The Life and Love of Felix Gaeta

In his article Post Closet Television, Ron Becker touches on the odd state of the closet homosexual in the this post Will & Grace television landscape. He points out that television has made it okay for gay men to be out, but by the same token, they've made that the only possible label. Because homosexuality is permitted, all homosexuals must be out and therefore any other man on television is straight.

Battlestar Galactica played with this assumption by outing a regular cast member whose love life had never been mentioned. Felix Gaeta, the ships tactical officer plays an integral role in the military operations that take place on the show. He is friendly with his crew, and shows admiration for the scientist and traitor Gaius Baltar, whom he is assigned to assist in his research on the Cylons. While one might argue that Gaeta's hero worship of Baltar has an edge of homosexual interest in it, this is never made explicit. In fact, no aspect of Felix Gaeta's sex life is explored until halfway through the final season. At the end of the show's mid-season hiatus, just prior to the airing of the final episodes, a new side of Felix was revealed to the audience in the web series Face of the Enemy. Gaeta was revealed to be engaged in a romantic relationship with fellow officer Louis Hoshi.

While this relationship is made very clear, and could not be confused with any other kind of relationsip, the rest of the show explores Gaeta's romantic relationship with a Cylon of model number eight. The two were engaged in a long term resistance effort against the Cylons, which eventually led to a sexual encounter and ended with the betrayal of the eight, who had been sabotaging the project the entire time.

What is interesting about this is the fact that Felix is first revealed to be gay, and then this assertion is immediately taken away. Because, in fact, Gaeta' was never revealed to be gay, he was simply revealed to be engaged in a romantic relationship with another man. “Well, apples and oranges...” you might say, but as Ron Becker points out in reference to Brokeback Mountain just because we perceive his behavior as being that of a homosexual, this does not mean that is what he is.

And as projects like the Kinsey Reports have shown us all, humans are capable of a range of sexual interests, not simply related to one person, body-type or gender. Gaeta's relationship with Hoshi is striking not because it is a rare example of a gay man taken totally out of context or stereotype, but because it defies all attempts to typify a character. Whether Gaeta is gay or straight, is not nearly important as the what is actually going on in his two relationships, how the one informs the other and what both of them do to the character.

Now that post-closet television is establishing its roots and audiences are increasingly comfortable with seeing the stereotypical out and proud gay man on screen, it's time to start introducing audiences to the rest of them. Now is the time for depictions of those homosexual who are unsure of whether or not they wish to be out of the closet, not because they fear gay bashing, but because of the full weight of the label. Similarly it is important to engage with shows which contradict labels and stereotypes for whatever reason. What the ultimate message of Gaeta's lovelife seems to be has nothing to do with who else is involved. It is simply that one cannot look to another human being - male or female, gay or straight – to make them into a better person.

Sexual and Romantic Networking on BSG

In Hera Has Six Mommies Julie Levine Russo explores the sexual encoding by both the producers and audience of Battlestar Galactica. The narrative trajectories of six female characters [three human, three cylon] have led the titular Hera to be surrounded by women who both take responsibility for the child's destiny and form a network of cooperation and nurture and - in some cases – sexuality. Russo introduces that idea of “girlslash goggles,” a way of reading Galactica and forming a narrative about the lives of the shows prominent female characters, mostly revolving around their love for Hera and the bonds they form with each other in service of that love.

It is true that to reveal the sexual connections between the three human women, one is required to do a little interpretive negotiation with the show. No sex is at all implied, but neither is it explicitly ruled out. On the other hand, a maternal network is created surrounding this child, one in which each woman has a distinct emotional investment and must, at some point surrender trust to the other women involved. While the audience mostly does not see any physical component to this covenant, there are aspects of it that seem analogous to components of a romantic relationship.

In one case, it should be noted, this maternal network does take on a distinctly sexual tone, specifically in the relationship between a number six and number three cylon ('Caprica' and 'D'Anna respectively). This union is completed by the addition of the human exile Gaius Baltar, with whom Caprica already has a relationship. The quest by D'Anna and Caprica to learn the truth about Hera and about the nature of God, leads the women to first torture Baltar, then to bed him together.

Russo indicates here, that this odd sexual triplet needs to be confined to the alien realm of the Cylon base ship, a repository for all things alien. But I tend to disagree. While the Cylons were initially mysterious and alien, their world is increasingly revealed to the audience as the show unfolds, to the point that, by the time this queer cylon union takes shape, a level of familiarity with the 'other' has been established. In fact, the sexual union we see is not alien, the audience is given a human stand-in (and arguably the most human character on the show) as a point of entry. Further, what we see is not portrayed as perverse or unappealing, but deeply complex, as one might expect.

All this is simply to point out that sexuality and love play out in diverse ways on Battlestar Galactica, and do not adhere to set standards. Relationships which are not sexual, take on seemingly romantic and sexual overtones simply because they are so complex and require something outside the norm for the characters. This blurred line of sexuality is important for establishing a continuum of sexual experience and portrayals on television.

Joss Whedon at Harvard

Last night I had the pleasure of seeing my hero, the man who created the myths I hope to share with my children, Joss Whedon. Mr. Whedon was, ostensibly, being honored by the Harvard Humanist Society with a lifetime achievement award [the third of its kind]. This seemed fishy to me from the get-go, and I was happy when a tuxedoed sophomore at the mic acknowledged the meaninglessness of the award itself, and t their TV hero. A brief clip show and some words of awesomeness about HHS briefly preceded the presentation of the award and the introduction of the awarded.

Joss Whedon's speech was truly flawless. Other people give more descriptive accounts, but suffice to say: the whole thing was charming, moving and inspiring. He gave proper respect to the group that was honoring him, and to the philosophy that brought them together. What he did not do, was bash religion. He tied it to the best and worst of society, but argued that religion was a framework for, and not origin of, our morality. It was fascinating to observe a public figure speak to this subject kindly without being timid and critically without being cruel. He shared the story of a personal ritual in his youth, which revolved around Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

When Mr. Whedon finished his speech, members of the HHS played a selection of clips of his work and accompanied each with a question. It was unfortunate that this group couldn't take a cue from their guest of honor, as many of the questions seemed either mocking or hostile toward the subject of religion. Whedon was able to turn each one around, though, giving satisfying answers without falling into the disrespectful rhetoric of his hosts. Similarly disappointing were the questions asked by the audience, including a job request, tons of unintelligible outbursts from the crowd, and lots of rambling mixed with awkward stuttering. Don't get me wrong, I'm as eager a fan as the next guy, and I'd love to talk to Joss all day long about the Battlestar Galactica finale, but this seemed like a great platform for thought-provoking discussion. Personally, I was eager to ask a question about which my peers and I have been arguing lately: is there such thing as a television auteur, and would Mr. Whedon consider himself one? Unfortunately, before I could even stir in my seat the line was too long for me to even try.

All in all, I'm very happy that I went, and feel lucky to have been as close to one of my heroes as I'm likely to ever be. At this point, I go into events like these expecting the audience to degenerate into giggles and trivia, so I wasn't surprised that this is what happened. On the other hand, Mr. Whedon's moving speech was worth the price of admission and given that this seems to be a turning point in his career [look out for an upcoming post about the director's shift into the online sphere] I'm happy to have seen him now.

Some Hope for the Future of Computing

I think it might be a good idea to put Mark Weiser and Jean Baudrillard in a room together. While the latter names the computer screen or more accurately the entirety of simulated reality, as the harbinger of the end of actual reality, the former seems unimpressed by our level of technological achievement. Weiser outlines an impressive array of devices and processes which describe the way we might experience ubiquitous computing n the future. More important than his specific idea, though, is the overarching image of technology he describes. It's a view that would put a lot more people at ease.

The potential for oversaturation and overstimulation associated with digital culture is a popular subject both in the classroom and around the dinner table. What many fail to recognize in these constantly overgeneralized, vague and nebulous conversations is Weiser's exact point: our species has integrated many technologies seamlessly into our lives. Language is a great example. While it may complicate things, language is an integral part of humanity. One may argue that a friend talks too much, but no one would say that we as a culture are 'spending too much time on the language.' However, language was probably quite clunky at first, requiring a great deal of focus and thought to form the right words. Weiser sees computers as being similarly clunky in their current state. We engage with them so totally because we haven't figured out how to fit them into our lives such that don't notice them. Ultimately his vision is of a world where computing is a means to an end.

Early on, there was an image of computing and the Internet as tools, ways of helping us communicate and process information. While that's still the case, digital life has increasingly become an end unto itself. Even things like blogging, which you could say is a method of communication, is really more about digital life than it is about sharing information, particularly when you look at the vast numbers of people without Internet access in the world. Somewhere between the dot com bubble and Web 2.0, there was a shift (for me, anyway) where computers went from being something I used to do other things into being something I did for itself. I'm lucky to be able to receive an education about such things, because it helps both to curb that craving for stimulation, but also to understand that, dangerous though it may be, I am experiencing only one step in the evolution of computing.

The fact of the matter is, this may be a transitional stage that we have to go through in order to understand this new technology. My language analogy starts to break down here, because I don't know if there was a time in which humans were worried that this newfangled 'talking' was taking away from real life, like gathering berries, or hunting mammoths. Still, I think there is reason to believe that before digital technology and simulated reality cause us to completely retreat into ourselves and become little more than hyperstimulated brains, we may just shrink our computers and tuck them away where we don't notice them.