I’m a big sci fi guy. I used to love Doctor Who, although lately I couldn’t bring myself to enjoy it. Meanwhile, I recently binged my way through The Orville, which I loved. Both shows are written by writers with similar politics, trying to explore political and philosophical issues through the lens of sci fi (as good sci fi generally does). So why was it that I enjoyed The Orville while being turned off by the recent season of Doctor Who?
The major difference between the two shows is how they explore their subjects. The Orville will raise an issue, explore it from both sides, tell you what each character thinks, and leave it to you to come to your own conclusions. It lets you think. Doctor Who on the other hand (I’ve noticed this with Supergirl as well) will show an issue, demonize anyone who holds an idea different from the writer/main character, hits you over the head with their ‘answer,’ telling you exactly what you should think. Even if you agree with everything they’re saying, its still patronizing.
The Orville is sci fi. Doctor Who is propaganda.
This realization made me realize what I hated about one of my shelved manuscripts. It was pushing a message, where my answer was the ONLY answer. And it just sucked. Rule of thumb, tell a good story before telling a good message, and second, don’t tell folks what they should think (or at least don’t make it so obvious), and instead let them come to the conclusion on their own. If you’re a talented enough writer, they’ll end up exactly where you want them anyway.
My wife was watching Riverdale the other day, and I caught bits and pieces of it. Basically, Archie was being tried for murder. Now, ignoring how this is a ludicrous adaptation of the source material, lets look at what was actually going on. Archie was being tried for first degree murder and first degree murder only. That means that there had to have been mens rea, or for the layman, malice aforethought. It needs to be proven that it was premeditated. First degree murder is notoriously the hardest charge to prove, which is why they usually also consider a second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. But not here! Without any motive (or weapon!) the prosecution still pushed for first degree murder only. Basically, the prosecutor is the worst lawyer ever, and a sever waste of taxpayer money.
Then, despite being on trial for willful premeditated murder, the court lets Archie out for an extended weekend while the trial is going on. NO JUDGE WOULD EVER ALLOW SOMEONE TO POST BAIL FOR MURDER ONE (at the very least, make him use a tracker or something).
The jury comes back stuck at 6-6. Now with such a split, any prosecutor would not try the case again (maybe if there were one or two jurors leaning the other way, but not HALF OF THEM!), but this one says that she’s going to try the case again.
Yeah, I’m a lawyer, but you don’t have to be a lawyer to pick up on how ridiculous all this is. And all of this could’ve easily been fixed with some tweaks, provided that the writer actually did some research. It’s not like you have to go to the library to look this stuff up anymore. We have the internet now. All it takes is a click.
So please, when you’re writing in an area that you don’t have intimate knowledge of, please do some research. Even a cursory glance at a Wikipedia page will keep you from looking like an idiot.