![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sifting through the fog
Jan. 27th, 2006 12:20 pmSo, Rolling Stone weighs in:
Intergalactic Terror,
putting their stamp of approval on Battlestar Gallactica and getting yet another slam in on science fiction.
Because, you know, never in the history of the genre has it ever tackled anything political, or religious, or controversial, or terrifying or realistic. Nope, BSG is the first to go there, baby!
Nope, science fiction is all half naked women, and Beastmaster, and alien babies, and bumpy foreheads and the prime directive. Yup. Fuckers.
It's a good article in a lot of ways, being brutally honest about the show's ties to current events (and drawing some snarktastic and eye rolling parallels between our current political/emotional climate, terrorism and the show), but it also cements my love/hate relationship with Rolling Stone, the hate part which got jump started by Joe Levy's tenure (he just bugs me! I can't help it!!) but had been spiraling since my adolescence when I'd devour everything in the magazine, listen to the albums and discover that the reviewers were absolutely on crack. I forgave the magazine for a lot of its "selling out" after Almost Famous renewed my love momentarily, but dude...
The article suffers from Rolling Stone's ultimate flaw, which is trying to be so hip that the sound outweighs the fury. The snark reigns supreme, and they showcase their politics, slam science fiction and praise the show. But they don't offer any insight into what sets it apart, into what draws people to it, there's no exploration, just a riff on politics and science fiction that leaves me empty and angry and frustrated and reminds me of why I stopped reading the magazine in the first place. Because the music reviews have, for a long time, consisted of the same flippancy, the same need to sound relevant without offering insight. The reviewers no longer sound like people who live and breath music, they sound like purveyors of all that's hip, and I hate that, hate the tone of snide indolence that most of their reviewers take on, even about albums that I love.
However, I also find myself disliking Ron Moore's attempt to couch his creation in terms of being "a political show" instead of being part of the "scifi ghetto" that he'd been inhabiting. And whether that's spin or a straight quote, it sets my teeth on edge (even in the context of understanding how he'd want to explore something new. But shame on you Mr. Moore. You know better).
Intergalactic Terror,
putting their stamp of approval on Battlestar Gallactica and getting yet another slam in on science fiction.
Because, you know, never in the history of the genre has it ever tackled anything political, or religious, or controversial, or terrifying or realistic. Nope, BSG is the first to go there, baby!
Nope, science fiction is all half naked women, and Beastmaster, and alien babies, and bumpy foreheads and the prime directive. Yup. Fuckers.
It's a good article in a lot of ways, being brutally honest about the show's ties to current events (and drawing some snarktastic and eye rolling parallels between our current political/emotional climate, terrorism and the show), but it also cements my love/hate relationship with Rolling Stone, the hate part which got jump started by Joe Levy's tenure (he just bugs me! I can't help it!!) but had been spiraling since my adolescence when I'd devour everything in the magazine, listen to the albums and discover that the reviewers were absolutely on crack. I forgave the magazine for a lot of its "selling out" after Almost Famous renewed my love momentarily, but dude...
The article suffers from Rolling Stone's ultimate flaw, which is trying to be so hip that the sound outweighs the fury. The snark reigns supreme, and they showcase their politics, slam science fiction and praise the show. But they don't offer any insight into what sets it apart, into what draws people to it, there's no exploration, just a riff on politics and science fiction that leaves me empty and angry and frustrated and reminds me of why I stopped reading the magazine in the first place. Because the music reviews have, for a long time, consisted of the same flippancy, the same need to sound relevant without offering insight. The reviewers no longer sound like people who live and breath music, they sound like purveyors of all that's hip, and I hate that, hate the tone of snide indolence that most of their reviewers take on, even about albums that I love.
However, I also find myself disliking Ron Moore's attempt to couch his creation in terms of being "a political show" instead of being part of the "scifi ghetto" that he'd been inhabiting. And whether that's spin or a straight quote, it sets my teeth on edge (even in the context of understanding how he'd want to explore something new. But shame on you Mr. Moore. You know better).
