Crusade

[Mallus]

You said it yourself in talking about JMS' work. The universe is only dramatically interesting when there are ugly things in it. If there are few ugly things within the Federation, then they must look outside the Federation itself for their drama.

Sure, drama itself is rooted in conflict; if Hamlet the man and his folks were happy and well-adjusted then Hamlet the play would bite... But drama, even the Utopian SF kind, is based on the notion that conflict is endemic to the human {and funny-bridge-of-the-nose alien} condition. My gripe isn't that Trek posits a Utopia, its that over the years its lost anything interesting to do with it. The conlict's between the Individual and the System have {almost} all been resolved in favor of the System in such as way as to rememble propaganda for the {fictional} state. And the conflicts between the Federation and the Not-Federation usually leave out all the juicy bits --like the relationsip between the Federation's ethics and its enormous wealth and technological prowess.

Two interesting cases: the exchange between Sisko and Dukat where Dukat interupts Sisko's sermonizing by reminding him "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" . And Picard and the elderly God-guy who kept recreating his little house and dead wife on the blasted planet --Picard makes a telling point of telling him "I'm in no position to judge you..." Of course not, he's the product of a race with vastly greater material techology/magic who just made a race of 50 billion sentients extinct.

Again, there's lots of material to mine from the-Fed-as-Utopia... but too often what we saw was just the writers failure of imagination.

 

[Mallus]

Trek intends, for the most part, to be a morality play. B5, for the most part, intends to be a soap opera. Both can be and are valid and interesting story-forms, but the different intents call for different structures.

This is one reason why I say JMS shouldn't write Trek. JMS has proven his ability to write a soap opera, His forays into morality plays, though, are lackluster.

I always took B5 to be as much a morality play as Trek, 5 years worth, in fact. B5 had the serial structure of a soap opera, but its entire run was shot through with big moral issues; sin, redemption, the role of duty {at times its practically Sheridan and Antigone...}, the conflict between Religion and Faith, tolerance in the face of bloody conflict {and tolerance that didn't result in homogenization}, the decline of democracy into fascism, the evils of blind adherence to doctrine/tradition...

In what ways weren't B5 a morality play? I'm not critizing you're take, I just really curious.

 

[Umbran]

In what ways weren't B5 a morality play? I'm not critizing you're take, I just really curious.

Here's the thing - there's more to a morality play than addressing moral issues.

The "morality play" is an ancient dramatic form - stemmign back to medeival, and older greek theatre roots. In a morality play, we examione and address moral issues by creating icons of philosophical concepts or positions that interact, usually for the purposes of making some statement (the "moral of the story").

People gripe that Star Trek characters lack depth and development, that the plots aren't particularly long or complicated. Part of that is simple economic practicality. But much of it is the morality play structure. Your characters are icons, they stand in place of concepts and ideals. If your characters change much, they cease to represent the same concepts. Krusk just isn't krusk if he starts acting more and more like Nebin over time. Kirk would not be the Hero, Man of Action, Leader if he started acting like Spock, the Voice of Reason. Characters in morality plays lose effectiveness if they develop as people.

One of the strengths of the Morality Play is that it is easily accessible - everybody can jump in and figure out what the icons mean very quickly. It also can examine a vast number of highly diverse issues with relatively few well-chosen icons.

The "soap opera", at it's best, takes a whole different track. It examines the human condition by giving you a "worm's eye view" of people. Now maybe there's a moral message to be delivered, or maybe not, but in either case the plan is to give the viewer someone he can understand and possibly identify with, and put him through his paces. Doing this properly takes a while, because real life is complicated - thus the long and developed plots, and doing it full force requires lots o detail, because real people are complicated - thus the great character development.

The basic strength of the soap opera is that it is immersive and compelling. Done properly, you can evoke strong reactions in the audience. However, if the point is to explore morality, you're somewhat restricted in what topics you can address and where you can go - the characters have to stay in character, and the events must not diverge too far from the present path - or you risk breaking teh audiences suspension of disbelief, making it difficult for them to immerse themselves in your story.

Now, neither B5 nor Star Trek is a pure form of these things. But Trek leans strongly to the first, and B5 strongly to the second.

Now, here's the thing with JMS - B5 wasn't a pure soap opera. It had elements of the Morality Play within it, but you'll notice that they are the weaker moments. Let us compare...

JMS strong morality play moment - the very end of the Shadow War. Sheriden faces down the Vorlons and Shadows. Law and Chaos, Parental Figures, with Humanity inbetween. "Get the hell out of our galaxy!" Rah, Rah, hooray for mankind. Yea, team.

JMS strong soap opera moment - Garibaldi, falling off the wagon. Tired, beaten, weak, he swirls the booze around the glass, looks at it, and takes it down in one swig....

The first is an okay bit, but when stuck into the rest of the series, it's out of place. There's very little actual interaction of the icons as icons - the moral is stated, rather than demonstrated. As opposed to the second, which tugs at the heartstrings as you watch Garibaldi, all too human - a human you love, going to a very bad place...

But anyway, I'm rambling a bit now. I hope this clarified some of my position for you.

 

[Mallus]

But anyway, I'm rambling a bit now. I hope this clarified some of my position for you.

I thought that was all very well put...

You're using a pretty strict definition of "morality play". But that's useful for these kinds of conversations.

I still feel Sheridan's season's long struggle between his duty to authority and his duty to the truth {and humanity} fits into the classical Greek dramatic mode; I wasn't entirely kididng by referencing Oedipus and Antigone...

I agree that the better a character represents a concept, an idea, the less well they represent an actual person. And vice-versa.

The problem that I have with Trek as morality play is that its a very difficult mode to work in week after, year after year. If we're talking about the classic Greek use of catharsis to alleviate the {audience's} pressure over dealing with pressing social/philosophical issues, then there is a constant need for the stories to be revelevant to the audience. Morality plays only work if they address current, thus meaningful, moral dilemas {or the current incarnation of age-old moral dilemas}. Wouldn't you agree?

Origial Trek did this in spades. The later series did not, with DS9 opting for the more "soap opera" approach.

For the record, this is the same problem I have with the exploration of SF elements in SF television. Its mercilessly hard to write what amounts to a good, insighful SF short story for each episode. I think SF televison needs to fall back on the character development heavy soap opera approach as a matter pure practicality. Better good drama than the exploration of second-rate SF ideas...

 

[S'mon]

I don't think anyone's posted this, yet, but here's an interesting article examining the Federation as a communist state. He makes a pretty good case, too.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

This was the article that convinced me the Federation was essentially a communist state - although they don't use the word, the Federtion government type is never classified - it seems rather to be presented to its citizens as the only possible form of government. It's also the writers' vision of utopia, of course.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Sure, this is all fun-with-criticism. It may not be accurate to call the Federation a military dictatorship, but it is fun to examine it in that light. I started off joking, but there really is a case to be made for the Federation as a {relatively} benign military dictatorship.

Sure. I'm not saying that this isn't fun, I just don't really buy it. I
mean, would it be as fun if everyone was on the same team?

Also to put it bluntly. YES socialism and communism are bad. End of story.

Ah. That's that then. Socialism=Dictatorship? I can't really answer
any of your comments without going into the forbidden lands of
political discussion. Capitalism vs. Socialism and all that.

All I can say is that one of things I liked about the Utopian
Trekverse is that it shows a seemingly Socialist system that
seems to work. They perfected the process.

.

The basic problem with the UFP and how it's represented is that
it's supposed to be a Utopia but the writers have no idea how to
write one. I mean, if they go too far in one political way or
another, they have the risk of alienating fans, so they stick in the
political correct speeches about how great the UFP is, while
straying away from actually showing us why.

 

[Orius]

Babylon 5 is more interesting because it has human beings we can relate to in it. They hav emotions, desires, strengths, weaknesses.

Star Trek though has evolved to a show with creatures that LOOK like humans but appear to have been crossbreed with rabbits to make them more docile. You cannot relate to them because they do not think, act, or emote like we do.

A lot of the blame for that can be laid at the feet of Roddenberry's "vision" of Star Trek. He envisioned a future where everyone got along, and no one resorting to violence and all that other hippie crap. I remember reading about how some staff writers that were around during the early seasons of TNG got disgusted with everyone getting along all of the time that they ended up leaving the show. They felt they needed some interpersonal conflict for the sake of drama, but Roddenberry refused to budge. Even with DS9, back when it was first being developed, Roddenberry was initially opposed to the idea of cast members not always getting along, until a compromise with Pillar was reached: only non-Federation cast members would have conflicts. As a result though, most Federation characters all seem boring and lifeless, all carbon copies of each other. They all like the same types of things, they all blindly agree with each other. Only a few, like Picard and Sisko ever get developed fully enough that they seem interesting.

 

[Orius]

And the Kasidy Yates situation on DS9. Refresh my memory, but didn't it go something like this:

Kasidy is a smuggler for the Maquis.

She and Sisko start a romance.

Sisko turns her in to Starfleet.

She serves time in prison (Or whatever they call it in the Federation. There's no crime there, after all ).

Kasidy returns, having seen the "error of her ways", and falls right back into Sisko's arms.

If that's what happened, does it strike anyone else as odd? Maybe she spent some time in a Starfleet "re-education camp"?

Yeah, IIRC, that was about right. Also, don't forget that Paris from Voyager was also in "prison". The intent I think is to show that crime is wiped out, people who commit crimes do so because they're unbalanced or misunderstood or something. Punitive measures are seen as backwards and barbaric, so everyone's rehabilitated. Unfortunately, "rehabilitation" seems to be more a matter of re-education and brainwashing.

I think the Maquis are the true heroes in the Trek universe. These guys basically left Federation space so they could live free lives, and yet the Fed turns around and shafts them by giving the planets to the Cardassians. Then the Cardassians turn around and try to remove the colonists, by any means necessary. The Federation doesn't seem at all concerned about their plight, in fact, some might even say the Federation allowed the Cardassians to attack the colonists as a way of silencing the opposition while keeping their hands clean.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the Maquis are the true heroes in the Trek universe. These guys basically left Federation space so they could live free lives, and yet the Fed turns around and shafts them by giving the planets to the Cardassians. Then the Cardassians turn around and try to remove the colonists, by any means necessary. The Federation doesn't seem at all concerned about their plight, in fact, some might even say the Federation allowed the Cardassians to attack the colonists as a way of silencing the opposition while keeping their hands clean.

Maybe it is only Federation/Starfleet Propaganda we hear in Startrek, but as far as I understood, the planets the Federation gave the Cardassions were part of the Federation until the treaty. They were given away as the price for peace.
I believe the Federation forced the Cardassions to secure safety for the former colonies, but unfortunately, only on paper.
The Cardassian gave (throuh non official means) money and weapons to Cardassian settlers to attack the Maquis planets, unfortunately the Federation or Starfleet could never really prove it and thus cannot act on this. On the contrary, the treaty with the Cardassions force them to fight their own former colonies to ensure the peace...


As a side note, even if it is a political thingie:
The founders of the communistic ideas, Marx & co did never really explain how it would look like, they only described the way it the history would develop on this matter - maybe they did not knew themselves how "true Communismn" would work. Maybe the communistic states we saw in the past and see in the present prove that Marx and Engels and whoever was else associated with these concepts were wrong, but on the other hand, many ( I believe even all) did not follow the historical course they described (going from Feudalismn to Capitalismn to Socialismn to Communismn. The sowjets, as an example, went from Feudalismn to Socialism/Communism without staying long in the Capitalismn "realm" - they claimed the few months between the two revolutions were their Capitalistic part of the history, but ...) Finally, it doesn`t matter for now - if we ever change our systems to whatever we will figure out to be better, it might be in a far future, and we know that the current or past systems were or are not perfect...
In Startrek, the Far feature has "arrived" and the Federation is assumed to have a better system, even if we do not really know how it looks like. In fact, if the writers described the system so well, we would already know how it would like today and could change to the Federation system... To some extent, the Federation system is similar to the Warp Engines - we can use it as an element of our story, but we cannot really explain how it works, because than we could already have Warp Engines today...

 

[Mallus]

To some extent, the Federation system is similar to the Warp Engines - we can use it as an element of our story, but we cannot really explain how it works, because than we could already have Warp Engines today...

That's a very interesting take: the Federation system as Black Box... I'm not sure I agree, but I like it.

But to extend your analogy... if the Warp Engines are akin to the Federation as a whole, consider in how many episodes the Warp Engines get damaged, break down, have an anomoly put the kibosh on them... and the plot hinges on them being repaired. Dramatic, isn't it? Well, the same should hold true for the Federation/Star Fleet. We don't need to know how it works, but it sure as Hell ought to break down from time to time just to keep things interesting....