Firefly sci-fi?
POSTED BY: Bourne
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 21:50
VIEWED: 6752
PAGE 3 of 3
Boy, is this post ever late. Sorry, folks...
Let me just reiterate what I think of as the simplest solution to differentiating "real" SF from everything else: if the story still works after removing the distinctly SF elements, it ain't SF. To wit, change Serenity to a "free trader" on the high seas, the different planets/systems to cities/countries/ports-of-call. The War for Planetary Independence to the War for Colonial Independence. And so on. When you're done with the metaphorical cold cream, see if the story suffered. Of all the FF episodes, the only one which might lose anything is "Bushwhacked", as far as I can tell. But then, as I mentioned before, the Reavers are just about the only non-historical, purely speculative element in FF. And their character hasn't really been explored yet; they're still just Boogey-men. I could deconstruct each and every episode in this fashion, but my posts run too long as it is :)
The more explicit definition of SF is (to my way of thinking, anyway) a story that basically asks "what if?", and then answers it. Good SF answers it in an imaginative, well-thought-out and provocative manner. This doesn't necessitate fabulously advanced technology or the far future. Some of the most profound SF may hinge on a single, subtle innovation and be set 20 minutes in the future (not to imply "Max Headroom" did this, of course; I just like that phrase).
That being said, the socio-cultural impact of a Sino-American Alliance in FF held a great deal of promise as a "what if?". Whedon & Co claimed the answer was an important element in the series, but didn't really deliver. Not to say they couldn't still, but they've already wasted some of the potential.
Consider: presumeably, at least half the population is of Asian ethnicity, yet of the 9 principle cast members, not ONE is Chinese. As I mentioned before, Simon and River "Tam" are clearly Euros. And Inara, while surrounded by Sino-Japanese iconography, is also clearly a Euro. No Chinese among the major guest cast, either. The closest they came was the one of the whores in "Heart of Gold", and she had about 2 lines.
Deep stuff.
Had they included at least one Chinese character (dramatic, not graphic) it would open up some intriguing plot possibilities (e.g. divided loyalties, ethnic tensions, etc; how strong is this Alliance, really?). After making such a big deal of this particular "what if?", all they offer us is bilingual signs and mangled Mandarin curses. From the most educated (arguably the Tams or maybe Inara) to the least (Jayne, hands down) their Chinese is almost unrecognizable. For Pete's sake, Inara is shown practicing calligraphy and she can't master the four basic tones? C'mon.
I don't object to the notion of non-Asian geishas(Companions), but Inara's role at least was aching to be cast as an Asian. Her homeworld has a Chinese name. She's a geisha. She draws Kanji/Hanzi as a hobby and speaks Chinese like everybody else. Why not? Heck, it would've made the "two-worlds colliding" UST between her and Mal even more poignant. And if not her, why nobody?
In short, the answer to this social "what if?" is unsatisfying precisely because it is unnecessary to the setting, characters, or plot. Perhaps the Euros and Sinos are thoroughly blended, culturally and genetically? Clearly not: the vast majority of bodies that show up on the screen are one or the other, not both. So are we to believe that ethnic tensions have vanished by then, but not socio-economic or political ones? Fine, it's a theory, but hardly a well-thought-out one, especially since JW went to great pains to present a non-utopian vision of the future that "feels like the present."
BTW, I feel it important to punctuate this critique by saying I don't give a fiddler's fart what genre it is, FF is my favorite TV show. Period.
As to examples of what I consider to be good "real" SF, Zoid, it's changed over the years. Some of the "good" stuff I read long ago might turn into crap if
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bourne:
Good to hear back from you. Looks like you were busy writing, hmmm?
As to the Sino-American Alliance and the lack of Asian faces, I've got my take posted above, and others have weighed in as well. Some I agree with, others not so much. I do agree we'd have gotten around to some Chinese-run planets and/or business operations. But, I think a more likely reason we've yet to see Asian faces is that "Chinese Sci-fi Western" was maybe one step over the line of plausibility for milquetoast Fox, or even the daring JW.
Chinese sci-fi, on the other hand... I once read the first couple of novels from the Chung Kuo series by David Wingrove, based on the notion that the Chinese had conquered the world -- Han dynastic Chinese, not Communists -- and built 'cantons', multi-tiered cities made of "ice" (some advanced building material). It was a very enjoyable series, and assuming the cultural references were valid (as they appeared to be, based on casual research), the story was both entertaining and enlightening.
I am currently reading Poul Anderson's "For Love and Glory" and Stephen Baxter's "Manifold: Space". Anderson's FLaG appears to have promise; Baxter's "Manifold" series is flawed IMO, and I only have "Manifold: Origin" left to read, before I'm done with it. Never let it be said that I leave things unfinished; but I cannot enthusiastically recommend "Manifold"...
Have read some P.K. Dick, most memorably "Do Androids...?", after "Bladerunner". I really liked the original movie version, but after purchasing the director's cut, I'd have to say Ridley Scott got screwed when the studio edited him. Much better flick in his vision -- no narration, you just have to figure things out for yourself, which is always a better experience, wouldn't you agree? As to Dick, "...Electric Sheep?" was nothing like the movie, and I thought a bit of a snooze fest. Not that I'm a lasers and space battles fan, but really, in Dick's version Roy Batty and company are more like your average British office workers than even remotely menacing. Dick's voice doesn't particularly speak to me, and neither does Bruce Sterling's, whom I've read a couple novels by, without either commendation or condemnation. "Schismatrix" and "Zeitgeist" were well-crafted, but to me not as imagery-laden as Gibson's "Idoru" and "All Tomorrow's Parties", in which prose approaches free verse at times.
Don't know Stephenson at all; but since I'm about due for a trip to B&N, I'll definitely pick him up, if you suggest him (sounds like you do). I read and enjoyed Card's "Ender" and "Speaker..." when they were originally released many years ago; but, he seems to have turned exclusively to Fantasy, which I find difficult to digest.
You dare 'dis' the B's?! ;> I wasn't aware that they referred to themselves as anything; but I have noticed that they credit each other alot in their dedications for assistance, etc. For what it's worth, I'd gladly be the water boy for that writing team. "Sundiver" was the opening volley in David Brin's acclaimed Uplift series, followed by the magnificent "Startide Rising", and culminated in the capable "Uplift War". The second trilogy of the series lacked the focus of the first three, but I read 'em (like I said, I'm a finisher). I also greatly enjoyed his "Postman" (totally different story than the movie) and "The Practice Effect" in which the law of entropy is reversed, so things wear in rather than wear out. Very funny. His recent "Kiln People" is likewise very witty and thought-provoking, and with a main premise that thoughts can be imprinted on clay -- hence the title -- Brin even ventures a gratuitous Chinese reference to the terra cotta Warriors of the Qin Dynasty.
Benford's Galactic Centre series concerns itself with Mankind's retreat from machine intelligences that are seeking to obliterate organic life, across the span of the galaxy; but Man himself is decidedly cybernetic, too. I generally prefer more intellectual fare, like Greg Bear's "Blood Music" about nanobiotech
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bourne:
Let me just reiterate what I think of as the simplest solution to differentiating "real" SF from everything else: if the story still works after removing the distinctly SF elements, it ain't SF. To wit, change Serenity to a "free trader" on the high seas, the different planets/systems to cities/countries/ports-of-call. The War for Planetary Independence to the War for Colonial Independence. And so on. When you're done with the metaphorical cold cream, see if the story suffered. Of all the FF episodes, the only one which might lose anything is "Bushwhacked", as far as I can tell. But then, as I mentioned before, the Reavers are just about the only non-historical, purely speculative element in FF. And their character hasn't really been explored yet; they're still just Boogey-men. I could deconstruct each and every episode in this fashion, but my posts run too long as it is :)
However in the above you have completely wiped out River and everything that was done to her:
the Blue Sun corp and the experiments resulting in the psychic girl who can kill with her brain, are all pure Sci-fi, and even tho the story arc was destroyed by Fox it is still clearly of major importance throughout all the episodes that were made and would probably have been even more important if the season had been completed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ Well, is Carrie Sci-Fi? Though that is a good point. Some sub-plots of Firefly are certainly Sci-Fi.
A writer would define Sci-Fi as 'monsters and/or spaceships'. 50s B-movie stuff basically. War of the Worlds, Day of the Triffids, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. When you get beyond this things get tricky... speculative fiction, fantasy, high fantasy (such as LoTR), etc. Firefly is clearly not true Sci-Fi or even Speculative Fiction (despite the complex Sino-American setting). It's really a TV drama disguised as Sci-Fi. This is a bit unique to Joss and Company - notice that the plots, action, and even prophecies, of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly take a back seat to the DRAMA?
This is why you are having such trouble defining Joss Whedons' work imho. It's a form that fits like a glove onto your TV. It's really great and will, I say it WILL be recognised as the genius it is. 
Also, there is no real 'hard' rule for what fits into a genre. After all, if it's completely new it will become it's own genre (Film Noir for example).
I so want to get into this... but my boss will hear me typing! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Let me just reiterate what I think of as the simplest solution to differentiating "real" SF from everything else: if the story still works after removing the distinctly SF elements, it ain't SF."
Of course if you remove the SciFi elements it’s not SciFi anymore.. :O) I disagree with your whole premise, your definition is just too narrow for me.. but any good story could survive a hack job that changed these elements; that's the definition of "good story". You could take William Gibson's 'Neuromancer' change all "SciFi" elements to magic in a fantasy setting and with not much of a massage you still have a great story. That's because good stories are universal. No one in their right mind would try to argue that 'Neuromancer' is not SciFi; it's about as hard core classic SciFi as you can get. It's just good SciFi.. meaning it transcends the pure science.. and relates a tail about human struggle through adversity with characters a reader can relate well to.
Alfred Hitchcock used to tell a story about having great dreams of movies that would be the best he'd ever made. But he'd always forget what they were after he awoke. So he took a pad and paper to bed with him one night to capture the great story idea. Sure enough he had the dream and as soon as he had it he wrote it down and fell back to sleep, confident that his new idea would be the greatest idea ever. When he woke up the next morning he read what he'd written, "boy meets girl; falls in love; boy loses girl" is all he’d written. Hitchcock points out rather humorously that great stories are universal and will work in any genre by someone who knows how to write.
There doesn't need to be much raw science in a SciFi for it to be classified as SciFi.. and if it's a good story I believe that makes it good SciFi.
Firefly doesn't fit well anyplace else. It's not a Louis L’amour, It's not fantasy, it's not horror, or pure drama, it not a docudrama, it's not humor. The only place it fits well is SciFi. I think that's where it should stay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Well, is Carrie Sci-Fi? Though that is a good point. Some sub-plots of Firefly are certainly Sci-Fi.
A writer would define Sci-Fi as 'monsters and/or spaceships'. 50s B-movie stuff basically.
Do you mean Science Fiction or Sci-Fi? Most Science Fiction authors prefer the term Science Fiction, or SF, for their written works over the term Sci-Fi. Sci-Fi has become an all encompassing word that is used by many in the general populace who are aware of, or are ignorant of what Science Fiction is. So becareful how you throw the term Sci-Fi around. Numerous debates have gone on about the difference, the similitudes, and who's right and wrong over the 2 terms for years... so much so that it's getting tiresome... each person is going to use the term they like best no matter what (just like politics). I personally love all forms of SF and Sci-Fi in all it's media forms (even though I don't have time for all of it).
anyhow...
I don't think you can just take Firefly and deconstruct it into little pieces out of each episode and say "oh that is the Sci-Fi part." You have to take the work as a whole... and Firefly is Science Fiction. The whole thing is a "What if..." story. Each episode is like a chapter in a book... you don't call individual chapters of a book SF, Fantasy or Horror genre... you label it based on the whole. (and labelling really doesn't do it justice anyway, but we all do it)
Quote:
Firefly is clearly not true Sci-Fi or even Speculative Fiction (despite the complex Sino-American setting). It's really a TV drama disguised as Sci-Fi. This is a bit unique to Joss and Company - notice that the plots, action, and even prophecies, of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly take a back seat to the DRAMA?
Drama is not a genre. Comedy or Tragedy, 2 basic forms of what started in theaters is really what we have on TV now. Happy endings and sad endings can apply to either. You can get differing genres of both types... Science Fiction as comedy... Hitchhiker's Guide, Futurama. SF as Tragedy... Firefly, Angel. Drama is a method of presentation.
Jaymes
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zoid:
Actually, I was busy studying. Wrote most of my post and had to leave it for a bit...
Here's hoping you're right, that we'll see some substantive Asian influence in future, assuming the show has one. They've got a LOT of catching up to do.
I must confess I've not read the P.K.Dick shorts I referred to (am in fact embarassed that "Do Androids..." is not even a short, but a novel!), I merely mentioned them as having inspired what were clearly "Cyberpunk" films. And from some of his other stuff I have read, I can agree he's not for everyone.
BTW, one of the quality SF literary refs I'd forgotten but meant to include was Joe Haldeman ("Forever War"). His "what ifs?" aren't new, but he made me care about the answers. Haven't read his more recent stuff.
Aged bourbon, eh? Stephenson's more like crystal meth with an Everclear chaser. You have been warned.
Actually his more recent stuff is relatively sedate. But it's LOOOOOONG. "Cryptonomicon" is another genre "fence-sitter", part historical novel, part techno-thriller. So why is it in the SF section? Because the man's already been branded by the publishing industry...have I mentioned I hate genre labels? :)
I'm inclined to agree with you about the FF characters' modern sensibilities being out of step with a true historical portrayal. But if you recall, River was in fact very nearly burned at the stake in "Safe" for being a "witch", and the defiant whores in "Heart of Gold" were almost massacred. The agents of salvation in both cases were the odd-ball crew of Serenity. And the only people who seemed to object to the notion of wives as "chattel" in "Our Mrs. Reynolds" were, again, the odd-ball crew.
But saying it's generally true, I don't think this is Joss' speculation about the future, but a concession to the present. Most modern audiences are probably uncomfortable with sympathetic portrayals of racism, misogyny and mindless brutality. A fact Hollyweird is especially aware of. And bear in mind that "Westerns" aren't written/filmed by 19th century writers for 19th century audiences, but romanticized by contemporary authors for contemporary audiences. Even John Ford and Louis L'Amour didn't really "tell it like it was".
Finally, I never seriously suggested that FF was a Western, only that it could have been, had JW tweaked it a bit. Just like it could be SF with a little work. The potential for both are contained within it. Personally though, I hope it stays neither fish nor fowl, so JW can keep telling whatever kind of stories he wants. As long as they're good ones!
As for r'n'r...as long as it's not Michael Bolton 
, I'm willing to negotiate.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny you say that Firefly could have been a Western. As we are talking about latent racism in entertainment a bit, when i imagine the Firefly characters and racially mixed background people they seem to reflect the realities of the West better than those old spagetti westerns or John Ford.
And when deconstructing Firefly or anything Joss and Company have done I don't mean to say 'it's this' as I'm the number one cheerleader for Joss's unique combination of standard elements, turning them around, redefining, and coming back to the source and... and... ok, I'll stop. Anyho', what I meant to say is that Joss has taken these genre elements and got drama from it. Drama isn't a genre it's true. That's because drama is a sign of transending any of the labels we are talking about imho.
Just as some of the works mentioned above transended thier genre confines (P.K. Dick, etc.) I wish to submit that Firefly has transended all it's numourous genre elements. Heck, Firefly seems to layer genre elements with ease as if Joss was showing the rest of the Sci-Fi TV world to buy a frickin' clue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME