Why Firefly is not good Science Fiction

POSTED BY: cljohnston108
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2025 03:51
VIEWED: 14459
PAGE 3 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

MAVOURNEEN

Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:47 PM

I don't think this is the one referred to in the blog, but here ya go, xardoz:

"Tis a Pity She's a Whore"
Wednesday, June 06 2007 @ 12:15 PM PDT
Contributed by: redhead
General News

Is Inara a representative of postfeminism or is she another example of a "tart with a heart?" The character of Inara is a source of frustration for Dee Amy-Chinn the author of a scholarly argument in the journal, Feminist Media Studies. A fan of Joss Whedon's other shows, Any-Chinn dislikes how the women of Firefly are depicted. She takes aim at Kaylee as a stereotypical tomboy waiting to be saved by love. She even takes umbrage at Zoe. But Amy-Chinn is especially disappointed by Whedon's depiction of Inara. Amy-Chinn has high praise for Whedon the writer of Buffy but she feels he failed in Firefly to challenge common stereotypes.

http://www.whedon.info/article.php3?id_article=22373

------------------------------------------------

XARDOZ

Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:10 PM

Yes, that's the one. Like I said, I could easily be misreading/overreacting to it.

LAWMAN

Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:32 PM

Everybody has an opinion, even if it is incorrect. The funny thing about loving a creative project, not everyone will care for it. I'll admit I saw Serenity first, and then I saw the series. I had the exact opposite result. I thought the series was superb, and the BDM was decent fare. I love watching both and can accept the flaws in both. The whole concept of humanity being spread about the universe is the height of human vanity and at the same time so very real. Let's face it, alien flora/fauna/species could exist. But that is what makes it so fictional. In the verse, everything that happens is what we can accept and grasp because we are human. Anyone can write about stuff written out of whole cloth. But it is truly remarkable when someone creates an entire universe so incredibly original, and yet, the audience knows exactly what the human issues are about.

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:59 PM

Very interesting article. Kind of wordy and academic, and I don't agree with the conclusion. Certain parts of it are a bit... off.

Mainly, the author seems to assume that every little detail of the show has been explicitely laid out as statements of Joss's feminists beliefs. Hey - the guy obviously put messages in there, but he also had to sell the show. Firefly is not an academic manifesto, it's entertainment, and as such it has to keep its audience in mind. The author of this article could step back a bit and remember that.

Also, she assumes that in 14 episodes and a movie we learned everything about Mal and Inara and the FF `verse that there is to know. I think it's pretty clear that Inara had secrets, and I believe those secrets had a large effect on her attitude toward her profession, and on how she handled her feelings for Mal.

Oh, and the emphasis on Inara being kind of a... light brownish color... seems a bit wacked. All of the analysis of Joss's use of race seems to kind of assume a problem and look for evidence, instead of watching the show with an open mind.

But, overall, I find it an interesting analysis. Thought provoking. Every argument the author makes is given with an explanation, so it does invite debate. (Unlike a lot of crap posted on the web these days!) The analysis may not be an accurate statement of Joss's intentions with Inara, but it does say something about what he felt he could get past the f**ks at Fox and what he believed the general TV audience could accept. And that does tie into what our society's belief system is. (Flawed!)

One point I find really interesting, which I never noticed: Kaylee had her little victory over the rich bitches in Shindig when a man accused one of them of being loose. Which... Kaylee kind of is herself. I can't quite wrap my head around that.

OK, enough thread hijacking. As regards the actual topic of this thread? The guy's a fool. Who the hell voted him the master of defining science fiction? "It must be this and it must do that..." Whatever! Don't quit your day job pal.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

KRYS33

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:13 PM

I feel like this guy went into Firefly looking for the wrong thing. Firefly wasn't about the technologies of the future and showing the world how to lead the perfect relationship. It was about nine people living their lives and the problems that resulted from that. It was about flaws and human nature.

You've got to look deeper than the surface when you watch Firefly, and I don't think this person did that. They focused on the little parts and didn't look at the show as a whole.

(I'd also like to know how they got ahold of some clear-cut definition for what makes something good sci-fi and something else bad sci-fi.)

--
-Krystal

ODDSBODSKINS

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

One point I find really interesting, which I never noticed: Kaylee had her little victory over the rich bitches in Shindig when a man accused one of them of being loose. Which... Kaylee kind of is herself. I can't quite wrap my head around that.

I suppose Kaylee's victory is related to the hypocrisy of the head rich bitch, in that, while she may be loose, she'd be mortally offended to have it pointed it to her, and moreover, wouldn't dream of doing anything but pretend the opposite.

Whereas Kaylee is pretty open about who she is and what she does, and doesn't try to hide it, or behave publicly as if it were immoral, or in some way 'wrong'.

Seems as good a reason as any anyway.

They may think their sins are original, but for the most part they are petty and repetitive.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Nemeweh:
For my first post ever -

My first, "Welcome here," in a long time.

Welcome here, we're weird.

If you've been lurking for a while welcome to the posting community, if you've just come welcome to the forum. Either way I think you'll find that this a great place full of people who will treat you right, even if they don't always agree with you. (This will sound cult like, especially since I'm out of practice.)

The fact that you're here means you care about what we care about, it means you're family, welcome home.

Hopefully that's still true, I've been away a bit. Anyway, spread the word and keep hope even when all logic and reason tells you to give up.

Quote:
I'd use stronger language, but I'm not sure it's allowed here.

I'm a big fan of profanity, from the fact that is survives in spite of being looked down upon and often forbidden by just about every generation, to the fact that uttering profanity usually uses your entire brain, to the fact that profanity is basically the only form of word that can produce a physiological reaction with no context whatsoever I'm just a fan.

So, as long as you don't overdo it (which makes commonplace and thus meaningless) I've got no problem with you using strong language. Can't speak for everyone else though.

-

I know that sounds like, "I swear, when it's appropriate," so before someone says, "Chris, the whole point of swearing is that it ain't appropriate," let me say this: If people swear too much it will become accepted, and thus appropriate, and then it will have no point at all.

Quote:

Irregardless, as a SciFi lover, Whedon has continued a long line of great SciFi writers who looked ahead to the future and made predictions of social change.

Unless you really mean, "Not regardless," (which you may) I caution you about using that word. In fact, even if you do mean, "Not regardless," I think it might be a bad idea to use it because it is so easily misinterpreted.

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
I suppose Kaylee's victory is related to the hypocrisy of the head rich bitch, in that, while she may be loose, she'd be mortally offended to have it pointed it to her, and moreover, wouldn't dream of doing anything but pretend the opposite.

Whereas Kaylee is pretty open about who she is and what she does, and doesn't try to hide it, or behave publicly as if it were immoral, or in some way 'wrong'.

Hmm. Excellent - I like it. It's the girl's problem for being a hypocrit... And I do so love that Kaylee sees nothing wrong with being sexual. That's just brilliant.

Thank you for the explanation!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

One point I find really interesting, which I never noticed: Kaylee had her little victory over the rich bitches in Shindig when a man accused one of them of being loose. Which... Kaylee kind of is herself. I can't quite wrap my head around that.

I suppose Kaylee's victory is related to the hypocrisy of the head rich bitch, in that, while she may be loose, she'd be mortally offended to have it pointed it to her, and moreover, wouldn't dream of doing anything but pretend the opposite.

While that might be true I don't think it had anything to do with sexuality and how quickly one would have sex.

I think it was simple: there was a social order, the bitch was at the top, Kaylee was not, the bitch knew that, the bitch pointed that out, the bitch was proving she was better than Kaylee. ("What did they have last year?" "Standards.") By walking up and insulting her, instead of Kaylee, and worse still doing it publicly, what's-his-name placed her on a lower level. Suddenly the position was reversed, she wasn't at the top and Kaylee was looking down at her.

How could such a horrible non-hierarchal thing happen? Who else might have seen her being treated less well than the standard-less girl she was being snotty to?

Time to run away.

-

I don't think the form the insult took mattered, I think the mere fact it was delivered was what made the difference.

BAPTISMO

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:41 PM

I dont really think Firefly is good science fiction either.

I dont really think Firefly is science fiction at all.

Firefly is more of what you would call a "Space Opera".

There is very little science involved. If you take a lot of the Star Treks, there is a lot of "science" behind their fiction...transporters work like this, warp drives work like that, gamma radition cures warts...etc

What "science" does Firefly attempt to provide? Little to none. Thats not what the show is about. It is about relationships and character interaction.

Serenity could be a horse drawn wagon and the planets could be towns in the west of the US in cowboy days and the program would still OWN the pants of most other shows.

Space is just the setting, science/physics doesnt come into it.

Doesnt mean its not the best space show ever created...

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE