Damek.

So Ursula K. Le Guin is pretty unhappy with the Sci-Fi channel’s adaptation of her Earthsea series. She’s written a highly critical blurb on her website, a column about it at Slate, and a more detailed chronology at The Agony Column. Granted, I haven’t read her Earthsea books (though I have read and loved a couple of her separate novels), nor did I watch the miniseries (the advertising was unappealing to me, and besides, it’s been so ubiquitous it’s sickening.)

She has every right to complain, and should, loudly. Legally, the Sci-Fi channel can do what they want — if it isn’t in the contract, she shouldn’t expect them to do something. But morally, I think it’s repugnant to take a living author’s work and distort it so much. She should complain till she’s blue in the face. The Sci-Fi channel has been abrogating its mission much of late, and they need some reminding.

I mean, you’d think they’d air science fiction, right? But no. They do evil puppets, cheap-ass derivative fright flicks, and endless reality-flavored series. (Granted, “Proof Positive” is hosted by Stargate SG-1 hottie Amanda Tapping, but I’m not gonna watch a shit show just because a cool actress hosts it.)

Where they do have good shows, they either bought them from elsewhere (Stargate SG-1 was birthed on Showtime) or they’re milking previously successful franchises (Babylon 5 & Battlestar Gallactica continuations & sequels — and again, the Stargate franchise with their “Atlantis” spin-off.) They did originate Farscape, which is apparently brilliant, but then they went and cancelled it because it was too expensive to keep producing.

They stick with tired old formulas and cheap “reality” shows. Occasionally, formulas aren’t bad if they’re handled deftly and kept fresh (I would put Stargate SG-1 in that category: formulaic, but done well) — but that requires good writing. As for expensive special effects, someone should explain to them that people who watch/read a lot of Science Fiction are more interested in a decent scientific plot than high production values. It’s one thing to be low-budget in production (the original Star Trek was about as low budget as Sci Fi comes, but it was innovative for its time, establishing the formula so abused today) — but they could at least make an attempt to get decent writers.

To attract writers, they need the respect of the creative community. If you’re a network profiteering by taking established novels and making miniseries out of them, you’d better care what the author thinks, or pretty soon you’ll only be able to get rights for works by dead authors like Frank Herbert (Dune) whose children are trying to live off of their parent’s creations. Good science fiction needs good writing, and the Sci-Fi channel is destrying what little clout they have (for even daring to exist) every time they abuse a good writer’s stories for quick ratings bounces.

I’m personally concerned about this sort of behavior by Sci-Fi because I’m a big fan of Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars trilogy, and Sci-Fi obtained the rights a year or two back to the first book in the trilogy, Red Mars, intending to make a miniseries of it. I now have no doubt now that they will absolutely ruin it. There’s nothing in the book that makes it impossible to create a good miniseries from it (movie, maybe, because it’s long), but it would require some care and effort, and I’m sure they probably don’t care much what Mr. Robinson thinks. Unless he wrung a better contract out of them.

Having said all that, it can be extremely difficult to get a good long-running series started. The draw of good science-fiction is that it requires you to think; it asks you to bend your mind around some new idea, or at least to follow a long-running plot. On the contrary, television works best with short stories that are over quickly and leave few hanging threads. Which is why the best science-fiction drama remains in short-story oriented series like The Outer Limits, or miniseries projects. Neither require a gamble or investment in a pre-determined, 5-season story arc like Babylon 5 had. But they still require good writing.

Maybe sci-fi just belongs in books and the odd good film, but the Sci-Fi channel sure isn’t giving it any good try on television. If they did, maybe they’d find that target demographic they’re going after would stick around and reward them a little for their daring.