God I love this series. I've watched the show and rewatched parts of it and just adore so much of what it attempted and accomplished.
I don't think there's a space opera that is more operettic, even if there are space operas that are more "space".
I think you could've been a bit more charitable to Yang. There IS philosophical rationale behind his ideology (it's just not very good imo) and he does represent virtues like moderation and a calm collected reasoning more than Reinhardt. He's not JUST a hippie peace lover. He DOES want change but he doesn't think he has the authority to mandate it. I feel as if you compared him to the managerial elites of our modern age, like if General Milley had to fight against an Alexander.
I also absolutely love the series and think it's some of the best high-science-fiction ever written. It explores topics that are highly relevant to the modern era. Honestly, Reinhardt's characterization is one of the best reasons one could adopt a monarchist position regarding international politics.
That said...
Yang has the same problem, as a character, that I see in the television show "INVINCIBLE". Which is to say that the main character makes several life-defining choices about whether to stand with the modern liberal-moral-order or abandon it. In both cases, our lead makes the choice to stand with a quintessentially liberal-moral-order to civilization, but in neither case is this choice studied. It's taken as a given that this is the "correct" position to take, but never once is it sufficiently explored to justify it.
From the perspective of some one from a different civilization with a different moral system (or from this civilization with a different moral system) the character-defining choices are unjustifiable. The hero-character sides with the status-quo because it is the status-quo, not because it holds a hire moral value.
I understand where this error comes from in Legend of the Galactic Heroes given when it was written... and the choice is slightly explored in the novels. I think that in the television series INVINCIBLE it's fully unjustified and makes a mess of characterization. Imagine watching that television show from the perspective of an individual who holds clan-loyalty above 'power of friendship'.
Yeah I couldn't stand INVINCIBLE for a number of reasons, the flimsy philosophy being the least of it.
I think a fair amount of LOTGH was written with virtue ethics in mind, at least when writing characters, and I was saying that from that perspective Yang really is quite a decent fellow.
But you're right, it's not enough that one is "virtuous" if ultimately they're serving a cause that is doomed and bad to begin with. If Caesar were in our modern age a managerial elite who took one knee for BLM, all his virtue would be useless since he'd be fundamentally on the wrong side of history.
I agree that LOTGH didn't really dive deep enough into philosophy, but I also think it couldn't have without alienating alot of casual viewers. For most people Yang citing Rousseau in one episode was deep enough and anything more tangible would've been "too philosophical".
Hey, thanks! I really enjoyed the Legend of the Galactic Heroes. It's fun, but it's intelligent imperial fun. Strong recommendation. I'll be reviewing more science fiction in the future, including a good chunk of Larry Nivens bibliography.
God I love this series. I've watched the show and rewatched parts of it and just adore so much of what it attempted and accomplished.
I don't think there's a space opera that is more operettic, even if there are space operas that are more "space".
I think you could've been a bit more charitable to Yang. There IS philosophical rationale behind his ideology (it's just not very good imo) and he does represent virtues like moderation and a calm collected reasoning more than Reinhardt. He's not JUST a hippie peace lover. He DOES want change but he doesn't think he has the authority to mandate it. I feel as if you compared him to the managerial elites of our modern age, like if General Milley had to fight against an Alexander.
I also absolutely love the series and think it's some of the best high-science-fiction ever written. It explores topics that are highly relevant to the modern era. Honestly, Reinhardt's characterization is one of the best reasons one could adopt a monarchist position regarding international politics.
That said...
Yang has the same problem, as a character, that I see in the television show "INVINCIBLE". Which is to say that the main character makes several life-defining choices about whether to stand with the modern liberal-moral-order or abandon it. In both cases, our lead makes the choice to stand with a quintessentially liberal-moral-order to civilization, but in neither case is this choice studied. It's taken as a given that this is the "correct" position to take, but never once is it sufficiently explored to justify it.
From the perspective of some one from a different civilization with a different moral system (or from this civilization with a different moral system) the character-defining choices are unjustifiable. The hero-character sides with the status-quo because it is the status-quo, not because it holds a hire moral value.
I understand where this error comes from in Legend of the Galactic Heroes given when it was written... and the choice is slightly explored in the novels. I think that in the television series INVINCIBLE it's fully unjustified and makes a mess of characterization. Imagine watching that television show from the perspective of an individual who holds clan-loyalty above 'power of friendship'.
Yeah I couldn't stand INVINCIBLE for a number of reasons, the flimsy philosophy being the least of it.
I think a fair amount of LOTGH was written with virtue ethics in mind, at least when writing characters, and I was saying that from that perspective Yang really is quite a decent fellow.
But you're right, it's not enough that one is "virtuous" if ultimately they're serving a cause that is doomed and bad to begin with. If Caesar were in our modern age a managerial elite who took one knee for BLM, all his virtue would be useless since he'd be fundamentally on the wrong side of history.
I agree that LOTGH didn't really dive deep enough into philosophy, but I also think it couldn't have without alienating alot of casual viewers. For most people Yang citing Rousseau in one episode was deep enough and anything more tangible would've been "too philosophical".
Thanks for the review! Been craving some good science fiction, and this sound excellent while I wait for Devon’s book to be completed.
When Bushido is done, I’ll share with you for a review. We decided to add a story in there for 50yrs in the future and how things have changed.
Hey, thanks! I really enjoyed the Legend of the Galactic Heroes. It's fun, but it's intelligent imperial fun. Strong recommendation. I'll be reviewing more science fiction in the future, including a good chunk of Larry Nivens bibliography.