I know that I am not alone in finding the mythological possibilities inherent in this show's make-up one of the most intriguing aspects of the show. Like so many others I am mystified as to why the writers should so consistently neglect this aspect when it is so much a part of the show's interior mythology, to concentrate on what is in effect the discarded interior mythology of an entirely different show. There has never been a greater interest in the culture of lost civilizations.  Half of the documentary channels now deal with the vanished splendor of previous times. There is a hunger for mythology and for modern interpretations of ancient mythology as never before. This show is in the perfect position to exploit this fascination in a way that is entirely in keeping with its own mythology, and yet it has chosen to spurn a thousand possibilities which only it *could* logically explore to concentrate on an over-used plot device out of keeping with the Stargate universe at its best. Very much in keeping, however, with the world of inferior television shows who rely on the tried and tested at the expense of the original and intellectually invigorating.

It has felt to me for some time that whenever the producers were faced with a crossroads in the direction the show could take, they have always chosen the road most taken and the show has been the poorer for it in every case. This last decision, however, choosing the 'rogue government conspirators in league with aliens' device at the expense not only of the many ancient mythologies which have been spurned to give this plot airtime, but of the character who for many of us *is* 'Stargate SG-1' seems to me to be a possibly fatal misstep.

One of the strengths of the character of O'Neill is that he is Everyman. He is the archetypal modern North American hero of cinema and television just as Jackson is the archetypal hero of ancient mythology and heroic fantasy. (Check out Sue on the hero's journey) While this is one of O'Neill's strengths ­ any male viewer of western culture can identify with the character because he is so familiar to him from other incarnations ­ without Jackson to counterpoint the characteristics that make O'Neill unique there is a danger he can seem like any other hero. The soldier striving to forget a dark past is a movie theater commonplace and modern archetypes can too easily become everyday clichés. The fact that one O'Neill could be replaced by another sharing only a few common characteristics and the show not suffer goes to show the ubiquitous nature of that militaristic heroic type. Without Jackson to bring out O'Neill's unexpectedly tender side; his hidden depths of compassion and sympathy; O'Neill's inability to deny Jackson the chance to explore those things which fascinate him even though O'Neill himself does not share that fascination; is there not a danger that O'Neill will become one-dimensional? Or ­ perhaps equally as damaging to the character and the show ­ that the only way to depict O'Neill's light and shade will be to have him embark on yet another romance, or for us to be exposed to a series of saccharine outings where O'Neill interacts with children. Those two methods are so tired and the standard of writing on the show has deteriorated so sharply since the end of season 3 that I find it difficult to believe the scriptwriters would be able to invoke either method to produce original or entertaining episodes.

To bring together these two heroic types within the same environment; to make them contrasting foils for one another; to have the 'Dirty Harry' and 'Luke Skywalker' characters sharing the same space and moving *beyond* those heroic constraints to the complex and many-nuanced relationship we have seen evolve during the show was surely what separates the series not only from the movie but from most other science fiction shows. The movie relationship ­ while having many interesting undercurrents ­ is the traditional 'buddy-buddy' one, but the O'Neill- Jackson relationship of the series now defies all categorization. Much of the show's individuality lies in the complexities of that relationship. Much of the show's appeal is also wrapped up in those indefinable elements that make the O'Neill-Jackson relationship at once so appealing and so disconcerting.

All the signs of recent episodes and trends seem to me to suggest the show has already gone too far in the wrong direction to stand much chance of pulling itself back from the brink. I regret the deterioration of this show greatly. I regret that with the writers gifted a whole universe of possibilities they have chosen to discard so many. I regret even more that gifted two actors who have transported the O'Neill- Jackson relationship from the archetypal to the irresistible, that the writers' lack of imagination and originality is still being permitted to destroy not only the core relationship those actors have worked so hard to make the heart of the show, but with it all that makes the Stargate universe one which so many of its fans wish to visit. 

I believe both the original concept of the Stargate universe as one in which our heroes visit the transplanted remnants of lost civilizations and the characters who explore those worlds have more than earned the right to be considered 'essentials' by the writers hired by MGM to script this show. It was MGM's task to do more than supply funding; they should also have ensured they protected the integrity of the Stargate universe and the characters within it. They seem to have abdicated their responsibilities to inadequate producers who have in their turn abdicated their responsibilities to inadequate writers. The show has lost far more as a result of this than Michael Shanks. (Although I do not think the damage that will be done to the show by the loss of either Michael Shanks or Daniel Jackson can really be over- estimated.) They have in many quarters lost their viewers' belief that the show they are intending to make bears any resemblance to the show so many of us are hoping to watch. If MGM loses money over season 6 they will have no one but themselves to blame; and if the producers who in their greedy eagerness to secure a 'spin-off' have lost sight of what makes their current show so desirable to its viewers lose both the 'spin-off' show and the trust of their viewers they too will have reaped only as they have sown.

Harriet V.

(c) 2001 Harriet V.  All rights recognised.  No copyright infringement intended.