I don’t pretend to understand television executives – but since the oh-so-branded Syfy channel is owned by NBC Universal, it seems odd to schedule the end of Stargate Universe (SGU) against The Event – two scripted shows with science fiction content. Both NBC and Syfy boast schedules that have other types of programming – shows that aren’t competing for the scripted sci-fi audience – so why so obviously compete against yourself?

The first easy answer is that Syfy doesn’t care about the numbers for the end of Stargate Universe, which has been cancelled for quite a chunk of its final run, and the second is that despite both shows featuring aliens and explosions, they really target different audiences. SGU is a spaceship fantasy dreaming of having a dark heart, and The Event is a soapy spy-thriller with an alien skin-job the lizards on V would envy.

Monday night saw the season and series ender of Stargate Universe, while The Event is still playing through on the flagship NBC channel. I’ve roundly criticized both shows, but the simple fact is that SGU is a far superior program. So why is the better of two science fiction shows, the one on the channel that purports to be aimed at a science fiction audience, being cancelled, when the sci-fi flavored crapgasm on the big, flashy, expensive network is still going strong?

The whizzbang wisdom says that the answer is always in the question, and the common sense side says that television is ruled by the lowest common denominator. There’s some truth to this. SGU let go of the comedy high-adventure-of-the-week tone the Stargate franchise had been banking on for years in order to delve into pathos and character studies that rewarded audience investment. If you’re looking to tune in and see the heroes overcome their obstacles while shooting off a few well placed quips, SGU was going to be a disappointment.

Whereas The Event, as much as its been heralded as the next big serial-mystery-drama, really is much more candy-coated-crème-filling. You can tune in and watch any random episode and know exactly what is going on, because the characters spend most of every episode explaining their motivations and plots to each other. There’s a boyish hero who succeeds at everything he does despite having no training, qualifications or character traits beyond the old truth, justice and the American way. The aliens are clearly evil, genocidal maniacs who deserve whatever the heroes throw at them. If you want to tune in to get your dose of unbelievably easy to follow secret scheming, with a liberal dash of the good guys winning their mission of the moment, that’s what you’re going to see.

And that leads us to the third easy answer: money. On television that means viewership, however the numbers get counted. The Event isn’t doing as well as it started out, but its doing fine, while SGU just couldn’t post the kind of marks Syfy has been enjoying with favorite Warehouse 13. Television is no different than films – if everyone buys a ticket to Spiderman, and nobody buys a ticket to the documentary on the plight of the American working class, then the budgets goes to snapping up the rights to comic books.

Nerds spend money, and so production companies are trying to sell them product, SGU will soon be replaced by something marketed to what we might call Nerds Plus. There’s plenty of material out there right now. It really comes down to – regardless of the invested sci-fi fanbase or the debates over DVR numbers – do the big numbers of viewers stop and invest in an dark, gritty episode of SGU, or would they rather watch the goofball express rocket by on The Event?

Is it possible to market, and make profitable, both kinds of shows – so that everyone gets what they’re looking for? Maybe. But why keep a minimally profitable show on the air just because it makes your fanbase happy when you could make lots of money alienating them and then sell the network to someone else right before the fans abandon you?

by Jeremy Lewit

An analysis of popular music lyrics over the last three decades proves a trend toward self-centeredness and aggression, according to a report by the New York Times science writer John Tierney.

Since I would have believed this without the research grants being diverted to song analysis, it begs the question: can we prove this is true in all the other media?

Film and television aside, because I can’t name anything recent that isn’t about a narcissist, stars a narcissist or is marketed to wannabe narcissists, this is exactly how I feel about the Twilight generation of books.

I’ve been trying to figure out if having read too much Tolkein as a child has left me any more or less damaged than readers of Twilight. I’ve decided that Tolkein is better. Frodo is a model of self-sacrifice, and Samwise an even better one, because he manages to be stalwart without all the mystical suffering. The heroes are heroic, ‘nuff said.

What’s the message in Twilight? That we’d all rather be monsters and leave the rest of humanity to suffer their silly little lives because monsters get psychic superpowers, live forever, sparkle in the sunlight and have really, really great, uh, romance? Or the appeal could be that no matter how much the plot depends on the need for blood being so difficult to overcome, that because the story is about you, everything is easy for you, because hey, you deserve it.

I don’t read every book published, although I did read all four Twilight books, and not just because I thought it was my job to remain informed about them. Because of their mass appeal, I wanted them to be better than they were, and not as works of art, but as cultural artifacts. I don’t often feel that way about music, because it seems so ephemeral to me.

But books: I’d like to see some research dollars compare how selfish our pulpy fiction has become since the golden and silver ages sunk away. While I’m at it, I’d like to see the same analysis done on the history of bloggers. Because this article is all about my opinion, not yours.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/science/26tier.html?ref=science