Short-cuts in portrayal and Babylon 5
Oct. 9th, 2007 04:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackWhen I first saw B5 (not always completely in order, unfortunately), a lot about the way the Vorlons were shown bothered me -- firstly that they were so holy, and then that they weren't.
Now, watching everything together, I see some things that make more sense. For instance, the Sigma 957 first-ones get all het-up when Ivanova taunts them, saying the Vorlons carried them in the last war. At the time, it just seemed a bit of funny, and it annoyed me that these supposedly superior beings were shown so petty[1].
But if you know the Vorlons actually were second rate first ones, left behind because they insisted on meddling with people in morally questionable ways, the first one's anger is rather justified.
I think it's that we have a lot of conventions in TV. We don't have the same level of "holding a dove means blah blah blah" old paintings used to (though we do that sometimes), but we have a lot of conventions.
When someone drives to a building, they park outside. That's not realistic, it's shorthand to show their journey, and we understand. A lot of stories use "making cryptic statements" as shorthand for "wise old man to be trusted" because showing *actual* wisdom and growing trust in him is too much to shoe-horn into a short scene. In real life, you'd observe "but that cryptic bs might just be bs, how do I know?" and trust only sometimes.
So we see Kosh, we're prepped to extend him this assumption. But in fact, he does have a parcel-load of ulterior motives and imperfections, we're supposed to notice from his unhelpfulness. But we only actually face that when we're forced to, when we feel we're betrayed by the assumptions[2].
If you'd never seen any TV before it'd work, but because you're expecting one thing, it doesn't work for you. And also, B5 *does* use the "cryptic is wise" trope too, eg. with Lorien, and also Kosh, so when is it convention and when face value?
[1] Technological superiority isn't moral superiority, but in B5 it seems you only acquire first-one-ness if you're in control of yourself, else you just don't understand or blow yourself up first.
[2] The same problem applies in mysteries. Often the reader takes it on trust the murderer isn't someone they've never heard of. If the rest of the world is excluded as suspects by evidence showing it's impossible, that's fine. If the rest of the world is excluded by convention, that's fine. If the rest of the world is excluded by convention, but the author was exploiting that to mislead the reader, it's funny once, but after that just a betrayal, as the reader can either believe the convention, and be wrong, or disbelieve the convention, and have no way of knowing with of the 6bln people did it, but have no way of guessing they were supposed to expand the pool of potential suspects to include the butler, but no further[3].
[3] That's just an example I suspect has happened, but I don't know if the original (and nearly only) "butler did it" story did that -- I expect it did have clues, if you dropped your assumptions enough to notice them, but I don't know.
Now, watching everything together, I see some things that make more sense. For instance, the Sigma 957 first-ones get all het-up when Ivanova taunts them, saying the Vorlons carried them in the last war. At the time, it just seemed a bit of funny, and it annoyed me that these supposedly superior beings were shown so petty[1].
But if you know the Vorlons actually were second rate first ones, left behind because they insisted on meddling with people in morally questionable ways, the first one's anger is rather justified.
I think it's that we have a lot of conventions in TV. We don't have the same level of "holding a dove means blah blah blah" old paintings used to (though we do that sometimes), but we have a lot of conventions.
When someone drives to a building, they park outside. That's not realistic, it's shorthand to show their journey, and we understand. A lot of stories use "making cryptic statements" as shorthand for "wise old man to be trusted" because showing *actual* wisdom and growing trust in him is too much to shoe-horn into a short scene. In real life, you'd observe "but that cryptic bs might just be bs, how do I know?" and trust only sometimes.
So we see Kosh, we're prepped to extend him this assumption. But in fact, he does have a parcel-load of ulterior motives and imperfections, we're supposed to notice from his unhelpfulness. But we only actually face that when we're forced to, when we feel we're betrayed by the assumptions[2].
If you'd never seen any TV before it'd work, but because you're expecting one thing, it doesn't work for you. And also, B5 *does* use the "cryptic is wise" trope too, eg. with Lorien, and also Kosh, so when is it convention and when face value?
[1] Technological superiority isn't moral superiority, but in B5 it seems you only acquire first-one-ness if you're in control of yourself, else you just don't understand or blow yourself up first.
[2] The same problem applies in mysteries. Often the reader takes it on trust the murderer isn't someone they've never heard of. If the rest of the world is excluded as suspects by evidence showing it's impossible, that's fine. If the rest of the world is excluded by convention, that's fine. If the rest of the world is excluded by convention, but the author was exploiting that to mislead the reader, it's funny once, but after that just a betrayal, as the reader can either believe the convention, and be wrong, or disbelieve the convention, and have no way of knowing with of the 6bln people did it, but have no way of guessing they were supposed to expand the pool of potential suspects to include the butler, but no further[3].
[3] That's just an example I suspect has happened, but I don't know if the original (and nearly only) "butler did it" story did that -- I expect it did have clues, if you dropped your assumptions enough to notice them, but I don't know.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-09 03:50 pm (UTC)I'm lead to believe it has clues. But since my mother is a huge fan of such stories and hated that one I have no first hand experience.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-09 06:28 pm (UTC)I don't think you are - JMS is very fond of turning expectations on their head, and whilst the clues for many things are there for you to spot in retrospect, I think it's deliberate that you don't get them first time round.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-11 01:54 pm (UTC)