Mary Ann Beavis, Department of Religious Studies
St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan

Abstract

This article explores the biblical, theological and philosophical themes in the cult science fiction TV series Prey (ABC, 1998). After a brief introduction to Prey and Prey fandom, the following biblical-theological themes which pervade the series are identified and analyzed: creation, faith, the Christ figure, the Satanic figure, and eschatology. The paper also comments upon the broader ethical and philosophical issues raised in the series, especially the state of the environment and animal rights.

Forty thousand years ago, the most advanced species on earth was wiped out by a powerful new life form: Us.

Today, a new species has evolved, stronger, smarter, and dedicated to our annihilation.

Leading the fight against them is Dr. Sloan Parker, the bioanthropologist who uncovered their existence.

Once again, it's survival of the fittest, and this time, We are the PREY.(1)

Introduction

Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity (Darwin 1985, 459).

[1] As the title indicates, this article is about biblical and theological themes in the "cult" TV science fiction drama, Prey (1998). As such, within the emerging field of "Religion and Popular Culture," this paper is what Forbes and Mahan (2002, 10-13) would classify as an exploration of "Religion in Popular Culture," specifically, the biblical, theological and ethical themes that pervade the series.(2) However, as Forbes observes, the scholarly study of religion and popular culture often begins with "our own private enthusiasms" (2002, 17). Accordingly, the paper begins with a brief account of my introduction to the series, and my dawning awareness that I (and other like-minded viewers), had "stumbled upon something that holds promise for significant insight in understanding ourselves, and in understanding religion in the context of our culture" (2002, 17); in short, that I had become a "fan." Also, since most of the readers of this article will not be familiar with Prey, I include a brief synopsis of the series before turning to the main topic.

Discovering Prey and TV Fandom

"Sometimes I get lost in this thing, obsessed with it."(3)

[2] On a Thursday evening in January 1998, I caught the first episode of a new science fiction television drama called Prey, on the recommendation of a blurb in the local paper that described the series as a promising new mid-season replacement based on the premise that a new species of human being had evolved. I watched the show, and was not disappointed. The next Thursday, I had a meeting, and remembered to tape that night's episode, watched it, enjoyed it, and even watched it again once or twice. The next week I was out again Thursday evening, and taped episode three over episode two. I watched the new episode as soon as I got home, and found myself compulsively watching and rewatching it before episode four came around, even rewinding the tape to review certain scenes. I realized that I would never tape over an episode of Prey again, and that I would record, and keep, all of the future episodes. I found myself watching them again and again, in search of the layers of meaning and mystery that seemed to be embedded in each scene; unprecedented behavior for me.

[3] Prey had a rocky ride on network TV. It was put "on hiatus" by ABC after eight episodes at about the same time that the critically acclaimed Nothing Sacred was permanently pulled from the schedule. However, thanks to the power of the internet, Prey fared somewhat better. Fans of the show, who were predominantly female, organized around the on-line "Prey for Us" Campaign, founded by Gina Evers of Ocala, Florida in March 1998, to get ABC to air the remaining episodes, and, ideally, to get Prey back into production.(4) Many of these women (and men) had resorted to the internet for the first time to get more information about Prey. Fan demand did manage to convince the network to show episodes 9-13 in June and July 1998. Sadly, the ultimate goal of a new season has yet to be realized, although the Campaign still goes on; indeed, there is still hope. Thanks to the PFU Campaign, the 13 original episodes have been shown several times on the Sci-Fi Channel in the U.S.,(5) and Prey has been aired in some 40 countries. At the first Prey Minicon held in Burbank, CA in June 2000, the series' creator, William Schmidt, expressed a strong interest in reviving the show in some form; rumour has it that he has developed a concept for a sequel (McCartney 2001). The power of the campaign is attested to by the fact that, as a nod to fans of Prey, a Prey/Invisible Man "crossover" episode was produced and aired by the Sci-Fi Channel in September 2001,(6) followed by an on-line chat with the most popular of the original Prey cast members (Adam Storke). In short, as one sci-fi emag described it, Prey has achieved "now legendary cult" status (Felty 2000; "Debra Messing" 2001, 91).

[4] Until I started doing a little research about television fan campaigns, I was convinced that the predominantly middle-aged female demographic of the Prey for Us Campaign was unique, since mature women are not the cohort popularly associated with science fiction fandom. I was surprised to learn that the typical television fan is female, and that this includes the subgenre of science fiction drama.(7) Feminist media scholars argue that TV fandom constitutes a "wild zone"-"a women-centered cultural space in which reinterpretations of the text can occur" (Gillilan 1998, 184). Gillilan explains:

. . . when the dominant patriarchal culture cannot fully contain women's culture, such as occurs in television fandom, wild zones, or spaces that escape enclosure, are created . . . In the wild-zone, women can take control of cultural products that would otherwise fall outside their influence. They create, consume and mediate their activities apart from the dominant culture industry. The wild-zone applies to all levels of fan activity-public, such as conventions, and private, such as individual acts of production and consumption. It is a place where activities are controlled by women, for women. The television fandom wild-zone exists both as a place without any permanent or specific physical location, which members enter and leave at will, and as a state of belonging centered in a sense of shared interest and community (Gillilan 1998, 185).

[5] Female commitment to a series is enhanced by the presence of a male hero who combines the qualities of vulnerability and "otherness"; in Prey, this figure is Tom Daniels, a character who bridges the divide between the two human species (Gillilan 1998, 188-95). Gillilan's description of the "feminine hero" figure in the sci-fi series War of the Worlds (Paul Ironhorse) could easily be applied to Tom, with his moments of "self-discovery, vulnerability, communication, friendship, nurturance, and loyalty . . ." (Gillilan 1998, 191).

[6] As Joli Jenson points out, being a fan is frequently associated with danger, dysfunction and deviance, both in popular usage and in the academic literature (Jenson 1992). This stereotype was (unfortunately) perpetuated by L.A. Times journalist Brian Lowry in his coverage of the first Prey "Minicon" in Burbank (June 2000): "what are these people lacking in their lives, one can wonder, that would cause them to forge bonds with others who live hundreds or thousands of miles away-about something as trivial as a TV show, no less" (Lowry 2000).(8) However, the trend in recent media studies has been to understand television viewers as an "active audience" engaged in a complex process of interpretation (Livingstone 1998). As such, fans can be characterized simply as viewers who partake in the interpretation of their favorite shows in a particularly intense and sustained way; for, as Gillilan observes, fans, unlike other viewers, "research and dissect aspects of the narrative, the characters, and the performers, and incorporate what they learn into their stories, essays, discussions, presentations, videos, games, art, and so on" (Gillilan 1998).(9) The recent appearance of an edited volume exploring the religious aspects of Star Trek indicates that even scholars of religion are not immune to this aspect of TV fandom (Porter and McLaren 1999).(10)

Plot Summary

"I'm gonna tell you something that's gonna change your life forever."(11)

[7] Dr. Sloan Parker (Debra Messing) is a young bioanthropologist working as a research scientist in a genetics lab at Whitney University in Pasadena, CA. When her mentor, DNA expert Dr. Ann Coulter (Natalija Nogulich) is brutally murdered after testifying at the trial of serial rapist-murderer Randall Lynch (Roger Howarth), she discovers-along with her colleague Dr. Ed Tate (Vincent Ventresca)-that Lynch's DNA is significantly different from all other human DNA, to the point that he seems to belong to a new species of genus homo. The scientists obtain DNA samples from prisons around the world, and find several matching profiles. They conclude that the speciation was probably sparked by global warming, and that there are around 200,000 of the new species in existence. Possibly, all of them are like Lynch, murderously contemptuous of homo sapiens, and anxious to help natural selection along by any means possible, whether scientific or criminal. Eventually, Sloan and Ed team up with lab director Dr. Walter Attwood (Larry Drake), Detective Ray Peterson (Frankie Faison), and-surprisingly-a member of the new species, Tom Daniels (Adam Storke) to fight against the new threat to humanity, backed up by a clandestine government agency.

[8] Like Sloan, Tom is a pivotal character in Prey. He first appears in episode one, posing as an FBI agent investigating the murder of Dr. Coulter. When Sloan discovers what he is, he tries to kill her, but finds that he can't do it when she begs for mercy. Through Tom, we learn that the new species is more intelligent and physically stronger than homo sapiens, and they have the ability to sense human emotions-"quite a biological advantage," as Sloan observes (ep. 3, "Pursuit"). They have also learned to suppress their own emotions, so as not to empathize with their human victims. Ideologically, they are convinced that they, as the most advanced hominid species, must dominate the planet as soon as possible, by any means available. An underground movement of the new hominids exists, and is systematically using science to bring about the imminent extinction of humankind.

[9] Among current TV science fiction dramas, Prey was distinctive in that it relied on cutting-edge science for the storylines of several episodes: DNA research (ep. 1); gene therapy (eps. 6, 7, 13); nanotechnology (ep. 9); cloning (ep. 11); scientific efforts to resurrect the Spanish Flu virus (ep. 10). These scientific advances were either used by the new species (eventually dubbed "homo dominant" by Dr. Attwood) against humanity, or by the human scientists against the new species. Drs. Parker, Tate and Attwood worked in a realistic university lab (filmed on location at UCLA). In the first few episodes, especially, they were portrayed as typical, rather nerdy academics. Also unusual among recent sci-fi series was its serial format; each episode ended with a cliff-hanger, especially, of course, the final episode (#13, "Deliverance, Part 1"), which, for fans of Prey, was especially devastating, since the show was not renewed (i.e., there was no "Part 2"). The serial format allowed for both character development (especially in Tom) and both explicit and implicit thematic development (e.g., mentoring, faith/trust; loyalty; the definition of humanity; the nature of family; competition vs. cooperation; the role of choice in morality), inviting reflection on the ideas and issues raised.

[10] Another distinctive feature of the show was the quality of the relationships portrayed among the main characters. The "love interest" in Prey was a very slow-moving but compelling inter-species romance between the emotionally intense (and sometimes impulsive and thoughtless) Sloan Parker and the emotionally distant and morally conflicted Tom Daniels. The fact that the two "lovers" never consummated their relationship and were members of different human species added a poignancy and strangeness to the story. However, the relationships between Sloan, Ed, Tom, Walter, Ray and other less central characters were often portrayed with a sensitivity and fineness of observation that was fascinating, and, as one reviewer put it, sometimes "almost sublimely affecting" (Mahoney 1998).

Religion in Popular Culture: Biblical Themes in Prey

"It's in your Bible. Genesis twenty-five."(12)

[11] Although the extent to which biblical archetypes, symbols and concepts can be said directly to "influence" a television series is difficult to pin down, there is a growing awareness among biblical scholars and theologians that the bible functions as a "primary resource for Western culture" (Metzger 1993, viii), including popular culture. To date, film has been the popular medium that has received the most attention in this respect (e.g., Jewett 1993, 1999; Stern 1999; Scott 1994; Tatum 1997), and the scholarly exploration of biblical/religious/theological themes in television has been limited (e.g., Pungente and O'Malley 1999; Porter and McLaren 1999).

[12] The question may legitimately be raised of whether the kinds of "biblical" allusions and themes that will be discussed here were "intended" by the various directors and screenwriters involved in the series, or its creator, William Schmidt. In order to avoid the pitfall of assuming that my construal reflects "authorial intent," I acknowledge that I interpret Prey from the standpoint of a professional biblical scholar, and that as such, I bring a familiarity with the bible, and a sensitivity to biblical "echoes," that can reasonably be expected to surpass that of most TV viewers. This section will discuss elements in the 13 episodes of Prey that are, for a "biblically literate" viewer, recognizably "biblical," in the sense that they recognizably allude to specific biblical texts (notably Gen. 25:23), figures (Christ, Satan), or themes (creation, faith, eschatology). Some of the broader ethical and philosophical implications of Prey will be briefly covered in a final section.

Creation

"What you've seen-it's just the beginning."(13)

[13] In William Schmidt's unaired pilot, "Hungry for Survival" (produced for Warner Brothers Television), there is a clear allusion to the theme of creation in a scene where Sloan (played by Sherilynn Fenn) and Agent Daniels (Adam Storke) are seated in a restaurant, in front of a mural of Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (Figure 1, website).(14) While there is no equivalent scene in the ABC series, Prey is explicitly based on the theory of evolution, described by one theologian as having "possibly changed our views of nature, of God, and of God's relation to nature, more than any other theory in the history of human thought" (Van Huyssteen 1998, 85). As such, in North American culture, the show immediately evokes the 19th century (biblical) creation vs. (scientific) evolution debate, sometimes quite explicitly. In ep. 4 (significantly titled "Origins"), Sloan, Tom and Ed go looking for what Sloan calls the new species' "Eden," which turns out to be a deserted village in southern Mexico. There, Tom has mysterious flashbacks about a painful childhood initiation ritual,(15) and the scientists unearth an enigmatic pillar, covered with arcane symbols; the village, although deserted, is obviously a sacred site for his species-an Edenic "point of origin." In a later episode (11, "Vengeance"), when Ed calls his recent bout of the Spanish Influenza, reactivated by the Dominants to decimate the human population, an "act of God," Sloan immediately corrects him, "You mean, an act of evolution." In the same episode, the Lynch character (this time a clone of the original) quotes the theophany to Rebekah (Gen. 25:23) and engages in a brief debate about biblical interpretation with Tom, who is about to rescue Sloan from his clutches:

Lynch: "It's in your Bible. Genesis, twenty-five: "Two nations are in your womb . . . "

Tom: "Don't do this."

Lynch: " . . . And the peoples from within you will be separated, and one people will be stronger."

Tom: "I don't think so."

[14] At first glance, Lynch's quotation of the Genesis prophecy seems like the usual pseudo-biblical mumbo-jumbo that pervades contemporary culture, where "The Bible" is stereotyped as a book filled with apocalyptic prophecies that are about to be fulfilled in our own time.(16) However, typologically, the citation of Gen. 25:23 fits the situation very well, with the two "sons" of Rebekah-the rejected Esau and the divinely favored Jacob-representing the two species of genus homo: Esau, the elder brother (homo sapiens) destined to "serve the younger," and Jacob/Israel (homo dominant), the "younger brother" who is fated to be the stronger.

Faith

"I just really need you to roll with me on this one. To take a leap of faith, okay?"(17)

[15] Whereas the theme of the wildly successful gothic series The X-Files might be summed up by the motto "Trust noone," Prey might be characterized by the more optimistic "You've got to trust somebody, sometime." Two kinds of faith/trust issues are addressed in the various episodes. In the initial five episodes, the five main characters must learn to trust/have faith in their colleagues: Sloan must find trustworthy people to confide in about her frightening discovery; she has to determine whether or not she can trust Tom, who is apparently a traitor to his own species; she has to decide whether or not she can confide in her best friend, Ed Tate, about Tom's true identity; Sloan and Ed have to decide whether or not to trust Dr. Attwood, the murdered Ann Coulter's mysterious and possibly treacherous successor. Above all, each of the human characters must learn to have faith in Tom, who may turn out to be a dangerous enemy, despite his show of solidarity with the human cause. Attwood, as the lab director and head of the investigative unit, pragmatically accepts Tom as a valuable addition to the team; Detective Peterson treats Tom civilly, but with reservations. Ed Tate remains suspicious about Tom's motives, and concerned for Sloan's safety with him, even though there are glimmers of friendship between the two men. The bond that develops between Tom and Sloan is focal in every episode, and involves what Sloan explicitly calls a "leap of faith" (eps.3, 4); her attraction to the smooth, charming "Agent Daniels" (ep. 1) turns quickly to a mixture of fear and curiosity when she realizes that, like Lynch, he is a "killer." As the story develops and the relationship between the two main characters is tested, Sloan's fear of Tom is transformed into unswerving faith in his reliability and integrity, even though his loyalty to the human side is called into question by all of the other major characters, including Tom, himself.(18)

[16] The theme of faith/trust in others is most strongly expressed in episodes 3 and 4 ("Pursuit," "Origins"), where Sloan asks Ed to "take a leap of faith" in her when she is not yet ready to confide in him that the source of her "inside information" on the new species is Tom Daniels-"Why am I always the one who has to take the leap of faith?", he jokes. Sloan finally finds the courage to reveal "what Tom is" when Ed confronts her over an unidentified blood sample (from Tom) she is analysing in the lab; Ed is furious, and accuses her of lying to him; she admits that she is guilty. Later, when Ed decides that his friendship for Sloan is more important than his hurt feelings over her reticence, he questions her about her faith in Tom: "A leap of faith," he asks, "Doesn't that require some deep underlying conviction, a powerful intuition-revelation?" "I've had that," Sloan replies.

[17] Of course, the "leap of faith" metaphor was coined by Søren Kierkegaard to express the idea that religious truth cannot be proved objectively, and that the human relationship with God is founded on a commitment that has no conclusive evidence to back it up (Kierkegaard 1941). In Prey, Sloan's absolute trust in Tom is similar to the Kierkegaardian believer's faith in God; it is a risk, a wager, a leap in the dark that, of the characters, only she is capable of committing to fully. Tom makes this point rather poignantly in ep. 9 ("Collaboration"), when Sloan questions his reasons for trusting a younger member of his species, Shane, who wants to help the humans: "What made you trust me?", he asks simply, when she poses the question.

[18] As the story unfolds, the faith required of the main characters moves beyond interpersonal trust to faith in the future of humanity-a humanity made up of two species of genus homo. The idea that coexistence between the two species is a possible alternative to the "survival" of one at the expense of the other is foreshadowed in ep. 1 ("Existence"), where the suave Agent Daniels is toying with the naive scientist (Sloan), who at this point in the story is still his intended "prey." Tom flatters her with the information that her mentor, Dr. Coulter, had spoken highly of her when they were working together on an FBI case involving DNA evidence. Sloan remarks that Tom has her "at a disadvantage";(19) "Maybe we can bridge the gap," he charmingly smiles, unconsciously prophesying the bond that will develop between them. However, the first character clearly to grasp that "survival of the fittest" is not the only alternative for the two species is the African-American Detective Ray Peterson; when Tom tells him that he understand's the policeman's "hatred" of his kind, Ray replies: "If you're the new improved model, why do you want to kill us, why can't you live with us instead of trying to wipe us out? Isn't that what the truly advanced species would do?"(20) Tom considers the new proposition, then agrees. In eps. 9, 10 and 13, the viewer discovers that there are human collaborators with the Dominants and Dominants who are sympathetic to the human side;(21) there is a significant Dominant minority faction that wants to pursue the path of co-existence, despite the long human history of "inflicting atrocities on those they consider to be different."(22) This is most clearly expressed by the Dominant character, Mark Ward to Walter Attwood in episode 13: "We're everywhere, in every country; we are citizens of the world, . . . and as such we demand the same rights as all humans. Now, is that really so much to ask?" The premature cancellation of Prey leaves the question whether two intelligent, rational, moral human species an co-exist in peace tantalizingly unexplored.

The Christ Figure

"We can coexist. We have to."(23)

[With Darwinism] The traditional picture of a universe where everything revolves around the drama of human life and death was . . . indeed and successfully replaced with a far bleaker picture of the universe as completely devoid of center, and of human purpose (Van Huyssteen 1998, 86).

[19] While Sloan trusts Tom implicitly, even in the face of strong evidence that he still has Dominant sympathies (ep. 6, ""Infiltration"; ep. 8, "Veil"), her confidence does not extend to other "homo dominants," even when they offer their help (e.g., Shane, ep. 9, "Collaboration"). Throughout the 13 episodes, it becomes apparent that Sloan is just as intent on destroying the new species, with the exception of her beloved Tom, as they are on obliterating homo sapiens. In contrast, Tom, who initially joins the human "side" out of regard for Sloan,(24) is conflicted from the beginning about his "betrayal" of his own species, and only gradually comes to terms with his paradoxical status of belonging to both "worlds," fully accepted by neither.

[20] Tom's character development is clearly traceable from episode to episode. He progresses from a single act of sparing Sloan (ep. 1) to the role of her "protector" (ep. 2). By the third episode ("Pursuit"), Sloan persuades him to help her understand his species by giving a sample of his blood; an act that brings him to the jarring realization that he's "no longer one of them," as Sloan insists.(25) In ep. 4, at Sloan's urging, Tom goes looking for his "missing" childhood, and encounters his half-forgotten mother, who accuses him of "betraying" their species. In ep. 5, Tom is finally accepted into the investigative team by Attwood, Ed and Peterson, valued for his "expertise" as former Dominant "insider." Ep. 8 ("Veil") demonstrates that Tom cannot be "turned" against the human cause even by torture and brainwashing; even so, he explicitly "chooses" not to kill his former mentor, Lewis (James Morrison), who has tried forcibly to convert Tom back to the Dominant cause. In ep. 9 ( "Collaboration"), Tom struggles with the conflict between his support for the survival of the "human" species, and his sense of solidarity with his own kind; he discovers that there are human collaborators with the Dominants, and Dominants sympathetic to humanity. By ep. 10 ("Sleeper"), Tom has finally come to terms with his "choice" to help the human side, as illustrated by an extended "philosophical dialogue" between him and the Dominant scientist, Ian Copeland:

Copeland: "You are the subject of a great debate, you know. A betrayal like yours cannot go undissected."

Tom: "I haven't betrayed anyone, I've been true to myself."

Copeland: "Ah, well I am curious. Especially about this . . . emotional life, that seems to drive you. My own heretical opinion is more of us have these vestigial feelings than will admit it. Descended as we are from the humans, it's not surprising."

Tom: "But you aren't troubled by them."

Copeland: "No, unless you call pride an emotion."

Tom: "Do you question our struggle?"

Copeland: "There's no alternative."

Tom: "Coexistence. Cooperation."

Copeland: "That's biologically impossible. Genetically undesirable."

Tom: "That's what we were taught. But why?"

Copeland: "Because we are superior. We are an advance. We are . . . inevitable."

Tom: "I'm not so sure."

[21] Together with the theme of Tom's existential struggle to find meaning and identity(26) is a parallel characterization of him as a Christ-figure. He is an intermediary between humans and the new species, a kind of messiah who, as his mother reveals in ep. 4, is literally "marked" as one of the "chosen" children selected to be leaders of the new species. Immediately before the fateful encounter with Sloan where he is touched by her pleas for mercy, he literally "descends" from a shelf in a high, walk-in closet into her living space (ep. 1). He is a "suffering servant" who is repeatedly tempted, beaten, tortured, shot, and even killed, when in ep. 5 he is pronounced clinically dead after a seizure brought on by a regression therapy drug, only to be "resurrected" by CPR. In one of Prey's most dramatic scenes (ep. 4; see website, Figure 2), Tom is shown tied in a cruciform position to the beams of a basement in a burned-out house, being interrogated, tortured and tempted to "switch sides" by his mother and a male accomplice (a parody of Jesus' mother and the Beloved Disciple "at the foot of the cross"?).(27) When Tom is rescued from the "cross," it is by an emotionally devastated Sloan, who holds and comforts him in a tableau reminiscent of a Deposition/Lamentation/Pietà (website, Figure 3). In the final episode, Tom insists on testing a dangerous new gene therapy designed to convert Dominants into Sapiens on himself before it is administered to anyone else: "The risk is it might not work, and instead of converting my species, we could kill them. And I'm not willing to go down that road unless I take the first step myself." Subsequently, he temporarily "becomes human," painfully reverting to his "superhuman" status by the end of the hour.

The Satanic Figure

"Are you scared?"(28)

[22] A Christ-figure demands a satanic figure, and in Prey, Satan is represented by the gleeful adversary of humanity, serial killer Randall Lynch (eps. 1-3; and his double, the Lynch-clone in ep. 11). In fact, in the unaired series pilot ("Hungry for Survival," 1997), the Lynch character ("Donolo") is nicknamed "Satan." Prey's characterization is more subtle. In a scene that foreshadows and perhaps parodies Tom's symbolic "crucifixion," the drugged, bearded, bare-chested Lynch is shown in prison, strapped in cruciform to an examining table, barely conscious but still capable of muttering threats to the curious Sloan (ep. 2, "Discovery"; see website, Figure 4).(29) In ep. 3, Ed calls the remote cave where Lynch fetishistically piles the clothes and accessories of his human victims, "Hell." Lynch's last words to Tom and Sloan before he literally goes up in flames, rather than surrendering to the police, is a rapturous apocalyptic prophecy: "You'll see Hell!" (ep. 3; see website, Figure 5).

[23] The "demonic" aspect of the new species is underlined by an ongoing comparison of the Dominants' plans to eradicate the human race with the Holocaust. The "trophies" piled in Lynch's cave are reminiscent of the Jewish valuables scavenged by the Nazis (ep. 2); Ed refers to Lynch's efforts single-handedly to exterminate the human species as "a leaf out of Hitler's gamebook" and Sloan calls them a "master species" (ep. 3); Tom's former mentor Lewis cites the slogan "We shall reign in the Kingdom of Man" as programmatic for the new species; the human school principal, Sandra Cook, is portrayed as a "collaborator" with the Dominants in their plan to undermine the immune systems of young children-like a Jewish Kapo in a Nazi death camp (ep. 9). A final scene in the same episode shows emaciated school-children-whose immune systems have been destroyed by Dominant technology-peering through the chain-link fence of the schoolyard like concentration camp inmates.

Eschatology

"The looming question that now confronts us is clear: What will they do next?"(30)

[24] Prey was one of the many "millennial" TV and movie dramas that appeared in the last few years before 2000 and the Y2K "crisis": The X-Files, Millennium, Armageddon, Independence Day, Invasion Earth, Invasion America, Earth: Final Conflict. Like Prey, the theme of all these shows is that "the world as we know it" is about to end, and a new era is about to begin, for better or for worse (although in this latter-day version of millennialism, the possibility is always held out that the cataclysm can be held off, at least temporarily). In Prey, the appearance of the new species is the putative "end" of the human reign over the "Kingdom of Man" (ep. 7; cf. Dan. 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21: ". . . the Most High God rules the kingdom of men, and sets over it whom he will").

[25] The most explicitly "eschatological" episode (5) of Prey is, appropriately enough, entitled "Revelations."(31) The episode revolves around the investigative team's efforts to interpret a mysterious pillar excavated from the new species' "Eden" in the Mexican desert. The symbols carved on the pillar are undecipherable until Sloan realizes that they may represent a celestial map. Computer analysis reveals that a section of the pillar that Tom is mystically drawn toward is in fact a map of the night sky as seen from the Dominants' village, which will be traversed by a comet in October 1998 (the date of the premiere of the unrealized second season of Prey). The scientists deduce that the appearance of "Kewley's Comet" (see website, Figure 6) will signal the beginning of a new and devastating phase of the Dominants' campaign against humanity. This hypothesis is confirmed when in ep. 9, the human "collaborator" Principal Cook reveals that she is willing to let the children in her school die because "the world they know isn't going to exist much longer." In ep. 11, the Lynch-clone reminds Tom, after quoting Gen. 25:23, "You've seen the pillar. In just months, there's gonna be a lot of familiar faces." The clone's last words, as he dies from multiple gun-shot wounds inflicted by Tom, are "I'll see you again." Prey fans are still hoping to find out what happened in October 1998!

Ethical and Philosophical Issues

"Sorry, you've just been bumped down the food chain."(32)

[26] In addition to the obvious biblical/theological themes discussed above, Prey raises a host of ethical and philosophical issues; most obviously issues related to ecology. The creator of the series, William Schmidt, was partially motivated by his concern about global warming(33)-a environmental issue that has escalated since 1998. In Prey, climate change has sparked the speciation, and as in the case of global warming, the general public virtually ignores the implications, even though Walter Attwood announces the existence of the new species at a news conference early in the series (ep. 2).

[27] Although science fiction writers have speculated on the question of what the next phase in human evolution will be (e.g., Wyndham 1955; Clarke 1953; Bear 1999), Prey is the first sci-fi drama to bring this theme to the small screen.(34) Unlike the literary treatments of the theme by John Wyndham, Arthur C. Clarke and Greg Bear, Prey explores the idea that biological evolution does not ensure "progress," in the sense that a new human species would necessarily be "superior" in some qualitative way (morally, intellectually, spiritually); it would simply be better fitted to survive than homo sapiens. Prey also implicitly critiques the social-Darwinist exaltation of "competition," "survival of the fittest" and "progress" as essential to social and economic development. Ironically, the new species has elevated the principle of "survival of the fittest" to an ideology that motivates their efforts to terrorize, as well as to exterminate, homo sapiens. As Tom explains to Sloan as he shows her Lynch's cave full of human debris, "Evolution isn't just about survival of the fittest . . . it's about domination" (ep. 2).

[28] Another environmental-ethical issue implicit in Prey is the rights of non-human species. The Dominants treat our species the way we treat animals, i.e., as if they have no inherent value apart from their usefulness to us. Although the majority of the Dominants are actively hostile to human survival, by their own standards (and by most of ours) they are not evil; their resolve to destroy "us" so that they may flourish corresponds to our reluctance to attribute value to other sentient species, except insofar as they support and enhance our lives; in the Dominant moral universe-which mirrors our own-human deaths in the cause of Dominant survival are morally justified. Most poignantly, the Dominant attitude to human life is analogous to the human willingness to use other hominid species-chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans (University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology n.d.)(35)-as experimental animals, whose ecological habitats can be undermined with impunity.

[29] The situation envisioned by Prey, where two distinct species of genus homo exist at the same time-a state of affairs that has not obtained for some 30,000 years (Shreeve 1995, 7)-raises the question of what our duties and obligations would be towards another arguably "human" species, if it existed, and what theirs would be to ours. Our current legal and ethical codes are clearly inadequate to deal with such an eventuality; if a species like the Dominants were to appear, would we be legally obligated to treat them as "human," and would they consider themselves to be bound by human laws? The romantic relationship that develops between Sloan and Tom throughout the series epitomizes the legal and ethical dilemmas posed by the Prey scenario: would a cross-species relationship-especially a marriage-be legal? Would it be moral? According to which species' laws and ethical codes? What social, cultural and religious hurdles would be faced by such a couple? The fact that some evolutionary biologists regard human evolution as a long process of interbreeding among hominid species would undoubtedly factor into these considerations (Shreeve 1995, 194-206).

Popular Culture As Religion: Prey as "Transformational Drama"

"It's in my head somehow, like a dream I can't remember."(36)

[30] The biblical, theological and ethical implications of Prey may explain part of its appeal to viewers; as I hope this paper has demonstrated, the show was thought-provoking on many levels. In addition, Prey had an original and compelling science-based premise, a strong ensemble cast, character-driven plotting, and a serial format that kept viewers guessing what would happen next. However, none of this explains the enchanting, magical, spellbinding quality often experienced by fans of the show, and unfortunately, this tantalizing topic cannot be adequately covered within the scope of this paper. The closest thing I've been able to find to a description of Prey's impact on its audience is anthropologist Margaret Visser's comparison of the church to the theatre, where people:

. . . come to be led by the performance to achieve contact with transcendence, to experience delight or recognition, to understand something they never understood before, to feel relief, to stare in amazement, or to cry. They want something that shakes them up-or gives them peace. . . . It is perfectly possible to be moved at a spiritual level at the theatre; one can open oneself and be brought to mystical insight, as Aristotle showed us, by attentive watching (Visser 2000, 12, 13).(37)

[31] Prey did for me, and for other fans, what I imagine participation in an ancient mystery cult did for its initiates; what Lucius Apuleius described in terms of a "vivid epiphany" accompanied by the "mingled emotions of fear and joy" (Apuleius, The Golden Ass 11.47). As such, fan response to Prey is an example of "popular culture as religion," in that Prey has functioned like religion for many of its devotees, providing a system of meaning that relates to the larger issues and challenges of fans' lives (see Forbes 2000).

[32] A long-time member of the Prey for Us Campaign(38) once called Prey a "transformational drama" to describe the show's effect. Prey is a show about "transformations" at many levels: the transformation of species; ecological, social and personal transformations; transformations of consciousness of the characters in the drama, and of those watching it. Above all, Prey reminds us of the wonder and cosmic scope of evolution, the mystery of being, the remarkableness of the fact that we exist at all. As Charles Darwin observed in the last sentence of The Origin of Species:

[33] There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved (Darwin 1995 [1860], 459-60).

[34] Further analysis of the religious/spiritual function of this and other cult series must, like Prey, await a sequel.

Notes

1. Opening credits, Prey.

2. The other approaches identified by Forbes and Mahan are "Popular Culture in Religion," "Popular Culture as Religion,"and "Religion and Popular Culture in Dialogue" (2002, 1-20).

3. Sloan Parker, in Prey, Episode 3: "Pursuit."

4. Evers was succeeded by Mary Ann Beavis (1999-2000) and Lee Ann Gradwell/Barb Reedy (2000-2002).

5. Including Prey "chain reactions" (runs of back-to-back episodes) on February 9 and March 9, 2001.

6. The Invisible Man is a (recently canceled) series produced by the Sci-Fi Channel; the hero of the show was played by Vincent Ventresca, also a key member of the Prey cast.

7. Comic book collecting, in contrast, tends to be a predominantly male activity (see Tankel and Murphy 1998).

8. Other "mainstream" media coverage of the Prey for Us Campaign has avoided these stereotypes; see Allan 2000; Norbert 2000; McKinney 1998.

9. Jenson (1992) notes that the real difference between a "fan" and an "aficionado" is class; "fans" are consumers of popular culture (e.g., sports, television shows, popular music, popular novels), while "aficionados" are consumers of "high culture" (e.g., classical music, opera, antiques, poetry).

10. Cf. Forbes and Mahan 2000.

11. Sloan Parker, Ep. 1, "Existence."

12. Ep. 11, "Vengeance."

13. Randall Lynch, Ep. 3, "Pursuit."

14. Figures 1-6 for this article may be viewed at the companion website, http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/prey4us/index.html.

15. The viewer learns in ep. 3 that Tom's childhood memories have been deliberately suppressed as part of his training as a Dominant operative, and that, for security reasons, his knowledge of his species' strategy to eradicate homo sapiens is minimal.

16. In "Hungry for Survival," the "Ed" character is a Bosnian refugee and a Muslim, who cites the Muslim scripture, the Qur'an to explain the appearance of the new species: "In the Koran, Satan promised Allah that he could prove the worthlessness of man. By tempting him. Turning him against good. And he said something else, something that's been the subject of much debate: 'I shall command, change Allah's creation' [al-Nisa' 4:119.43]. Maybe that's what this is, too . . . Man wins, only if he is true to Allah, if he puts away hatred, prejudice, learns to work together, as one" (Edin Kozarak, "Hungry for Survival," 1997). Other translations of this ayah render the idea of "changing" God's creation in terms of "tampering" or "defacing the (fair) nature created by God" (see Dawood 1997, 73; Yusufali n.d.).

17. Sloan Parker, Ep. 3, "Pursuit".

18. As we shall see later, Tom's trustworthiness is a major theme of eps. 4, 6, 7 and 8.

19. Of course, the language of "disadvantage" has broader implications in the broader context of Prey, since, as Sloan later learns, the new species has several biological "advantages" that may eventually lead to the extinction of homo sapiens.

20. Ray Peterson, Ep. 7, "Transformations." Perhaps it is significant that the first character to explicitly bring up the possibility of co-existence is a member of a "minority" group whose "kind" has had to be accepted by a "dominant" (white) group.

21. The young Dominant Shane (Ep. 9, "Collaboration") helps to expose a plot to undermine the health of human school children, and discovers that Ed's former mentor, Dr. Copeland, is actually a Dominant. The human school principal, Sandra Cook, collaborates with the Dominants to destroy the immune systems of her elementary school students, in order to be on the "winning side" when the new species prevails. Dr. Copeland, although completely committed to the Dominant cause, respects and admires Ed enough to want him to change sides in the species war, an offer that Ed scornfully declines (Ep. 10, "Sleeper").

22. Mark Ward (D.B. Woodside), a Dominant, Ep. 13, "Deliverance, Part 1."

23. Tom Daniels, ep. 7, "Transformations."

24. In ep. 8 ("Veil"), we learn that Tom's motivation for joining the human "side" is more complex. Sloan is the second human he has been unable to kill; the first was an adolescent boy whose mother offered her own life in exchange for her son's.

25. A long-time Prey fan who read an earlier draft of this paper noted the christological implications of Tom giving his blood to "save" humanity (email correspondence with Valerie Brown 2001).

26. Perhaps it is significant that title of the first episode of Prey is "Existence."

27. John 19:26.

28. Randall Lynch, Ep. 1, "Existence."

29. His actual words are "King . . . Kong," an allusion to a prison interview earlier in ep. 2, where Lynch tells Sloan, "You want a King Kong, to parade around on stage and perform tricks."

30. Walter Attwood, Ep. 12, "Progeny".

31. Of course, in popular culture, the last book of the NT is frequently misnamed the "Book of Revelations."

32. ABC promotional slogan for Prey (1998).

33. Panel discussion with William Schmidt and Larry Andries (Prey screenwriter), Agamemcon, Burbank, CA, June 24, 2000.

34. Of course, many TV series have explored relationships between humans and aliens or "mutants"; the uniqueness of Prey in this genre is the exploration of the implications of the principle of survival of the fittest for the future of the two (human) species.

35. According to the University of Michigan's Museum of Zoology website: "Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family; other apes were put in the family Pongidae . . . The evidence linking humans to gorillas and chimps has grown dramatically in the past two decades, especially with increased used of molecular techniques."

36. Tom Daniels, Ep. 4, "Origins."

37. Similary, Ivone Gebara observes: ". . . certain types of music, certain paintings and certain books have authority over us. They make such an impression on us that we feel it in our bellies and in our hearts. We maintain, over some time, a relationship of affective authority with them. And when authority is affective it becomes capable of nourishing good relationships, of bringing out certain types of behaviour and even of pushing our bodies into carrying out certain actions. A mobilizing complicity is established. It is as if a work of art, in its different expressions, is awakening hidden feelings, dormant desires, dreams or hopes in us. It is as though it is guiding our lives in certain directions, teaching us something, strengthening our steps, and becoming at times an echo of our own voice, the expression of important aspects of our life. The work seems to express what we want to express" (Gebara 1998, 9).

38. Jeanne Winstead, Prey for Us Campaign Webmaster, 1998-2000.

Works Cited

Allan, Marc D. 2000. "'Prey'-ers on internet being led by Hoosier." Indianapolis Star 8 August: E7.

Apuleius, Lucius. 1994. The Golden Ass. Trans. P.G. Walsh. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Bear, Greg. 1999. Darwin's Radio. New York: Ballantine.

Beavis, Mary Ann. "Figures for 'Prey for Us: Biblical/Theological Themes in a 'Cult' TV Sci-Fi Drama." <http://www.angelfire.com/
scifi/prey4us/index.html>.

Clarke, Arthur C. 1953. Childhood's End. New York: Ballantine.

Darwin, Charles. 1985. The Origin of Species. London: Penguin.

"Debra Messing: A Little Will, A Lot of Grace." 2001. Biography Magazine. May: 88-91.

Felty, Catherine. 2000. "Invisible Man Handling." Eon Magazine. 29 June <http://www.mothership.com/eon/articles.asp>.

Forbes, Bruce David and Jeffrey H. Mahan, eds. Religion and Popular Culture in America. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 2000.

Gebara, Ivone. 1998. "What Scriptures are Sacred Authority?" Women's Sacred Scriptures. Ed. Kwok Pui-Lan and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza., 7-19. London: SCM/Maryknoll: Orbis.

Gillilan, Cinda. 1998. "War of the Worlds: Richard Chaves, Paul Ironhorse, and the Female Fan Community." Theorizing Fandom: Fans, Subculture and Identity. Ed. Cheryl Harris and Alison Alexander, 179-99. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Jenson, Joli. 1992. "Fandom as Pathology: The Consequences of Characterization." The Adoring Audience: The Fan Culture and Popular Media. Ed. Lisa A. Lewis, 9-29. London/New York.

Jewett, Robert. 1999. Saint Paul at the Movies: The Apostles's Dialogue with American Culture. Louisville, KY: Westminister/John Knox.

________. 1999. Saint Paul Returns to the Movies: Triumph Over Shame. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Kierkegaard, Søren. 1941. Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Princeton: Princeton University Press, for American Scandinavian Federation.

Livingstone, Sonia. 1998.. Making Sense of Television: The Psychology of Audience Interpretation. 2nd edn; London/New York: Routledge.

Lowry, Brian. 2000. "Endangered freedoms." Los Angeles Times 4 July.

Mahoney, Dennis. "'Prey' for Us." Ultimate TV Reviews <http://tv.zap2it.com/news/r/a/98/01/13prey.html>.

McCartney, Joan. 2001. "Interview with William Schmidt, Creator and Executive Producer of 'Prey and 'Charmed'." The Leisure Hive: Canada's Source for Science Fiction, Telefantasy and Cult Television
<http://www.theleisurehive.freeservers.com/
prey-schmidt.html>.

McKinney, Joel. 1998. "'Prey' campaign revives series." Lafayette Journal and Courier 3 July.

Metzger, Bruce M. 1993. "Introduction." The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Eds. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, vi-x. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Norbert, John. 2000. "Local woman 'preys' for return of sci-fi series." Lafayette Journal and Courier 13 July: C7-8.

Porter, Jennifer E., and Darcee L. McLaren, eds. 1999. Star Trek and Sacred Ground: Explorations of Star Trek, Religion and American Culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Pungente, John J., and Martin O'Malley. 1999. More Than Meets the Eye: Watching Television Watching Us. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Scott, Bernard Brandon. 1994. Hollywood Dreams and Biblical Stories. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Shreeve, James. 1995. The Neandertal Enigma: Solving the Mystery of Modern Human Origins. New York: Avon.

Stern, Richard C., Clayton N. Jefford, and Guerric Debona. 1999. Savior on the Silver Screen. New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist.

Tankel, Jonathan David, and Keith Murphy. 1998. "Collecting Comic Books: A Study of the Fan and the Curatorial Consumption." Theorizing Fandom: Fans, Subculture and Identity. Ed. Cheryl Harris and Alison Alexander, 55-68. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Tatum, W. Barnes. 1997. Jesus at the Movies: A Guide to the First Hundred Years. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge.

The Koran. 1997. Trans. N.J. Dawood. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology. "Hominidae: Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans, Humans."
<http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/
chordata/mammalia/primates/hominidae.html>.

Van Huyssteen, J.W. 1998. Duet or Duel? Theology and Science in a Postmodern World. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Visser, Margaret. 2000. The Geometry of Love: Space, Time, Mystery, and Meaning in an Ordinary Church. Toronto: HarperFlamingo Canada.

Wyndham, John. 1955. The Chrysalids London: M. Joseph.

Yusufali, Abdullah Meanings of the Glorious Quran. London: Islamic Computing Centre, n.d. Scholarly Technology Group, Quran Browser Basic Home Page
<http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/
quran_browser/pqeasy.shtml>.