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.

Privacy Concerns

While I think it is important to discuss and understand privacy, particularly for the sake of literacy, I left Thursday's discussion asking myself 'so what?' How does privacy affect me on the long run, and if I come into to a situation where I feel as though my privacy has been violated, what will I do about it? The fact of the matter is, legal action seems to be our only real recourse when it comes to privacy violations. In fact, each of us has probably found ourselves in more than one situation in which we would be within our rights to sue, but we don't because except for the more extreme commodity-related cases, there would be seemingly no point.

This is why I brought up the idea of some sort of 'privacy council.' While one could argue that the law and the judicial system serve the function I posited, privacy issues seem to dance on both sides of the line between legal and personal matters. As such, it would seem to me to make some sense to at least form a group that could address issues. Dan Solove's Understanding Privacy seems to treat the issue as such a community-based one that it makes sense to have a community body that can at least say 'from my non-binding survey, it seems that we, in general find X to be private, so be aware when X comes into your interactions with others.'

Perhaps the results would be as ineffective as our judicial system. However, it seems to me that problems regarding privacy are not solved by simply talking about them, and mostly litigious action seems too extreme. I'm reminded of Jason Fortuny who posted fake ads on Craigslist. These ads were very graphic, requesting extreme sexual acts. Many responded, and Fortuny posted their information online for all to see.

There's a pretty clear legal case in this instance. Fortuny broke many laws in attempting to pull this off. Indeed, as of a year ago, there were two lawsuits pending against him. However, while legal recourse may make sense for someone whose livelihood was hurt by this person, that action is going to do nothing to prevent others from falling into similar traps. It seems to me that it makes sense to have a body of publicly sanctioned figures who can at least make people aware of the potential for violations or miscarriages of privacy. This group could equally be responsible for taking the temperature of a group in regards to controversial issues.

It would be difficult to make any actions this group took legally binding, and indeed it would probably be a mistake to do so. After all, the law should be saved for the most extreme cases. But most of the time the situation isn't so dire, it simply becomes that way because both perpetrator and victim lack a proper understanding of their actions. If we continue to advance technologically we're going to continue to create opportunities for our personal information to slip through the cracks. Doesn't it make sense to have someone to point out the dangers to those who don't know any better?

Worshipping Rock & Roll with Battlestar Galactica

David Hesmondhalgh's essay Rock Culture and Visual Culture touches on something that has bothered me for a while. Why is the popular music of my generation seen as so unworthy praise in comparison with which my parents were raised? Hesmondhalgh argues, essentially, that the golden age of rock has been mythologized. This isn't a particularly controversial thesis, but it is particularly interesting when discussed in the context of Battlestar Galactica , a show that has taken the mythologizing of the golden age of rock to a quite literal level.

By the end of the show's third season, seven out of twelve models of Cylons - the human-looking machines bent on destroying humanity – had been revealed. Every one had at one point seemingly been human with a later reveal of the true nature that often spun the show in a different direction. After three seasons of these reveals, the audience was very much prepared for five more. What no one could prepare for though was when a central character drunkenly blurted out the first line of Bob Dylan's 'All Along the Watchtower.' Imagine the shock, then, when four main characters each quoted a line from the song, thus signaling the realization of their true nature as Cylons. Few fans were particularly shocked at the revelation Most are still trying to understand the diegetic significance of Dylan's classic.

Ron D. Moore, the show's executive producer, has discussed the fact that the song is exists to demonstrate a connection between our world and the show's. It is not that Bob Dylan exists in their Galactica universe, but that this song, like the inclination to explore or the fear of God, is part of human consciousness. As the show has progressed, though, 'All Along the Watchtower' has become like Ezekial's chariot, a signal of the divine.

The use of the song on Battlestar Galactica seems to be another portent of Hesmondhalgh's mythologizing of classic rock. Both its composition and lyrics are dissected by the show and given enormous power. The music, now laden with sitar and duduk, becomes an integral part of the show's score in the fourth season, always coupled with a transcendent experience. The show has been noted for its diverse score that ignores cultural or geographic boundaries. The music veers away from orientalist stereotypes. Japanese Taiko drums, signal that the Galactica is ready for battle, while a piano solo inspired by Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata," accompanies the alien Cylons on their geometrically schizophrenic Basestars. Through all of this, though, it is the American rock classic that is tied to the great mystery of the show.

A central theme of Battlestar Galactica is questioning what it means to be human, as well as what it means to believe in God. 'All Along the Watchtower,' as it is used on the show, seem to represent the best of humanity and of our beliefs. The song is apparently something so beautiful and profound that it is nothing short of divine. In fact, it's function is to push the audience to do what the characters on Galactica cannot: look into our past and marvel beauty we have created rather than looking into our future in search of our next conquest. This is particularly ironic for a show that has had to constantly overcome the inclination of viewers to look back and compare the show to its source, the 1970's Galactica .

Galactica does not harp on popular culture – after all, it is popular culture – the way those who revere Dylan and Hendrix over modern musicians often do. On the other hand, it's interesting to note that out of all the touchstones it could use to signify the grace of humanity, the chose a rock classic. Though critics will continue to argue about whether or not the use of the 'All Along the Watchtower' enhances or destroys the narrative, there can be no doubt that it was a bold decision. It was also one that shows how much, for better or worse, we still worship the golden age of rock and roll.

Mapping, Play and Web [shudder] 2.0

Our mapping project [ born out of this prompt: 'Using Google Maps, you should explore how everyday life can be represented and made productive through mapping.  More information will be handed out in class. ] , Stalking Consciousness, didn't reveal many new things to me. This isn't to say that it wasn't a good learning experience. However, I think our hypothesis were kind of obvious, and, and I think anyone familiar to the technologies and locations we were monitoring would have drawn the same conclusions pretty easily. Even in cities, the more actively, populated centers will contain more active, individually conscious people. Similarly, people using technology will be less conscious of their surroundings, more conscious of their own desires, intentions and goals. The combination of these two results in a kind of hypernetworked, hyperindividualized drone, tuned in to so much information, and driven towards personal goals. Remove either and this effect is reduced, remove both, and a person becomes much more aware of what's around them. This effect is not universal, but can be measured with relative regularity. All in all it wasn't a particularly controversial hypothesis, and it was proved easily.

On the other hand, I found it interesting because it embodied the kind of play/work/life fusion that I think a number of the technologies which have been placed under the rubrik of Web 2.0 While blogging, social media and wikis may not be new technologies, they were certainly given a new context and adopted with enthusiasm unseen in the previous decade. There are a number of factors that I'd suggest contributed to the public's enthusiasm for Web 2.0.

For one thing, the generation that Dannah Boyd says ' hearts' social media was too young to use social media in its previous 'web 1.0' incarnation. [Author's note – I can't stand the term web 2.0, but it's the common parlance, and it's a part of the article to which I'm responding, so I'm speaking in its terms.] They may have e-mailed a bit, but they couldn't use it as a serious socialization tool. Similarly though there were communication technologies such as AOL chatroom, IRC and instant messengers, these technologies were often restricted by parents of what were then young children. Now that they've grown up, the technology is presented to them in a fresh way.

The technology now exists on different levels of complexity. Those who are not tech savvy can figure out facebook pretty quickly, while those who are can use the social network as a development platform. In the past, IRC was daunting to those without at least a little technical know-how. Meanwhile AOL Chat was dauntingly vanilla to those able to use something like IRC. Things are such now that we have the same blogging platforms being used to publish gossip blogs as are used to blog about web development.

So at this point, we have everybody involved and playing on the same turf, regardless of what their game is. Though I use the analogy of a game, there is a great amount of play in all that we are doing online. I found Kristi, Onion and Bill's map interesting because it told a story. It was a kind of treasure map. At the same time, the data itself was informative. I now know about many different places to get local food. My group's project on the other hand, attempted to retrieve more ethnographic or sociological data, and yet in order to do so, we wound up playing a little game, following people around, writing things down. We were all like little detectives, and the map that we came up with, while maybe an interesting illustration, is really a sort of memento of the game we were playing.

I think what those of us who study the field need to consider is how that changes the way we engage with information when our interaction can turn into play. Should we embrace that or does it delegitimize serious intentions. How far can we really take the idea of play, and where is it simply never going to be welcome? In an office setting, for instance, its tough to think of any kind of playful interaction that would benefit the business. It might be good for worker moral, but in regards to aggregation or manipulation of data, I'm not sure.

I will say that this project made me personally want to map more. It made me yearn to move around, to have interesting encounters in a multitude of places, such that I could put them all down for posterity. Ultimately, I'm not sure if that map would be anything more than a geodiary. I'm hoping to discover some way to make it mean more, or to serve some other purpose for those who find it.