Neocolonialism, Technology & Myth in the SGverse

[ILikeDeathNote]

ILDN, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to communicate with that series of images. Or if they're even helpful.

PunkMaister got it right. It's a thing from...the image boards...but I would think the image of someone expressively frowning and using facial cues to express great displeasure would convey the message well enough.

If you look up the authors, you'll see they wrote and presented that paper while graduate students in communication at Penn State. It was then tucked into a book somewhere

I almost refuse to believe that. There are so many things wrong with this essay: the convoluted language is one of the better things going for it, but the structure, the apparent nebulous thought processes, the clear lack of understanding and comprehension of the source material, the lack of understanding and comprehension of basic television tropes and the fact that the authors feel spend the first paragraph of the essay telling you that you are, in fact, reading an essay...if I were a 7th grade English teacher, I would do what I said I would:

D-, see me after class

[Jedi Master Spock]

I almost refuse to believe that. There are so many things wrong with this essay: the convoluted language is one of the better things going for it, but the structure, the apparent nebulous thought processes,

It's a little less nebulous when you're familiar with the style of writing in question. Still could be written more concisely and directly, yes. Perhaps could be cut to ten pages single spaced if approached carefully.

The field the critique is being published in matters a bit, too. You could write a reasonably similar paper as a cultural anthropologist, a sociologist, a philosopher, or a literary analyst, but they would all read quite differently.

To a professor in communications studies, of whatever branch talks about postcolonial critiques of television media, it would probably seem almost clear, and might seem perfectly normal quality-wise.

the clear lack of understanding and comprehension of the source material,

See, this is where you might have an argument, if you were to bring up examples from the text (i.e., Stargate) where it contradicts the authors' claims about what happens within the text, as I believe Mr. Oragahn is regarding Teal'c:

Teal'c is more like Spock with muscles and a cool tatoo. He favours reflexion and meditation.

Regarding the authors' claim that Teal'c is most likely to hit or shoot something. And this is where I'm least prepared to examine this essay critically, personally, since I have very little familiarity with the SG television series.

the lack of understanding and comprehension of basic television tropes

See, here's where you seem to be displaying a lack of understanding and comprehension of what the authors are really getting at. They're not saying "Oh, look, Stargate is bad because is displays X properties," where X are in fact common TV tropes.

As mentioned repeatedly in the paper, the themes are not unique to Stargate, e.g., the problem of everyone speaking English (except aliens, who speak it awkwardly). The fact that these things are tropes is part of what relates the general argument for first world (and especially American) popular media products supporting neocolonialism. The argument of the paper is that Stargate happens to be a specific instance of such a media product.

It's not even really saying that Stargate is a bad show so much as that Stargate happens to display and affirm certain current cultural characteristics or behaviors.

[ILikeDeathNote]

See, here's where you seem to be displaying a lack of understanding and comprehension of what the authors are really getting at.

Uhh, a lack of understanding and comprehension?

Granted, I didn't read the whole thing. The whole thing simply isn't worth my time. The parts Mr. Oragahn quoted weren't worth my time reading, and Mr. Oragahn's comments were a suitable enough summary. I'll address more below.

They're not saying "Oh, look, Stargate is bad because is displays X properties," where X are in fact common TV tropes.

I didn't say that either. If that's what I conveyed, then I simply didn't mean it.

What I really meant was that what they're really saying is, "look at me, I can write a long essay about a topic I don't really know. Foist academic accolades, praise and, preferably, cash upon me."

As mentioned repeatedly in the paper, the themes are not unique to Stargate, e.g., the problem of everyone speaking English (except aliens, who speak it awkwardly). The fact that these things are tropes is part of what relates the general argument for first world (and especially American) popular media products supporting neocolonialism. The argument of the paper is that Stargate happens to be a specific instance of such a media product.

That's not the argument I got, but then again I didn't read the whole thing. Like I said, mostly what I got was that the authors needed to write up something, anything, to add to their supposed academic credentials.

Beyond that I don't know what their real argument is. And I say real argument because the conclusion you cited is something that's obvious to many casual viewers. Speaking of TV tropes, you can see on [TVTropes that casual genre fans were able to see it and spell it out on much simpler terms using much simpler sentences with a lot less space.

It's not even really saying that Stargate is a bad show so much as that Stargate happens to display and affirm certain current cultural characteristics or behaviors.

Once again, I never said that they said that Stargate was a bad show, or at least I didn't mean to convey that message.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Uhh, a lack of understanding and comprehension?

Granted, I didn't read the whole thing. The whole thing simply isn't worth my time. The parts Mr. Oragahn quoted weren't worth my time reading, and Mr. Oragahn's comments were a suitable enough summary. I'll address more below.

They're not saying "Oh, look, Stargate is bad because is displays X properties," where X are in fact common TV tropes.

I didn't say that either. If that's what I conveyed, then I simply didn't mean it.

What I really meant was that what they're really saying is, "look at me, I can write a long essay about a topic I don't really know. Foist academic accolades, praise and, preferably, cash upon me."

It's an extra line in their curriculum vitae. I would be amazed to hear the authors expected to actually make money directly off the essay. Indirectly, that extra publication might make the difference between getting hired and not getting hired.

That's not the argument I got, but then again I didn't read the whole thing. Like I said, mostly what I got was that the authors needed to write up something, anything, to add to their supposed academic credentials.

Beyond that I don't know what their real argument is. And I say real argument because the conclusion you cited is something that's obvious to many casual viewers. Speaking of TV tropes, you can see on [TVTropes that casual genre fans were able to see it and spell it out on much simpler terms using much simpler sentences with a lot less space.

No, you don't see their argument spelled out on TVTropes using simpler terms with a lot less space, mainly because their real argument, as you might put it, isn't even touched upon on TVTropes. It's a level or two of abstraction above what you see on TVTropes.

On TVTropes, you'll see a phenomenon described, e.g., Aliens speaking English. Occasionally, the trope article will offer possible editorial or production causes for something to exhibit the trope in question.

In an academic critique, such as the one above, we see see a number of phenomena - some of which could be described as TV tropes - described briefly in their instances in StarGate. Then social causes and/or effects are ascribed to them, and those causes and effects are synthesized in support of the thesis or theses of the paper, e.g., StarGate exhibits and affirms neocolonialism.

Actually, there's a much better - as in approachable and not, IIRC, too badly written - example that' TVTropes talks about more directly: WIRS. Gail Simone describes what's going on and starts speculating on possible reasons. Some of her respondents go on to further subdivide and generalize.

So over time, we see the additional layers of abstraction beyond "Huh, lots of girlfriends get refrigerated" to "These are the causes of girlfriend refrigeration and these are the effects upon the audience" to perhaps a few people talking about "Here's how these causes and effects seen in WIRS and other gender-related comic book phenomena exhibit/affirm/undermine certain traditional gender roles."

[ILikeDeathNote]

It's an extra line in their curriculum vitae. I would be amazed to hear the authors expected to actually make money directly off the essay. Indirectly, that extra publication might make the difference between getting hired and not getting hired.

At least we're more or less on the same page here.

No, you don't see their argument spelled out on TVTropes using simpler terms with a lot less space, mainly because their real argument, as you might put it, isn't even touched upon on TVTropes. It's a level or two of abstraction above what you see on TVTropes.

I don't really follow what you're getting at.

You already explained the position they supposedly have, and it still sounds to me that they're taking a basic concept and artificially trying to make it abstract in order to get some real academic "substance" out of it.

In an academic critique, such as the one above, we see see a number of phenomena - some of which could be described as TV tropes - described briefly in their instances in StarGate. Then social causes and/or effects are ascribed to them, and those causes and effects are synthesized in support of the thesis or theses of the paper, e.g., StarGate exhibits and affirms neocolonialism.

I get that much, but the tone of the essay seems to try and warp Stargate into a tool of interstellar imperialism. Yeah, maybe that's the case on a very small level, but that's a very small level. It would have more credibility if it were a more condensed show with a clear, pre-structured storyline, like B5, but given how long Stargate ran, given how much of the mythos was given to people who were assigned to write only a few episodes or even one episode, and given how there were anticipations of premature cancellation at least twice (if I'm not mistaken they didn't anticipate it going past an already lengthy 6 seasons, but a massive letter-writing campaign changed that) it seems to me it would've been arrived at accidentally, as for the most part they were just trying to come up with storylines to maintain the viewer's interest.

Mr. Oragahn is much, much more well versed in backstage info of Stargate, I'd really wish he'd chime in more. We might get a clearer picture.

Actually, there's a much better - as in approachable and not, IIRC, too badly written - example that' TVTropes talks about more directly: WIRS. Gail Simone describes what's going on and starts speculating on possible reasons. Some of her respondents go on to further subdivide and generalize.

...I don't follow either. First of all, why is the TV Tropes article badly written? And secondly, why is it a better example? I haven't read the essays yet (though I intend to), but I am familiar with the TV Tropes page, and I do not see a connection, so I would greatly appreciate clarification on that.

So over time, we see the additional layers of abstraction beyond "Huh, lots of girlfriends get refrigerated" to "These are the causes of girlfriend refrigeration and these are the effects upon the audience" to perhaps a few people talking about "Here's how these causes and effects seen in WIRS and other gender-related comic book phenomena exhibit/affirm/undermine certain traditional gender roles."

Ok, that clarifies it a little bit, at least. I really should make a point to read the whole post from now on :p

[Mr. Oragahn]

To a professor in communications studies, of whatever branch talks about postcolonial critiques of television media, it would probably seem almost clear, and might seem perfectly normal quality-wise.

I'd say he's a poor professor then, or specializes in tiring, pompous and irrelevant political speeches.

[ILikeDeathNote]

I'll have to agree with Mr. Oragahn.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I don't really follow what you're getting at.

You already explained the position they supposedly have, and it still sounds to me that they're taking a basic concept and artificially trying to make it abstract in order to get some real academic "substance" out of it.

Well, they're not inventing anything new here, or engaging in any unusual stretch of imagine to critically examine StarGate.

I get that much, but the tone of the essay seems to try and warp Stargate into a tool of interstellar imperialism. Yeah, maybe that's the case on a very small level, but that's a very small level. It would have more credibility if it were a more condensed show with a clear, pre-structured storyline, like B5, but given how long Stargate ran, given how much of the mythos was given to people who were assigned to write only a few episodes or even one episode, and given how there were anticipations of premature cancellation at least twice (if I'm not mistaken they didn't anticipate it going past an already lengthy 6 seasons, but a massive letter-writing campaign changed that) it seems to me it would've been arrived at accidentally, as for the most part they were just trying to come up with storylines to maintain the viewer's interest.

Actually, the argument for unconsciously affirming/exhibiting neocolonial behavior is all the stronger when you can make the comparisons regarding a franchise in spite of frequent changes of writing staff. IMO, at least.

I think it's a fairly strong argument, at that, but I really don't know much about most of the episodes they refer to, so it's difficult for me to say - let alone evaluate the sweeping generalizations made.

I actually like a couple of the turns of phrase that have been quoted in this thread. The bit about technological baptism is a nicely memorable line. If I were the editor for a collection of essays on Stargate, I wouldn't suggest cutting that particular line. I'd have some other suggestions to make, though.

...I don't follow either. First of all, why is the TV Tropes article badly written?

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying the WIRS website is better written - for anything but a niche audience at best - than the paper we're talking about.

And secondly, why is it a better example?

The writing is much more clear, and we can - if we go in the right order - look at the progression from concrete to abstract on the same issue. With this paper on StarGate, we're just diving into the abstract level, and the authors of the paper assume their audience is at least a little familiar with postcolonialism.

Ok, that clarifies it a little bit, at least. I really should make a point to read the whole post from now on :p

Well, hopefully I've managed to make myself clear by this point.

[ILikeDeathNote]

Well, hopefully I've managed to make myself clear by this point.

Yeah, I think the more you post and the more you explain, the more clear it becomes. Thanks.