization and failed to replace it with
equally memorable realistic characterization. Starbuck, Apollo, and the rest of the pilots
and crewmen aboard the Galactica are all enthusiastic boyscouts, basically
indistinguishable from one another. When Starbuck and Apollo are helmeted in their
space-fighters for any length of time, as in “The Tombs of Kobol” episode, the
viewer quickly forgets which character is which.”
Needless to say, anyone remotely familiar with Battlestar
Galactica and its characterization will find the above statement ridiculous. BG
had above-average characterization for an adventure TV series and its characterizations
are more successful than those of Star Wars are because they were more
realistic and complex and less stereotypical. It would be difficult to sum up Apollo in
one sentence like Luke Skywalker; it would even be difficult to do so for perhaps more
one-dimensional characters like Adama and Baltar. Even less understandable is
Seigal’s repetition of the oft-heard critic’s complaint that “no one can
tell Starbuck and Apollo apart.” This is a comment I have never heard from an actual
viewer, including many who didn’t like BG but happened to watch an episode or
two. Physical appearance notwithstanding—and apart from being about the same height
Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict look and sound nothing like one another—the two
characters were highly differentiated, even more so in the early episodes than the later,
perhaps, and it is with the early episodes that Seigal seems primarily concerned.
Going on to discuss the characters of the original Star Trek
TV series, Seigal describes them as being much like those in Star Wars;
stereotyped. But he justifies what he sees as their one-dimensional quality by claiming,
“Kirk’s macho gallantry, Spock’s cool logic, and McCoy’s artistic
outbursts were consistent and memorable parts of the program that allowed viewers to
identify with the characters and their experiences.” He continues, “Thus, while
TV may have been moving towards more realistic, less romantic characterization in Battlestar
Galactica, this characterization is not ‘better’ because it was not
memorable.” This is another charge that, in my view, simply does not hold water. The
characterizations of Battlestar Galactica were better and more memorable because
they were more realistic than those of Star Wars or the original Star Trek
TV series. The people of BG appeal to the viewer (and many people who dislike
science fiction watched BG because they found the characters interesting and
attractive) because we often glimpse something of ourselves as we might be, or hope to be,
in the same situation. Very few of us can imagine being the often one-dimensional Kirk of
the Star Trek TV series, reacting with his hormones rather than his brain and
needing Spock’s logic and McCoy’s earthy wisdom to keep him in line; better to
be an Apollo who, while he is easily as masculine as Kirk, tends to think before he acts.
Star Trek fans would also argue with Seigal’s portrayal
of the ST characters as being as one-sided as those of Star Wars. The
characterizations of Star Trek did have more dimension than those of SW,
and, like the BG characters, it would be difficult to sum up the main characters,
with the possible exception of Kirk, in one sentence. In the Star Trek films, the
characterizations became even more realistic and rounded than in the series;
while perhaps still not as memorable as the characters of BG, Kirk, Spock, and
McCoy grew to become interesting people (most especially in Star Trek II – The
Wrath of Khan which contained a good deal of subtle and interesting insight into Kirk,
Spock, and McCoy), and I for one do not believe that they became less
‘successful’ or ‘memorable’ as they became more realistic. Just the
opposite, in fact. The aging and worried about it Jim Kirk of Star Trek II is a far
more interesting man than the Kirk of the TV series. Seigal would probably disagree.
Seigal charges that much of the problem with BG was that it
was gadget oriented, giving its characters no room to act, while Star Trek, he
claims, was ‘people-oriented.’ This too is as false as his other claims. Many Star
Trek episodes were gadgetry or machinery oriented; in one a new
computer takes over the Enterprise, in another an ancient space probe endangers the
crew, in many episodes the engines or transporter break down to add drama to the
situation. Certainly Kirk and his companions often came directly to grips with their
adversaries, most memorably in better ST episodes like The Devil in the Dark
and Arena, but in fact almost the same balance is visible in BG. While the
Cylons are often the focus of the action, most notably in the early episodes like the
premiere and Gun on Ice Planet Zero, the Colonials come physically face to face
with their problems as often as Kirk and crew, noteworthy examples being The Lost
Warrior and the majestic War of the Gods. Many BG episodes, in fact, are
based on human conflict. The Living Legend is far more about the confrontation
between Adama and Cain than it is about the war. In Murder on the Rising Star and Take
the Celestra the Cylons are entirely absent and the deadliest enemies are human.
In the end, Seigal concludes that he has proved his thesis, which
appears to be “the phonier science fiction characterization is, the better” and
we would have to agree—if all that we knew about the three examples he
employs is what he cited in his article. But what he has printed is not the whole truth,
only bits and pieces laden with misconceptions and half-truths. Like all too many critics
who have tried to prove that Battlestar Galactica is garbage when compared to the
‘successful’ Star Trek or Star Wars, Seigal allows his own
preconceptions and bias to draw him into fatal errors. He seems disappointed that BG’s
characters were not as patently impossible as those of Star Wars and then informs
us that that makes them worse. He repeats ridiculous charges that the main characters of BG
are indistinguishable from one another. He parrots the ABC and science fiction magazine
line that BG was a failure, when in fact it was far more successful than Star
Trek (24th overall in 1978-79 when Star Trek’s best season-end
ranking was 52nd in 1966-67) and was seen by more people than all of the Star
Wars films combined.
Seigal’s article, flawed though it is, is an interesting effort
with many good ideas and thought-provoking comments, somewhat marred by his over
elaborate, pseudo-intellectual style. But to accurately compare and judge Star Trek,
Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica requires an intimate knowledge of all
three, and in addition something few science fiction fans seem to possess much
of—objectivity. Had Seigal rid himself of his preconceived notions and obvious anti-BG
bias he might have produced an excellent article. But the definitive study of BG
remains to be written and can only be written by someone who will at the very least make
some attempt to be fair.
�2000, Susan J. Paxton
Originally published in ANOMALY 12