This is a palimpsest of an essay for Channel 37. I need to work the kinks out here before posting it in the forthcoming “37 Minutes” category, where C37 authors can write things that aren’t serial chapters or news items. Hope it works…

So first, a bit of a preamble. Because I only recently came out of the closet and publicly embraced my fan-ness, I’m still catching up on all the brilliant writing about the SF field that appeared during my time in the wilderness. So it was only this morning that I learned about Charles Stross’s essay “Why I Hate Star Trek.” Well, I consider myself an old-school Trekkie, and yet (or perhaps, “because of that”) I find myself in general agreement with his argument that, particularly in Next Generation stories, the tendency of the writers to bolt SF elements on to stories as an afterthought like a spoiler on a Ford Escort negates the importance of science and technology in what’s supposed to be an SF story. The science and the technology should catalyze plot and character development, otherwise what’s the point?

On the other hand, unlike Stross I am not bothered by the fact that, for the most part, the characters all reset to zero at the end of each episode. That’s one of the potential limitations of weekly SF stories told through a box. More particularly, as told through a commercial box, in which advertisers want programs that bring the same — and more — eyeballs back every week. Numbers go down, show goes off the air. Publishing is not too different; that’s why everyone has to write series now. A core function of Strauss’ own Merchant Prince and Laundry Files series is to ensure that his growing reader base returns every time a new book comes out. Not an accusation or criticism, just pointing out the similar function. Sure, books let you evolve the characters more, instead of having to reset them every time like on TV. But that’s just because the box works differently than the book in trying to reach the same end.

So an observation followed by a question. The observation: SF stories are told in many media, and each medium has not only its tropes but its parameters of what works and what doesn’t. Writers have to somehow account for the tropes of the genre and the tropes of the medium together. The good writers are the ones who manage to pull that off.

The question: So what would an SF TV show look like that has:

• recurring characters
• an established universe
• respect for the standards of quality SF
• attractiveness to sponsors and advertisers

… and that doesn’t fall victim to either the “tech the tech to the tech” trap of ST:TNG or go off to the other extreme and degenerate into crowdsourced fanfic like the Battlestar Galactica remake (which Strauss says he also hates, but without having seen it)?

That’s what I want to think about for the next round here.

[Notes: Of course, the other tried-and-true way to build a TV audience aside from character reset is the soap opera. That’s the formula that BSG and many other SF shows since have tried to emulate. But we’re seeing indications that the soap opera approach, for whatever reason, doesn’t translate into a steady and growing audience base for SF as it does for, say, One Life to Live. Instead, it results in an ever-shrinking base of only the most diehard fans, while everyone else gets left behind — or jumps off — for one reason or another. Is it a generational thing? Is there something inherent in SF that doesn’t lend itself to the TV soap format? Are the viewing habits of SF fans really that different?]

Categorised as: Channel 37 | Life the Universe and Everything

Comments are disabled on this post