Geek's Guide to the Galaxy - A Science Fiction Podcast David Barr Kirtley and John Joseph Adams

I’m late to the game, but absolutely love this podcast. David’s interviews are always insightful. I really love the panel discussions...I catch myself laughing out loud!

There are many episodes of this show that I have found fascinating and enjoyable to listen to, and that I have revisited multiple times. Particularly listening to some of the longer, more meandering 1.5-2-hour interviews that you can just lose yourself in is inspiring and illuminating. The way that more obscure aspects of the fantastic along with more mainstream ones are balanced is highly effective. I’m especially enamoured by the degree to which the works of filmmakers like Alex Garland and Denis Villeneuve are frequently referenced and analyzed. The degree to which the hosts work to get so many authors interviewed is also nothing short of impressive. There are occasional times where it may be a while before I hear episodes that appeal to me, but that has more to do with my personal lives interests than any issues with the show itself.

One recurring issue that I have found with some episodes of the show, however, is that the way in which the host and particular guests (notably Erin Lindsay and Christopher Cevasvo) repeatedly use the term ‘pretentious’ (including devoting entire episodes to it), which often times comes across as problematic for a few reasons. The way in which it is defined (which is often stated as a non-ambiguous concept that should be adhered to by all individuals with very passive-aggressive undertones), is simply on the basis of something not providing entertainment value and/or not connecting with a given individual in terms of any themes or ideas they may get out of it that someone else doesn’t. Also, if it involves humour or references or thematic/aesthetic aspects that some may pick up on and others not (or even something as simple as having long camera shots or being experimental or involving people getting meaning out of something in a very personal manner that is meaningful without making rational sense) given works are seen as having a level of insult inherent in them equal to if true obscenity (eg. unnecessary violence or sexuality) were displayed that is somehow designed to make particular individuals feel less intelligent. Particularly when this relates to various forms of neurodiversity (something that I, being on the Spectrum and having strong OCD, take very seriously), it can be demeaning and/or passive-aggressive , especially considering how not only some of the works involved in such discussions are clearly amature works from individuals wet behind the ears, but also how neurodiverse individuals have had a history of having these particular phrases mentioned in association with their thinking or art by institutions that have been openly abusive to them (sort in the same way a man referring to a woman as hysterical is extremely problematic because of the history behind how that’s been used). Also, the way in which individuals can be mocked or more openly, aggressively kept from sharing the extent of their own opinions can at times add to this.

On the whole, however, a podcast worth listening to.

The audio quality is not good, the conversations are stilted and slow. There is very little energy to this podcast. I love the topics and really wanted to like it but just can’t get into it. I assume they are not all in the same room (because COVID) but to me that is a must for a panel discussion podcast.