John Muir Field: Writer (Analytical Guide to BSG)

The Battlestar Galactica Fan Club Co-President Shawn O'Donnell "BGR" (bgresurrection_1999@yahoo.com) recently spoke with John Kenneth Muir the acclaimed autor of "The Analytical Guide to Battlestar Galactica" as well as many other Sci-Fi related books. He is also active in the efforts to revive the show.

BGR: What was it that started you on the path of a writing career?

JM: Well, not suprisingly, it was a love of "classic" science fiction TV that started me on the path of a writing career. The years were ticking away, and no author, for whatever reason, was writing seriously about the merits or influence of SPACE:1999, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, BLAKE's 7, and the like. It was as though the 1970s were being purposely ignored, so as to continue to trumpet the values of '60s productions like the original STAR TREK.

When I began writing (in the mid-90s), STAR TREK spin-offs were dominating the attention of the media, and I felt particularly disenfranchised because STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION had absorbed so much (plotwise; characterwise; style-wise) from both SPACE: 1999 and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. This wouldn't have bothered me too much, since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, except for the fact that some (not all, by many means) prominent STAR TREK fans and writers were still voicing those old, hostile criticisms of 1999 and BG, even though THE NEXT GENERATION had been proven completely derivative, by this time. I felt it was appropriate to put up a little history, a little fact, to counter the (mostly fatuous) arguments proffered by STAR TREK acolytes.

BGR: How do you feel popular culture affected/molded your writing skills?

JM: Well, I hope pop culture has not affected my skills as a writer. I write about pop culture, but the style of my writing actually originates from my collegiate/academic experience: film study, film criticism, studies of modern literary criticism, and favorite subjects such as history, and Greek and Roman mythology. I endeavor to write provocative, controversial essays and arguments about these visions of the 1970s, and these directors (such as John Carpenter and Wes Craven), because I have long believed that only by debating, challenging and questioning the themes and techniques of these productions, will they live on in a world wherein series such as SURVIVOR, or FRIENDS represent the norm. I view television as an art form, and hold programs such as BG or SPACE:1999 or STAR TREK to that high standard.

BGR: What was the first work that you actually had published?

JM: My first book was Exploring Space:1999. It was released in 1997. My Battlestar Galactica book was released third, after Wes Craven: The Art of Horror.

BGR: Do you feel comfortable writing from an "analytical" standpoint, as opposed to writing fiction?

JM: I love to write both. The non-fiction, analytical material is fun because I get to do research, formulate arguments, refute criticisms, and interview people like Martin Landau, John Newland, and Catherine Schell from time to time. The fiction is also great fun because I get to tell my own stories. In the future, I would like to get deeper into fiction, simply because I have already written about so many of my favorite topics (BG, SPACE:1999, Horror TV, John Carpenter, Wes Craven, et al.)

BGR: What personal advice would you offer to an aspiring writer who is trying to get his/her work published?

JM: This sounds like an advertisement, but purchase the most recent edition of Writer's Market, and pore through it with pen and pad. Find a publisher who is compatible with your work. When I tried to sell my first book, I made a list of five "likely" publishers, and sent out query packages to each. Within a week, I had heard back from McFarland, and was on my way.

Also - and this is another cliche - write what you want to read. Come up with a good idea, and stick to it; don't try to mold your work to what you think an editor "wants." Figure out what you like, and find a like-minded publisher from the Writer's Market! There are hundreds of publishers out there, all looking for good material, so, to (sort-of) quote Galaxy Quest, "never surrender, never say die!"

BGR: Regarding Science Fiction. It is a vast genre....do you find there is a happy medium in between that you are comfortable with?

JM: A happy medium is particularly hard to find. The Matrix is an example of one science fiction film that got everything right. It was smart, ground-breaking, action-packed, and even witty to some degree. Being John Malkovich was another "fantasy" production that was actually quite challenging and original.

The Phantom Menace, on the other hand, was an effort that relied entirely on cartoony special effects, cardboard characters, and creaky plot devices. Like Godzilla, Wild Wild West and other "blockbusters" it was more merchandising advertisement than genuine science fiction. It hurts me to say that, because I did very much enjoy the original Star Wars trilogy, and I have loved Godzilla movies since childhood.

BGR: In your opinion, what do you think of the current crop of Sci-Fi Shows/Movies...do you feel they talk down to most people?

JM: It depends. Contemporary science fiction television is simply not very good. On the other hand, horror television is the best it has ever been. BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, ANGEL, THE X-FILES, the recent MILLENNIUM, and even the short-lived THE OTHERS are all thought-provoking genre series that raise the bar for quality drama on TV. Look at any one of those programs, particularly BUFFY or THE X-FILES, and you see clever writing, superior production values, and great performances. These are new classics, I think.

Oppositely, science fiction TV is in a state of the doldrums right now. Current STAR TREK is suffering from what I term "replicative fading:" churning out inferior copies of inferior copies of old STAR TREK episodes. The franchise is dying because a corporate mentality has seeped in, and the creative process appears to be flying on automatic pilot. Some of these writers have been on the STAR TREK beat for more than ten years, and are seemingly incapable of generating enthusiasm for the core tenets of the show. I happen to think Kate Mulgrew is one of the most talented actresses of her generation, and that VOYAGER features the best cast, hands-down, of any generation of STAR TREK, but the writing has been so bad that the cast has really suffered. It's a true shame.

I watched an episode the other night ("Fury") in which B'Elanna Torres was killed, and the show did not stop, did not even pause, to have her lover, Tom Paris, react, one way or another. In the same episode, Kes deflected phaser blasts from security personnel in one scene, but then was killed, in the very next scene, when Captain Janeway shot her with a hand-phaser!!! Where was the consistency? And finally, Kes's motivation for being a villain was never even presented! Janeway asked Kes why she thought she was no longer welcome on her homeworld, Ocampa, and Kes side-stepped the question, leaving the entire show without one lick of character motivation! In instances like these, the series seems tailor made for those with short-attention spans. I think it is shameful, and a betrayal to the fine legacy of Gene Roddenberry's original, and thoughtful series.

Say what you want about BATTLESTAR GALACTICA or SPACE:1999, but when a beloved character died, people reacted like human beings. Remember Apollo and Boxey, when Serina died in "Lost Planet of the Gods?" Or Starbuck and Sheba when they believed Apollo was dead in "War of the Gods"? There was geniune emotion there. Again, I'm not particularly happy to say any of this, because I have been a STAR TREK fan since I was in the fourth grade! I have an autographed picture of George Takei on my office wall, and a cardboard stand-up of Captain Kirk beside it! I say these things because I love STAR TREK, and I want it to be good.

On other sci-fi: I think FARSCAPE has a lot of potential, and I believe that ROSWELL has a great future ahead of it. ROSWELL may be aimed towards the adolescent crowd, but it did something very smart in the first season: it developed all the young characters. Now, with the characters entrenched, we stand ready to get into the more science-fiction aspects of the series. And, since the groundwork has been laid, we'll care more about what we see in those stories...because we have come to identify with the people of the show. I have high hopes for it.

BGR: In your analytical writing, you cover quite a few different shows/topics...any particular favorites that you've dealt with?

JM: I hate to pick favorites, I really do. But I do find myself gravitating towards the underdogs: quality visions that have gotten a bum rap in the press for one reason or another. In this category, I put SPACE:1999, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, and even the films of John Carpenter (such as THE THING). Sometimes, shows (and films) are just too far ahead of their time to be appreciated by critics who would rather look back than look forward.

BGR: What impact do you think Science Fiction has had on the popular culture...or the general culture for that matter...?

JM: The impact has been good, no doubt. Science fiction, at is best, educates an audience. Because it so often looks to the future, it inspires people to imagine a better tomorrow. You know, people want to diss BATTLESTAR GALACTICA because it was science fiction TV for the masses, but just think about the number of children who watched that show in 1978, and were motivated to think about outer space, mankind's history, alien life, religion, mythology, and so on. That's a great gift, and it is true of most science fiction television, and film, I hope.

BGR: Any new projects on the immediate horizon?

JM: Well, a horror TV encyclopedia covering the years 1970 -1999 (NIGHT GALLERY to ANGEL) will be released in a few weeks. It's called TERROR TV. I also recently finished a book about the 1950s paranormal anthology, ONE STEP BEYOND, which was the father of modern paranormal TV like THE X-FILES. I also have articles coming up in CINESCAPE Magazine, and a special fiction project, which is currently in the hands of my agent. On September 1 -3, I will be in New York City at the MAIN MISSION:2000 convention to discuss two of my favorite subjects: SPACE:1999 and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Everybody should come! It's going to be a great party, and we're going to debate, discuss and hash-out lots of fun sf topics! Martin Landau, Richard Hatch, Grace Lee Whitney, and other fantastic guests are slated to come, and I think it's going to be incredible.

BGR: Specifically addressing Battlestar Galactica...what is your basic, gut reaction to the show?

JM: My basic gut reaction now, and has always been, that I have great affection for BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. I have loved it since my parents plunked me down in front of it in September of 1978! On the most basic level, it is well-acted and enormously entertaining. As someone who is supposed to remain objective about the series, naturally I see and write about its flaws. That's the only way to make a successful argument: to show where something is strong, but also note where iit is mediocre. I'd have no legitimacy as a critic if I overlook flaws because of personal preferences. But, as a viewer, I can separate myself from all that too. I can watch a BG episode and get one heck of a kick out of it (like "FIRE IN SPACE") without thinking...oh boy, here we go!

BGR: What base message do you think it imparted to people?

JM: The message of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is enormously positive. By incorporating names, ideas, plots and archetypes from the Bible and Greek mythology, it showed us how we are all "brothers," stemming from the same root, the same source. I think that is a very positive, very worth-while message in an era when racism is still an issue.

I also think BG had a brilliant message about preparedness, which was particularly relevant because the series aired during the Cold War. In "Experiment in Terra," Apollo talks before the Terran Praesidium about strength through preparedness, and he could have been lecturing at a GOP convention. I think that's great. If you look at it, Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union with defense preparedness, by pushing a strong national defense. Now, we can thank him that the nuclear nightmare (the subject of "Experiment in Terra") is mostly a thing of the past (or so we hope...). I always wonder, did Reagan listen to Apollo in that episode of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA? In this instance, BG proved to be absolutely correct...and prophetic.

But I get in trouble with some fans when I also say that BATTLESTAR GALACTICA has a fascist command structure. Let's face it: Adama is the spiritual, governmental and military ruler of a people under martial law! That's the definition of fascism. This doesn't make me partisan, because I'm not afraid to say that the future of STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION is purely and simply communist (no money, everybody has equal access to food, shelter, wealth...) Still, I think I offended some BATTLESTAR GALACTICA fans. Sorry folks, I just call 'em like I see 'em.

BGR: You appeared on the recent Sci-Fi Channel special Sciography, featuring Battlestar Galactica, what did you think of the completed project?

JM: I called the people at Sciography the morning after the premiere episode aired, and told them they had put together a good show. And they did. I am aware some fans are unhappy with it, and that some performers were not included. But, if I have learned anything by writing these books on SFTV....you can't please all of the people, all of the time. If you're lucky, now and then you please one or two people...

When Stephen King wrote Danse Macabre, a book about horror films and TV, he described perfectly the situation. A friend told him not to write the book. I'm quoting now from King's introduction: "You'll get as many things wrong as you do right. And none of those guys [fans] will pat you on the head for what you got right; they'll just drive you nuts with the stuff you got wrong."

I think that's so true. Though I sympathize with the performers who felt left out, I appreciate what Sciography accomplished. It showed, in no uncertain terms, that GALACTICA was not a rip-off of Star Wars. The "Adam's Ark" material proved that, without a doubt. So Sciography has done fandom a great service. And, I for one, thought Richard Hatch came off great. He was passionate, committed, concerned, well-spoken, and intelligent.

You know, it is always easy to stand on the sidelines and say, it should have been this, or it should have done that, but writing a book, making a TV series...these things require hard work, and hard decisions. You just can't please everybody, and you really shouldn't even try. By appeasing all factions you end up with pabulum...worthless, opinionless, and inoffensive nonsense. It is better to take a stand, engage some people, offend some people, and see how the debate goes.

Frankly, I was honored to appear on the show, and pleased that I was able to provide a historical overview of a series I care very much about. I hope Sciography runs for many years, and produces segments on Space:1999, Buck Rogers, UFO, Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes, and others.

BGR: What are your thoughts/opinions regarding Richard Hatch's efforts to revive Battlestar Galactica?

JM: I support Richard Hatch %100 percent. You know, I wrote my book back in 1997, with the assumption that GALACTICA would be revived. I feel the same way today. Richard Hatch is amazing. On the original show, there were nights he wouldn't leave the set, when he wouldn't get any sleep, when he worked 20 hour days. He was just so dedicated to keeping the quality high. I admire that characteristic, that level of commitment, and I think it serves him well now. I also respect him for bringing BATTLESTAR GALACTICA back in the limelight, and believe strongly that he should be given his shot to revive the franchise. Let's face it: if Richard didn't have the vision to pen comics, novels, and to stir up excitement, NO ONE would be interested in reviving BG in 2000. He stirred up interest, spearheaded a campaign, protected quality, and so forth. On top of that, he is an amazingly talented actor. I don't know what's going to happen with the GALACTICA revival, but I will support Richard Hatch in public and in print, because I think he has earned the right to have his shot. If GALACTICA is not revived under his auspices, I hope THE GREAT WAR OF MAGELLAN gets off the ground. I'm looking forward to seeing that trailer, and to seeing one of my favorite performers back in sci-fi action.

BGR: What are your thoughts regarding the future of Battlestar Galactica?

JM: BATTLESTAR GALACTICA was not perfect (no TV series is!) in its original incarnation. A revival of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA could set straight some of the flaky science. The fleet should have light speed capability. A new series would have a strong nostalgia factor, because we would see Hatch, Benedict, Stauffer, Lockhart, and the rest in action again. More importantly, it would have its niche. It is more action-packed than current SF TV, and could, in the best possible way, live up to what I have always thought it should be: FROM HERE TO ETERNITY in space. There are so many things yet to learn. How have the colonials responded to twenty years in flying tin cans, to martial law? How have the Cylons upgraded? What became of Boxey? Can Apollo ever live up to Adama's example? Is Starbuck married? What other cultures, based on mythology, are out there? A new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA has plenty of material to mine, and I for one, would like to see it.

If GALACTICA returns, and answers those questions, it will thrive. If it returns as a dumb movie, in the fashion of Wild, Wild West, or Lost in Space, without being faithful to the core power of the GALACTICA mythos, then we are all in trouble, and the franchise is doomed to critical rebuke, and eventual obscurity. Someone may make a fast 100 mill at the box office, but fans will be disgusted. That's my prediction. You know, it's funny. We've seen what happens when someone makes a bad movie from a popular TV series, we've seen what happens when producers take the easy route, not being faithful. So why not do something different? Why not be faithful? That would be my challenge to the producers of a Galactica production.

Buy John's books through the link below and help support this site!!

Search: All Products Books Popular Music Classical Music Video DVD Toys & Games Electronics Software Tools & Hardware Lawn & Patio Kitchen Keywords:

CureMode's Homepage

"Battlestar Galactica", the stylized "Battlestar Galactica" logo, and "Universal" logo are trademarks of Universal City Studios. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. These pages are for non-profit informational purposes with no intention of infringing upon the copyrights of the copyright owner.