Shepherd's Tale discussion (for them that's read it only)
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, May 27, 2011 04:31
VIEWED: 34214
PAGE 1 of 7
I liked that it didn't spell out detail by detail what he learned & how he learned it. The story was character, not detail focused. It surprised me how he got his eventual name, and saddened me some too. But then, I figured he'd have at least SOMETHING in common with The Operative to know that world so well. Now I know fully why he'd not share it with Mal.
"No I don't" will resonate more severely with me on future viewings of Serenity.
The art was suitably impressionistic for this story, and very dark as well. My only (small) complaint was how Mal was rendered in his two panels. Square jaw? 
All in all, I feel the 'Verse has been fleshed out just that little bit more for me, and I thank all involved.
This was absolutely worth the coin.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not a bad story and my opinion may eventually change on repeated readings, but my initial feeling is largely one of disappointment. When I got to the end, my first thought was:
"Huh. That's it?"
To a certain extent, I think that the mystery of Shepherd Book has been built up so much that NOTHING could have stood up to the anticipation. Given that Book's mystery was one of the "holes" that people felt most keenly after the end of the series (and especially after the movie, when so much else WAS given some resolution), I don't think it's unfair to compare THE SHEPHERD'S TALE to, say, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM or even the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
I will address my content issues further along, but I think some of my disappointment also stemmed from structural issues. While there are obvious differences (the most notable being a change from a 5-segment episode to a 3-comic series), both BETTER DAYS and THOSE LEFT behind "feel like" episodes. They offer roughly the same amount of story and character development as a given episode, and have comparable pacing. (By the way, I'm not just speaking of my opinion here... As someone who adapted the first miniseries into an episode-style script, I can tell you that, written in script form, THOSE LEFT BEHIND has almost exactly the same amount of material as TV episode script. But I digress...)
I don't want to get too hung up with the idea that FIREFLY should ALWAYS be structured like TV, but I feel very strong that that's when it's best... and we see that very clearly here. (As another aside, I think that the structural differences, as much as--if not more than--the tonal differences are why many people aren't fans of the BUFFY and ANGEL comics, even though the stories and characters are potentially as compelling as ever.)
Now, on to the content. I could write tons, so I'll try to focus on a few things.
First, this story wasn't really a story.
At it's core, it was, in a certain sense, poorly told. One of my old co-workers once submitted a story to a magazine and it was returned to her with a comment like "More of a slice of life than a story." I think that description is very appropriate here.
Where is the conflict? Where's the character development? Certainly, there are character REVELATIONS aplenty, but meaningful conflict and evolution, the foundations of storytelling, are largely absent. Ultimately, although we are told quite a bit, NOTHING HAPPENS.
To some extent, I feel that FLOATOUT is similar and hope that this isn't a pattern for future FIREFLY comics. In both cases, it's cool to visit the 'Verse once again, and we get to fill in some blanks (and each piece even offers an important revelation or two), but are they significant stories? Nope. Because they are largely devoid of conflict and character development.
Now, to wrap up with my initial (and primary) disappointment with THE SHEPHERD'S TALE:
It just wasn't cool enough.
Shepherd Book, arguably one of the weakest characters when the series begins, develops into a very striking and mysterious character by the time we get to the compelling "That's no Shepherd" comment in OBJECTS IN SPACE.
When the series was cancelled, Book's background (along with "Inara's mystery") was one of the few topics that could be discussed based on evidence, so it garnered a fair bit of attention and "grew in legend" through discussion.
To a certain extent, the movie put the discussion to rest by implying that Book was an Operative. The the (false) belief that Inara's kit was a suicide kit, this theory seemed to match all the evidence while also serving the larger story of SERENITY. (Personally, I always hoped that the Book-as-Operative angle would prove false, because it seemed too on-the-nose and obvious).
Most compelling from the movie, though, was not the implication that Book was an Operative, but rather the promise from Book to Mal that Mal (and by extension the audience) would NEVER be told the truth. Disappointing? Perhaps. But WOW! What a moment! What a perfect resolution! What a way
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This one was hard to get a hold of ordering on line, luckily a new comic book store opened near where I work.
My impression, love it, absolutely love this structure, to get a glimpse of the life defining moments which make a person who he is, as done in flashbacks, while someone is dying, should lead to the kind of thought provoking analysis which I would expect from house of Whedon, and it does.
The content, while not earth shattering, although Book being responsible for the destruction of the Alexander and possibly triggering the Alliance’s retribution against the Independent’s rebellion is a fairly big action for such a small verse.
Speaking of the Independents, I appreciate how they are written just as calculating and ruthless as the Alliance, killing civilians along the way; it’s a very realistic scenario, which illustrates what kind of people can be attracted or recruited to either side of the fight.
Anyway, was relieved Book wasn’t an Operative (I never bought into that theory) but I had a feeling Book had come to Christianity after being exposed to and being an active participant in a lifetime of violence, so that works well and makes for what he remembers about the crew in the first few pages more personal as we see them from Book’s POV, River is childlike innocence, Jayne wants to be a better man, he’s just not sure what that means, Kaylee is pure, like water, Wash turns a blind eye to what Zoe does with Mal, by not looking, and Mal (the arms dealer?) well, obviously triggers the more painful memories in Book’s life when he lacks belief in anything that doesn’t serve his own self, like he says on the last page.
The art is stark, but sets the book apart from the other comics which are meant to be more episodic. I have to agree the rendition of Mal is just horrible, but it’s not his story, this time around, so it can be overlooked.
All and all, it's worth the money if you love Firefly, a valid standalone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A friend of mine put it very well, I think:
Quote:
...the suggestion of Mal and Book being alike in ways but at different stages in life.
Book is seemingly horrified by how many people ended up dead because of him, and the fundamental cause of all those people being dead is because he didn't BELIEVE in either side he was playing double agent to.
Neither side in retrospect shows themselves (at least to Book) as being particularly worthy of belief, so then he goes and finds his own, something more constructive.
This ties in nicely with the message about belief that Book gives Mal in the movie.
Also, framed as it is, it almost feels like the story is actually Book's life flashing before his eyes as he's bleeding out. If that doesn't jerk some tears, I don't know what will.
I did get a little choked there, I freely admit.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It was character reverse-development. Uncommon, perhaps, but more than interesting enough for me.
Originally posted by GWEK:
Where is the conflict? Where's the character development? Certainly, there are character REVELATIONS aplenty, but meaningful conflict and evolution, the foundations of storytelling, are largely absent. Ultimately, although we are told quite a bit, NOTHING HAPPENS.
Quote:I feel that a comic is THE PERFECT venue for this type of story. It can be incorporated into the consciousness as cannonical backstory if appreciated, or ignored if it disappoints.
Now, to wrap up with my initial (and primary) disappointment with THE SHEPHERD'S TALE:
It just wasn't cool enough.
The problem with SHEPHERD'S TALE is that while it's nice to get answers, I feel like the answers that were got just weren't cool enough to make it worth knowing the story. The comic takes away, negates, that very cool moment from the movie--and is not its equal. I feel like knowing Book's background, at least finding out as we did, DIMINISHES Book's history, his coolness, and perhaps FIREFLY as a whole.
For ME, the coolness factor is replaced by gritty, uncomfortable realism. And it *did* make me squirm a bit.
And not for the sake of sensationalistic trauma.
I finished the book, and felt a bit sad.
And to feel ANYTHING after reading something as potentially trite as a 'comic book' is a real accomplishment IMO.
It will forever enhance the goosebumps I feel when Book tells Mal to "just believe" in Serenity.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It was character reverse-development. Uncommon, perhaps, but more than interesting enough for me.Quote:I feel that a comic is THE PERFECT venue for this type of story. It can be incorporated into the consciousness as cannonical backstory if appreciated, or ignored if it disappoints.
I can appreciate that opinion. I just don't share it. :)
Character REVELATION and character DEVELOPMENT are two different things.
Yes, the onion that is (or, more accurately, is not) Derrial Book is peeled to its core, but the peeling is not motivated by any driving character need... just by the peeling itself.
I don't know. Canon is canon, regardless of the source. Ignoring it if it disappoints is like saying "I don't accept that Zoe is pregnant because it's *just* in a comic" (a comic approved by Joss Whedon himself) or "HEART OF GOLD never aired, so I don't really count it as an episode."
Quote:
I finished the book, and felt a bit sad.
And to feel ANYTHING after reading something as potentially trite as a 'comic book' is a real accomplishment IMO.
Perhaps that was my problem. I felt almost nothing when it was over. But I've been an avid comic book reader since 1977 and have read many, many excellent comics throughout the years.
This just wasn't one of them.
Quote:
It will forever enhance the goosebumps I feel when Book tells Mal to "just believe" in Serenity.
For me, unfortunately, the voice inside my head will probably follow up "Just believe" with "In what? Chicken soup?"
Perhaps the subtle story of Shepherd Book shouldn't have been handed to a relatively inexperienced writer just because he happens to be Joss's kid brother.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Chicken soup cures colds.
Originally posted by GWEK:
For me, unfortunately, the voice inside my head will probably follow up "Just believe" with "In what? Chicken soup?"
No, to believe in nothing makes a person empty, and leads them to do stupid, empty things. That was the point of the story of Book's life, and death.
Quote:I found it to be well done, whoever wrote it.
Perhaps the subtle story of Shepherd Book shouldn't have been handed to a relatively inexperienced writer just because he happens to be Joss's kid brother.
Various peep's mileage will obviously vary.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't get me wrong, I get the point. Just didn't think it was demonstrated in a particularly compelling way.
Different strokes.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I get what you're saying.
Originally posted by GWEK:
Don't get me wrong, I get the point. Just didn't think it was demonstrated in a particularly compelling way.
Different strokes.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This comic did help me understand the speech that Book said in Those Left Behind. Even the reason why he left the ship. But one thing it didn't explain is why he never married.
(((tO sPARK tHE mOVEMENT)))
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME