History is badly written

"The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to be believable." -Mark Twain

My friends and I just played a delightful game on facebook this last week, critiquing 20th century history as though it were a TV show, lambasting it for its cliched narratives and dropped story lines, it was a lot of fun! I've recreated the entire conversation here in chronological order. My original post is tagged with my own name in caps. Everyone else's comments is posted beneath. Emjoy!

JACOB BENDER: So I've been watching this new show called "The 20th Century," and I'm about half way through; I really enjoyed the first half, what with all the moral ambiguity of that World War, the mindless excesses of the '20s, followed by the poetic reckoning of that Great Depression. But what's the deal with this "World War II?" All the unquestionably "evil" characters are on one side, and all the "good" ones are on the other? How convenient! And, what, they add, like, one "bad-guy" to the good "Allies?" Whatever happened to the complex existential ambivalence of that First World War? Total cliched, reductive, blatant false-binary male-empowerment wish fulfillment, if you ask me. The writers really dropped the ball when they tried to rehash the magic of their first World War. Oh, and then they pull out of no where this whole "Atom Bomb" to magically end the whole thing? Total deus ex machina!

David Harris: I completely disagree. I think the "moral ambiguity" of the Great War (or, as you said, the World War, as it is called in the later episodes) was just too ambiguous. All the different alliances! The writers had something cool in mind, I can see, but the execution was confusing. And the battles in that war never actually changed anything. An entire two-parter would air and the lines would have shifted just a few hundred yards! At least in World War 2 we have some genuine action.

As for the USSR in the WW2 episodes, I think it strikes a good balance between just a generic "Good vs. Evil" and a Great War style confusing mess. Also, the buildup to the USA (the main character in "The 20th Century") actually entering the war was well done, showing the destruction rampaging across Europe, etc. Then, out of nowhere, Japan attacks! I completely admit I was not expecting that.

The back and forth battles in this war were more fun than in the first one. I like how the brought in so many fighters and bombers. And, about the deus ex machina ending... I think they wasted their special effects budget on the air battles and they just needed to end it.

Remember when LOST started adding science fiction elements to the show? I think The 20th Century is trying that with atomic weapons. I just think they made them too powerful, so they might need to tone them down in later episodes. Perhaps they will not destroy entire cities anymore, just a few city blocks or something.

OR, maybe they're setting it up for an even BIGGER World War! Now THAT might be interesting! Cause right now, the USA character just seems a little too pleased with itself. Also, I shouldn't dismiss ALL of WWII; when Germany invaded the USSR, that actually made Stalin a surprisingly sympathetic villain, and as a stand-alone episode would've ranked up there with the best of WWI. It's almost a shame that the USA had to get involved and give the war such a tidy ending. Of course, I could also see an interesting new tension developing between the USA and USSR (though the fact that they both have "US" in their names is a little too on-the-nose for my tastes), these two former allies, feuding like ex-lovers or something.

Brain Fabbi: That's all well and good, but what about the Arabs? They have access to a very important resource, but are suffering from imperialists and zionists. I think they have an important part to play in this drama. Also, what about the 3rd world? Too much is being focused on the 1st and 2nd worlds.

Brittany Schwartz: On the contrary, I believe the Arabs are, in fact, part of the 21st century. They must have learned a thing or two about the element of surprise from the Japanese. Its a shame that incident lead to USA's endless quest of domination over absolutely nothing. What a fantastically horrific show that would be to watch; USA making the same mistakes over and over again, expecting a different outcome each time. What a shame it was when they realized their own stupidity only put them on the express lane to economic downfall. What a shame indeed.

David Harris: I've been watching this series on and off for a while and have caught a few reruns. The Jewish story arc has been going on for a really long time, ever since the first series ("The 1st Century") and it is also really prominent in the prequels, so the Holocaust episode was especially horrifying. I was afraid the writers were going to end that arc for good, but I'm glad the Jewish people were given a good break for once now that they have a country of their own. They should be a lot better off, now.

Brian: I, personally, have a hard time keeping track of the main characters as it is. I don't know if I could keep track of a bunch of extra countires that don't really move the plot along very well. And what are the Zionists? I don't know if I have seen that episode yet. Is it something about the Jews? NO SPOILERS, PLEASE! Hahaha.

Jacob Bender: Yeah, but even then, the Arabs don't become especially interesting till the spin-off series "The 21st Century." Now, THAT series gets off with a bang! But now we're getting ahead of ourselves--I'll be catching up with the rest of the series over the next few days, and I'm still trying to get used to this cocky young USA becoming the new main character after Europe; hopefully USA will become less insufferable as the series progresses. I, too, hope to see more diversity in the series; Japan just seemed sort of tossed in there last second as a token minority, and even then, only as another predictable enemy.

Also, what's the deal with Japan invading China, a country, like, 10 times their size?? I feel like the writers didn't put a lot of thought into the logistics and believability of these campaigns! And no spoilers, please, I'm still trusting this whole series to somehow pull all these disparate threads together in a blockbuster way.

David Harris: he entire World War 2 arc seemed to go a bit fast on the technology side. It reminded me of the Lensman series. It starts with biplanes still being used and ends with the first jet fighters and a magic "nuclear" weapon.

One cool thing about it was the great speeches by FDR and Churchill. That reminded me of Babylon 5. In the middle of battle, a leader gives a great speech to rally their side, and it works! The "We will fight them on the beaches..." was my favorite, but with one small problem. It felt like foreshadowing. I expected the Brits to get invaded, but it never happened.

Jacob, you are probably right that they are building up to some awesome World War 3 arc, so they have to leave things like the invasion of Britain for later.

Another thing - after the first few WW2 episodes I realized that the USA just couldn't get invaded across the oceans. That kinda ruined the dramatic tension, when the main character is invulnerable. But, just like Superman rescuing Lois Lane, the USA had to go rescue Britain, and they did a good job at making that tense, at least.

Jacob Bender: Also, what's the deal with making the USA President "Roosevelt," but not be the same as the Teddy Roosevelt from before? "Fifth cousins?" Really? The latter would've made a perfect war president, but he was too old for WWII, so I feel like the writers just wanted another Roosevelt for whatever arbitrary reason, but didn't want to be too obvious with "Teddy Jr" or something. Seriously, it took me too many episodes to keep them straight.

JACOB BENDER: So I'm still watching this show "The 20th Century," and I'm up to the '50s and '60s; what hackneyed writing! When it isn't cliched, the writers are dropping plot threads without a second thought! Like, I thought they were building up to final showdown between former-allies Eisenhower and Stalin, but then Stalin just up and dies out of no where, and that Korean War arc just sort of...ends, like they didn't know what to do with it. Then, some impossibly handsome President promises to take America to the moon, is oh so gallantly gunned down, and then, following the formula of every sports film ever, the US is behind in the space race...they're still behind...then at the last second they pull from behind and land on the moon! SO predictable.

And I mean, c'mon--ARMstrong? Really? Neil ARMSTRONG? Why didn't they just call him Captain Awesome with names like that? Although I admit that the whole Civil Rights Movement arc really undercut America's whole righteous image in ways that were really intriguing and thought-provoking.

Brian Fabbi: Ah yes, I am Also looking forward to these Baby Boomers, they seem like they might be important. Though I am not amused by this new music, Rock and Roll? Sounds like something a senile old woman does when she falls out of a rocking chair.

Jacob Bender: Also, what happened to that whole magic "Atom Bomb" they introduced end of WWII??? They've had both Korea and Vietnam, and hadn't used it either time, it's like they forgot it existed! I thought the whole Cuba thing was finally going to be the big Thermo-nuclear WWIII pay-off, but apparently the writers didn't have the guts to follow-through. Now they just use some hand-waving "MAD" (clever acronym there guys, did you pull an all-nighter to come up with THAT one?) to explain why no one ever used these magic nukes.

David Harris: Both Korea and Vietnam felt like the buildup to WW3, and both disappointed. The Vietnam arc I think tried to fix the problems of the Korean Arc, but it just failed more spectacularly. They talk a lot about nukes, but nobody ever uses them. Neither the Koreans nor the Vietnamese had nukes, so they can't say that they were afraid of retaliation.

Also, the Vietnam arc was obviously written by Hollywood hacks who had no idea whatsoever about effective military strategy.

That being said, I thought the space race arc was awesome. Yes, it was cliche, but it was fun! I just wish they found something more than "magnificent desolation" when they got there. Ancient mechanical astronauts bent on world domination would have been a bit much, but still cooler than... nothing.

The Cuban Missile Crisis felt a bit forced to me. The Soviets had the technology to build ICBMs, as demonstrated by their victories in the space race arc to this point, but they only built a handful. Meanwhile, the USA, lagging in the space race, built almost 200 by this time. Come on, people! ICBM technology should be sufficiently similar to spacecraft technology to make the USSR the clear leader in ICBMs. Anyway, even though the Soviets could build better missiles, they decide to send some medium range missiles to Cuba? What? Cuba just had a revolution, is on the USA's doorstep, and has no real industry or economy. Castro can't last very long, a few episodes at most, and the USSR is giving him nukes? Yeah, right.

Brian Fabbi: I was half expecting there would be pyramids and a true sea of tranquility on the moon. Oh yeah, and what's with This free love movement and the Beatles? They can't last very long can they?

Jacob Bender: The Vietnam arc is taking WAY too long to wrap. For goodness sakes, WWI AND II didn't last this long! Serious, how are the heroes of WWII not handily defeating a country a fraction the size and economy of evil Germany? What is Vietnam's strategic value, anyways? It strains credulity. Also, what was the point of introducing the handsome president if they were just going to off him so quickly? The random lone-gun-man doesn't even make sense narratively--unless some sort of secret conspiracy with far-reaching implications comes to light from this assassination, then it will be a ridiculous death on par with Tasha Yar's on Star Trek:TNG.

But then, the handsome pres WAS kinda one-note--now LBJ, there's a fascinatingly flawed anti-hero! The man from the racist state poetically pushes through anti-racism legislation, only to ruin his legacy with that Vietnam arc. It's almost as though the pointless-ness of Vietnam IS the point, it's a very post-modern, Becketian touch.

David Harris: I'm looking forward to what the new guy, Nixon, will do. He is a moderate politician, trying to end the war in Vietnam as quickly as possible, pro-environment, in favor of normalizing relations with the PRC, etc. He was even a guest star back in the early '60s.

Brian Fabbi: I'm not so sure on this Nixon fellow, he seems too smarmy. However, I hear there is a movie star named Ronnie who is rather liberal and wants peace with the USSR.

Eric Melonakos: Come back to reality, guys. It's just a TV show.

Elliot Walters: You know what really gets me. Thy keep putting these great guest stars in and them ignoring them. Europe was huge in the beginning. They sent all these people over to the US, they were the epicenter of WWI & II then after WWII they jut forgot about Europe. That could've been a whole spin off, Le 20th Centurie or something. I hope the bring them back before the end of the show. I really think some big things could happen there. May e they're building up I something with this whole USSR. Speaking of the USSR who's this Joe Maccarthy character in the 5th season? He sure was a jerk, getting everyone to turn on their friends. Thy better be doing something good with this arc. It seems like the writers were afraid they couldn't compete with reality TV and had to spice things up a bit.

JACOB BENDER: I'm trying to finish up this TV show "The 20th century;" narratively, it's very uneven. Like, the '70s get off to a strong start with Nixon, who's about as King Lear-esque a tragically flawed anti-hero as you could ask for! Opens relations with China, ends the draft, founds the EPA, but is brought down by his own ambition and paranoia, SO pathos ridden! (If only today's politicians could be brought down like that easily, which still feels unrealistic). But then they strangely just follow Nixon with a bunch of blooper reals (at least, that's what I assume the Ford and Carter administrations are).The '80s got all surreal, with the very meta move of making an actual actor play the President. Don't get me wrong, I liked the poetic symmetry of the President who ended the Iran hostage situation later being busted in the Iran-Contra affair; but talk about not firing Chekhov's gun! You blow SO many episodes setting up the tensions between the USA and USSR, you got this whole nuclear arsenal pointed at each other, and...it just ends?? Like that?! Not even bloody revolution like what introduced the USSR character? SO anti-climactic!

And I feel like they just tacked on Desert Storm there because they knew everyone would be disappointed with a lack of satisfying wrap-up. And don't get me started on the '90s! It felt like the fifth season of Babylon 5, utterly unnecessary with a dearth of interesting story lines! I mean, did they just get a bunch of new writers to turn the whole shebang into a soap opera, everyone worrying who's sleeping with whom? Lame.

David Harris: Did the writers forget that Nixon vowed to end the Vietnam War? They really should pay more attention to their own TV show.

The scene in the '80s when the Berlin Wall fell was positively joyous. The only way they could have ended the Cold War better would have been with a nuclear war. Actually, that is the ONLY other way they could have ended it. Oh well. And am I the only one that's sad that Reagan never got his space lasers?

I think the '90s was more like Glee than Babylon 5. Well, Glee with ugly people. Pres. Clinton's love interest wasn't at all believable. The most powerful man on earth could get a better looking mistress than that.

I'm looking forward to "The 21st Century" though. Originally, I heard they were going to just call it "The 20th Century: The Next Generation" to maintain more continuity with the previous show, but (probably due to low ratings) they decided to try to separate the new series from the old one. And I heard J J Abrams is writing for this one! Cool!

JACOB BENDER: So after finishing "The 20th Century," I decided to try the spin-off series "The 21st Century." After the Y2K subplot fizzled, I thought that "21st" would devolve into yet another disappointing series of anticlimaxes--but holy hannah, did "21st" ever start off to a bang, I did NOT see that coming, it was like a bad Jerry Bruckheimer film or something! New enemies, new existential threats, new invasions--David Harris was right, it's like they added JJ Abrams to the writing staff, for all the random new plot threads they keep adding--like, that Iraq thing, where on earth did THAT come from??

David Harris: Did I miss an episode? Why is the USA attacking Iraq now? I thought Osama was in Afghanistan.

Cool foreshadowing there, though. Afghanistan is nicknamed "The Graveyard of Empires" because all the other countries that invaded it throughout the series fell less than a season later. Let's hope that doesn't happen to the USA! Haha!

But why, why did they give the name of the new US president almost the exact same name as the main-evil-bad-guy? One possibility: The writers may have been accused of racism because of all the slavery/segregation storylines, and now the prominent Muslim terrorists. They probably decided to cut that line of attack short by introducing a popular US president who was born in Kenya and has a Muslim name. I think it's great, it adds some much needed diversity to the cast.

No, wait a second... the whole Kenyan president thing... is that one of the true conspiracy theories in the show, or one of the false ones? Ack! So confusing! This might go beyond even J J Abrams into some post-modernist parade of confusion. Is there a wiki for this show? One that doesn't have spoilers?

Yeah, they really drug out those 2 (!) wars WAY longer than they should have. I mean, serious, who, anywhere, was clamoring for a repeat of the ol' Vietnam arc? Anyone? Who are these people? Then these writers show their laziness by just having both wars just sort of...end. And if they think they can recapture my interest with this insipid Iran war they keep foreshadowing, then I just might give up on this series altogether.

I mean, yeah, they finally took out that Osama guy, but frankly that should've come MUCH earlier in the series, it just feels like an afterthought here. And what was with that Libya mini-arc? France doesn't support one middle-eastern war but randomly does THIS one? Why? And if they could overthrow middle-east dictators so efficiently, then why weren't they doing so all along in those other 2 wars? These writers are really straining my suspension of disbelief.

JACOB BENDER: Ok, ok, I get it, I get it, Newt Gingrich is the villain! I mean, serious, "GinGRICH?" Who named him, Dr. Seuss? The writers even made him short, squat and angry like a troll, and gave him the troll name of "Newt!" Why not just give him a black cowboy hat to beat us over the head more with it? And just so we didn't mistake him further, they give him two ex-wives that he left when they had MS and cancer respectively, a butt-load of ethics violations from his own party, he receives mysterious infusions of cash from some shady Las Vegas billionaire, and of course he wants to build a moon base of James-Bone-villain proportions--geez, why didn't the writers just give him a black cape and twirly mustache if they were going to make him such a cliched bad guy??

And I feel like the writers made Romney Mormon because he had absolutely no other distinguishing features.