Reavers, what's their deal?

POSTED BY: athertonwing
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 06:24
VIEWED: 17272
PAGE 1 of 1

ATHERTONWING

Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:18 PM

Okay so i was sitting watching firefly by myself and i said to my self, self i said "what's the real deal with the reavers?"

I never did quite buy into the whole savageness of space legend thing, and people going crazy in the blackness of space really didnt wash with me.always reminded me of the villagers theory that River was a witch.

i figured there must be a reason behind the reavers lack of human emotion and that part of their brains which tells them bad reaver it aint nice to eat that womans liver then sew her skin into your clothing. which got me thinking again. the reavers have a few of the characteristics of someone on board serenity...River.

okay okay hear me out.What if River and how ever many other students at the Acamdemy for the gifted werent the first people to be experimented on? what if there were preludes to these experiments. testing that went awry? the reavers. who is to say that they didnt have bits of their brains cut out? and were mangled up so badly that they were made void of the traits that humans possess left without compassion or feeling. cast out into the blackness of space in ships past their sell by date and left to drift and die.

so what do you think? is it plausable or am i just being 'CrAzY'?

BROWNCOAT1

Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:49 PM

I have thought about that myself Ath (I can call you Ath?). I even remember pointing out in a thread last year I think it was, that the Reavers might very well be failed experiments by the Blue Hands.

I know, I know, we don't know anything about them, and there is nothing to support my theory, but it is fun to think on, no?

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

LODRIL

Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:23 PM

It's an interesting idea.

I just figured they were like the ummm... whatchacallems from Gene Wolfe's books (Malthropes? something like that). I'm blanking on their name, but they were people who voluntarily had surgery on their brains to reduce them from people to animals. They were sick of the world, couldn't take it, wanted to get back to nature, whatever... but as a result, they reduced themselves to savage beasts. Clever savage beasts, but monsters all the same. Basically they surrendered their humanity.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

KURUKAMI

Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:20 PM

Only problem is, that theory has some holes in it. Namely the "survivor" found onboard the derelict in "Bushwhacked". That guy didn't seem to have had any surgery done on him -- as evidenced by the fact that he was running around less than two weeks after his ship went missing. And there's very little voluntary about watching savages cut your family and friends apart. Not to mention that the ship hasn't been built that could be competently piloted by a "dumb beast".

For similar reasons, I find myself doubting the "they're all survivors of Blue Sun" theory. By blind chance, the Reavers just happened to find a brilliant savant on the vessel they've waylayed and then said to themselves, "My, this chap's quite the intelligent sort! We must bring him into our ranks, but after we convert him to our way of life we should leave him on this space-going vessel for no particular reason, because after all his table manners are abominable."

Naaaah.

And Blue Sun, if they wanted to kill them, wouldn't need to bother with old ships. If one wishes to get rid of evidence in deep space, just tranq the suckers, then toss them out an airlock. One medium-to-large problem solved by explosive decompression.

"Sir, I would like to gingerly point out that it is difficult for someone to be gently reassuring when they're holding three and a half feet of sharpened steel."

KARENKAY99

Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by athertonwing:

okay okay hear me out.What if River and how ever many other students at the Acamdemy for the gifted werent the first people to be experimented on? what if there were preludes to these experiments. testing that went awry? the reavers. who is to say that they didnt have bits of their brains cut out? and were mangled up so badly that they were made void of the traits that humans possess left without compassion or feeling. cast out into the blackness of space in ships past their sell by date and left to drift and die.

so what do you think? is it plausable or am i just being 'CrAzY'?

i don't think you're crazy. i've been wondering along these lines as well.
they didn't finish with river, simon rescued her before she became whatever is is they want her to be. who knows how she would have ended up. and i would imagine they screwed up a whole lot before they got it right so maybe the reavers are those screw ups. we don't know the guy in bushwhacked is really like a reaver. he's nuts for sure. maybe they left him to stew with plans to make him one of them later. let him get good and nuts living alone on that ship with all those ghosts. maybe that's why blue hands wants river back so bad, she was so close to what they wanted, assassin, psychic. and of course they don't want their secret out.
and i am always worried about what book knows about all this. i think he's involved somehow. i just hope he comes out on the side of the good guys.

"They say the snow on the roof is too heavy. They say the ceiling will cave in. His brains are in terrible danger."

KURUKAMI

Friday, March 26, 2004 12:24 AM

Yeah, but if one has been performing illegal (or at least immoral) medical experiments and one doesn't want anyone to know about the screwups, one doesn't dump the proof in deep space aboard ships. One liquifies the bodies internal structure with blue sproingy things (as we saw in "Ariel"), or just shoots them in the back of the head and cremates the body.

This whole "Blue Sun left them alive because they were failed experiments" theory makes no sense to me at all.

"Sir, I would like to gingerly point out that it is difficult for someone to be gently reassuring when they're holding three and a half feet of sharpened steel."

KARENKAY99

Friday, March 26, 2004 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kurukami:
This whole "Blue Sun left them alive because they were failed experiments" theory makes no sense to me at all.
Quote:

who says they let 'em go? reavers sound perfectly capable of escaping to me.

"They say the snow on the roof is too heavy. They say the ceiling will cave in. His brains are in terrible danger."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

ITSALLSHINY

Friday, March 26, 2004 2:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by athertonwing:
i figured there must be a reason behind the reavers lack of human emotion...What if River and how ever many other students at the Acamdemy for the gifted werent the first people to be experimented on? what if there were preludes to these experiments. testing that went awry? the reavers. who is to say that they didnt have bits of their brains cut out? and were mangled up so badly that they were made void of the traits that humans possess left without compassion or feeling. cast out into the blackness of space in ships past their sell by date and left to drift and die.

Hmm..., I think it's more plausible that these guys were scrounging on the edge of civilized space without enough funds to maintain their shielding, and they've got brain damage, alright -- but from radiation poisoning. Don't think the Alliance would waste any money on failed experiments -- just kill 'em. No reason to give 'em ships and cast 'em off.

-----------------------------------------
MAL: "I knew you let her kiss you!"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 26, 2004 2:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ItsAllShiny:
Hmm..., I think it's more plausible that these guys were scrounging on the edge of civilized space without enough funds to maintain their shielding, and they've got brain damage, alright -- but from radiation poisoning. Don't think the Alliance would waste any money on failed experiments -- just kill 'em. No reason to give 'em ships and cast 'em off.

If one felt the need to go with the “failed experiment” approach I’m sure one could plausibly present a scenario for their escape. The Alliance need not be so kind as to let them go. As far as the “radiation poisoning” theory, that could also work with the right tweaking and whatnot.

Radiation can cause insanity with adequate exposure. Of course it would also cause blindness and radiation sickness before the sanity reached the degree one might expect in a Reaver. A blind and lame Reaver might not be have the same stage present that Whedon is going for.

Of course, one could use the only Star Trek standby and invent a “special” particle.

ITSALLSHINY

Friday, March 26, 2004 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If one felt the need to go with the “failed experiment” approach I’m sure one could plausibly present a scenario for their escape...
Radiation can cause insanity with adequate exposure. Of course it would also cause blindness and radiation sickness before the sanity reached the degree one might expect in a Reaver. A blind and lame Reaver might not be have the same stage present that Whedon is going for.

Of course, one could use the only Star Trek standby and invent a “special” particle.

Something doesn't have to be scientific down to the nitty gritty details to work on television -- it just has to be plausible We have two plausible scenarios here -- one with escaped Alliance brain-damaged experimental subjects, and the other with brain-damaged (from radiation or some other unspecified cause) sub-humans on the edge of space. I think the edge of space scenario (the simpler of the two) would be easier to convey to the audience, and it's already been alluded to by Mal in "Serenity" when the reavers were introduced.

At least the mythodology was introduced. We won't know for sure what reavers are until Joss tells us. But if they are some kind of failed Alliance rejects, it's going to take some masterful skills to tell the story. Can you imagine the complicated story arc that would take? You'd have to have reavers in a whole bunch of episodes to have the characters make the necessary discoveries to go from the myth to the Alliance's doorstep. Maybe in season 2...

---------------------
I call it "Vera"

NOOCYTE

Friday, March 26, 2004 7:11 AM

Ya know, the theory does have some appeal, in that it ties two big arcs together into one gnarly meta-arc.

This is one of the reasons it doesn't really sit too well with me. I kind of like the notion that these two big arcs are just sitting there, independent of each other; has more of a feel of reality, where literary connections don't necessarily pertain, and things can be all-too random.

More centrally, though, I'm rather taken with the idea of "men gone savage on the edge of space," since it is in keeping with Joss' overarching thesis that people go out into the Black and meet....themselves. Makes me think of Nietzsche, and the whole "look into the abyss and the abyss looks back into you" thing. Each of our characters is Out There, finding some aspect of themself, making meaning for each other.

Now imagine a group of people, wandering through the Black, growing less and less concerned with the basic little things which accompany Civilization: hygeine, health, nutrition (there's where your brain damage starts to happen; try living without potassium for a few months...), morality, empathy, respect for the dead. They make meaning for each other by confirming, in a host of little ways, that there is no meaning. Slippery slope.

My head keeps coming back to that line in "Bushwhacked," the "open up. See what's inside" line. What's most chilling about it is the cold, idle, empathy-less curiosity of it, like something a cat might say of the mouse it has no intention of eating, but is just going to muck with till it gets bored, or the mouse stops struggling. Whichever comes first. This is the comment of a person who is dead inside, and so has no compelling reason to give a lemur's liver about the pain which he will cause to another. Doesn't matter, since it's all the same Emptiness.

Personally, I find this orders of magnitude more creepifying then even the most sinister conspiracy. It suggests that people don't need to be Experimented on to turn that horrid...all they (WE!) need is the company of their own inner shadows in a dark enough place.

shudder

Department of Redundancy Department

THECRAZYIVAN

Friday, March 26, 2004 7:18 AM

Reavers....i want some answers. I like that theory! Just wish there were more episodes that included them and such.

~~~~~~~~~~
Take me out to the black.....

CALHOUN

Friday, March 26, 2004 10:21 AM

Tere has to be some sort of hierarchical comand structure and technical knowledge base/training within the reavers society. How could "insane madmen" maintain let alone fly and navigate spacecraft? And they must be fairly proficient at it too otherwise one would think that sane rational thinking pilots should be able to escape them..

CALHOUN

Friday, March 26, 2004 10:27 AM

Tere = There ..... How did I miss that..

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 26, 2004 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ItsAllShiny:
Something doesn't have to be scientific down to the nitty gritty details to work on television -- it just has to be plausible We have two plausible scenarios here -- one with escaped Alliance brain-damaged experimental subjects, and the other with brain-damaged (from radiation or some other unspecified cause) sub-humans on the edge of space. I think the edge of space scenario (the simpler of the two) would be easier to convey to the audience, and it's already been alluded to by Mal in "Serenity" when the reavers were introduced.

Are you telling me or someone else? Because I agree. I'm just looking for the plausibility in both theories.

Quote:
Originally posted by ItsAllShiny:
At least the mythodology was introduced. We won't know for sure what reavers are until Joss tells us. But if they are some kind of failed Alliance rejects, it's going to take some masterful skills to tell the story. Can you imagine the complicated story arc that would take? You'd have to have reavers in a whole bunch of episodes to have the characters make the necessary discoveries to go from the myth to the Alliance's doorstep. Maybe in season 2...

However, I don’t think it is necessary that complicated of an arc to use the “failed experiment” approach. One need not invent it in detail, nor connect to the characters at all or right away. It is sufficient to mention a “breakout of failed experiments.” I think that would be understood, and I think it’s a good theory that has worked successfully many times.

My only concern is that such a scenario has already been done, and seems to be somewhat of a standby in Si-Fi.

Then again Star Trek has run that “special” particle thing into the ground too. But I have to say that I like the idea of the Reavers going mad on the edge of space because of failed reactor shielding. Largely because we’ve seen evidence of this in the series. This carries with it the problem of a radiation that only causes you to go mad. Such a thing might be accepted by most people. Not me, but I try to look the other way when the “special” particles come up.

My own personal opinion though: I would like to see the Reavers be 1) part human in that there savage ways are represented by a need to be savage, and 2) modified by a disease or drug that is transmitted between Reavers which enhances strength while reducing pain reception, something like PCP. Imagine it as a drug taken by deep spacefarers originally used to combat the effects of low-gravity, but which has since been outlawed and obsolete by the use of “gravity drives” and a discovered side-effect of being addictive and causing mental illness.

That may be a little complicated, I know. But maybe not so much, it’s really just typical human savagery modified with a mind-altering drug. Something that takes its plausibility from our own current experience.

Do you suppose Joss will take any advice from me? Probably not.

CONNORFLYNN

Friday, March 26, 2004 1:36 PM

Who's to say the Experiment is over? Perhaps it is still ongoing? There have been many experiments in our own real history that involve the separation of individuals from normal society.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 26, 2004 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Who's to say the Experiment is over? Perhaps it is still ongoing? There have been many experiments in our own real history that involve the separation of individuals from normal society.

That’s true. None of them resulted in Reavers.

However, I see the "failed Experiment" approach as being an attempt to create a "super-soldier" of sorts. It's not an original idea, but it is one that has worked in the past.

KUGELBLITZ

Friday, March 26, 2004 1:57 PM

Bah. Look at history if you want to find some excellent examples of organized savagery. The cult of the Thuggees in India for example. They were essentially a religion that predated upon other people. They were creepy people too, lots of ritual sacrifices. They were suppressed by the British in 1930, and some sources place their existence in the 13th century.

How long did the Independents/Alliance War last? The Thirty Years War spawned numerous atrocities created by bands of roving soldeir/mercenaries. The reavers could simply be some very, very bad people who care very little about anyone who isn't them. I don't think you have to be brain damaged to perpetrate evil acts upon innocents (or the "other side"). Sure it may help, and it may explain some of the strange attributes the revers have, but the insanity thing doesn't gel with me.

I am thinking the Reavers are some kind of violence cult/religion. One that doesn't necessarily have to be a vibrant expanding one, just one that leaves BIG footprints. There are a few religions that have dead ended for various reasons. We don't know yet how long the Reavers have been around, so reproducing their kind may not be a critical element.

Or the reaver's could be culturally separate from theirr victims. Consider the Japanese Warrior code as it applied to Allied POWs in WWII. Or the Sioux versus settlers in the west, and so on.

"We are exporting democracy because we have all of this unused democracy lying around at home. Why not make some money doing it?"

ITSALLSHINY

Friday, March 26, 2004 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
My own personal opinion though: I would like to see the Reavers be 1) part human in that there savage ways are represented by a need to be savage, and 2) modified by a disease or drug that is transmitted between Reavers which enhances strength while reducing pain reception, something like PCP. Imagine it as a drug taken by deep spacefarers originally used to combat the effects of low-gravity, but which has since been outlawed and obsolete by the use of “gravity drives” and a discovered side-effect of being addictive and causing mental illness.

Ooh, I like that scenario! Didn't someone here write a fanfic about reavers who kidnap Jayne and use drugs on him to make him one of them? Maybe the drugs have always been elicit -- something that was originally designed to suspend the need for sleep, or something, but had drastic side effects when abused or with extended use? Side effects could have been adopted 'culturally' and glorified by the Reavers...

Quote:
Do you suppose Joss will take any advice from me? Probably not.

Ya never know...

-------------------------------
Jayne: "Can we just move away from this eerie-assed piece of work and get on with out increasingly eerie-assed day?"

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, March 26, 2004 3:32 PM

What do we really know about the Reavers anyway? Only what speculation & the horror stories told to scare children at night tell us.

TO our knowledge there have been no survivors of a Reaver attack, so how do we know the Reavers actually eat their victims flesh? How do we know they sew their skin into their clothes? We don't. We do suspect from "Bushwhacked" that they torture their victims and make survivors watch, which causes them to snap. This would explain how they recruit.

As far as where they come from, who can say? Deserters from the war between the Alliance and the Independents? Settlers that got lost and went insane from a core leak or too long in space w/ no food and turned cannibal. Maybe there were a dozen or so that were failed experiments from the Blue Hands that escaped and stowed away aboard a ship, then later came out, killed the crew and took the ship as their own.

As far as being dumb beasts, I think that is a grave underestimation. They can obviously pilot space ships, and rig magnetic grapples, as well as lay elaborate booby traps on ships they attack. I think they are depraved, evil men and women who prey on other folk for necessity as well as some sort of sick, twisted pleasure.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

PALADIN

Friday, March 26, 2004 4:09 PM

I have to say that I too have been intrigued by the mystery that is Reavers. Are they crazy, just plain mad, or are they so sane that it just blows your minds? Perhaps there is an even more sinister reason than just some failed experiments, or space-crazy cannibals.

Anyone out here familiar with H.P. Lovecraft? Heard about the Necronomicon ? A book bound in human flesh and containing a depth of secrets about the true nature of the cosmos so soul-crushing that most all who read it go mad. It was said that dark and unknown cults existed in order to bring about the return of the elder races from their slumber benetah the surface of the Earth. They preformed disturbing rituals of such horrifying and blasphemous natures that I would be forever cursed to mention them aloud.

What if the Reavers are the survivors of such a cult? Driven by a darker force, different from that which any man has known. For their dark masters have awakened on the "Earth that Was," and they now aim to move others of their kind into this dimension. From the blackness of space and chaos, a plane undescribeable in its ancient and cyclopean horrors comes a fear older than time itself. The Reavers have come. And to face them is to join them, or spend eternity wishing they had killed you before skinning and wearing you.

Just a thought. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go turn on all the lights in the room.

------------
"If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of Hell, a level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater." -Book

CYBERSNARK

Friday, March 26, 2004 4:17 PM

The PCP analogy would also make a cool/ironic Buffyverse reference (Principal Snyder's initial "cover story" explained vampires as teens high on PCP). Maybe Jayne (or even River) could compare Reavers to vampires in a throwaway line. . .

Quote:
Originally posted by Noocyte:
More centrally, though, I'm rather taken with the idea of "men gone savage on the edge of space," since it is in keeping with Joss' overarching thesis that people go out into the Black and meet....themselves. Makes me think of Nietzsche, and the whole "look into the abyss and the abyss looks back into you" thing. Each of our characters is Out There, finding some aspect of themself, making meaning for each other.

I agree.

More, when dealing with a conspiracy, you have to wonder who benefits. Who has something to gain from wandering bands of savages out on the edge of space slaughtering everyone they meet?

The Alliance? Blue Sun? Maybe, but I don't think getting rid of the last traces of the independents (who probably would've gravitated toward the frontier just like Mal did) doesn't seem high enough a priority to waste the time and effort necessary to set up something like this.

If anything, it occurs to me that having someone like River or Early end up face-to-face with Reavers might be a very bad thing.

River would probably end up as their queen or something. . .

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

KALIMEERI

Friday, March 26, 2004 4:29 PM

Just an odd, dark thought. Supposing what originally drove the Reavers away from humanity was the same type of disillusionment that Mal has experienced... and they just kept going to the dark side. Nothing at all matters to them. Have to admit that he "understood" the mechanics of that thought pattern, from his experiences in Serenity Valley. The only thing keeping him from continuing that descent is the ship and the crew.

Jen dao mei.

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, March 26, 2004 4:40 PM

Cybersnark wrote:

Quote:
River would probably end up as their queen or something. . .

Now that is just downright creepifying.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

FIVEBYFIVE

Friday, March 26, 2004 6:07 PM

Quote:
Cybersnark wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River would probably end up as their queen or something. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO! JAYNE IS THE REAVERS' GOD! And they have a song devoted to him and everything! It's like 'Hero of Canton' but just guttural growling. It's like "Rrrrr RAH Gargh Rah Ger Ger, Rrrrr J-A-Y-N-E!"
Best. Movie. Ever.

GEEZER

Friday, March 26, 2004 6:41 PM

Seems to me that Reavers are just pirates. The dictionary defines reavers as those who rob and despoil. Sounds like pirates to me. Many pirates, both current and historical, have the habits of torture and leaving no survivors behind. Most are not really expecting an old age pension, so they're not too worried about long-term health or sanitation. Also, contemporary stories about pirates usually exaggerate their ferocity and savagery, hence the flesh-eating and skinning. Many pirates recruited from their captives.

How did they originate? Same as pirates here on earth-that-will-be-was. Privateers or militia crews who kept on plundering after the war. Mutineers who took over a ship and went raiding. Crooked captains who found a like-minded crew and moved from petty theft to piracy. There's probably pirate moons out there with supplies and doxies, just like in the Carribean in the 17th/18th centurys.

Also, I have a problem with blaming Blue Sun for absolutely everything wrong in the 'verse.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HKCAVALIER

Friday, March 26, 2004 8:16 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, the reavers eat human flesh and sew human skin into their clothing. Nobody short of Jeffrey Daumer does stuff like that. What's my point? I can't believe that just being subjected to the vacuum of space will do that to a person. And though the pirates of old weren't averse to a little torture, humans en masse tend to draw the line at cannibalism and sewing skin into clothes. I don't think they're like Mal only much more so. I don't think that "futuristic radiation poisoning" would do the trick either. Wash was surprised that they were running their ship "without containment." If reavers always did that, Mal would have said as much. However I can imagine good people being so disturbed themselves by the void that they imagine (as Mal does) that the reavers suffer from (as Ren would say) SPACE MADNESS.

I'm pretty sure Blue Sun had a hand (get it?) in their creation. The way I see it, the first round of experiments were done on ordinary soldiers and the results were absolute uncontrolable barbarism. The surgical tampering theory also accounts for the fact that they can pilot ships; they're not so much crazy as very aggressive, sadistic and utterly devoid of feeling. Oh, and if they had been very, very messed with by somebody, had their humanity stripped from them, they would be very, very angry and not a little vengeful. They would organize and plot revenge on the human race. The River phase of the experiment is about finding a strong enough mind to withstand the treatment and still be deployable.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 26, 2004 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Seems to me that Reavers are just pirates. The dictionary defines reavers as those who rob and despoil. Sounds like pirates to me. Many pirates, both current and historical, have the habits of torture and leaving no survivors behind. Most are not really expecting an old age pension, so they're not too worried about long-term health or sanitation. Also, contemporary stories about pirates usually exaggerate their ferocity and savagery, hence the flesh-eating and skinning. Many pirates recruited from their captives.

I’m not fully familiar with the pirate stories of the period you are talking about, but I have studied a little about the Viking era, which I think has some similarities. It is certainly true that local stories about Vikings were often exaggerated. Just look at early Christian dogma painting Pagan’s as “devil.” Today we ignorantly blame this is on “Christian intolerance.” But the truth is that it was more probable a result of a terrified Christian Europe seeking to justify the acts of ‘inhumanly’ barbarous pagan Vikings. The Vikings were exaggerated as demons and devils, but we know that they did skin people alive. It was quite the typical Viking practice. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, human nature is not incapable of inhuman butchery. Even today, skinning people alive is a practice that one might still encounter if one goes walking aimlessly undefended in the Hills of Afghanistan or Pakistan. There are bands of roving “reavers” no less barbarous. They are real. As far as cannibalism, not necessarily practiced by the Viking, but nonetheless, not entirely absent in the activities of barbarians, even today.

I agree with you, up to a point. We know (at least based on one event) that Reavers mutilate themselves. Tatooing and disfiguring of the human body were acts used by many barbarians, but this would not have been done in the careless manner portrayed in the show. It would have been done ritualistically, with careful precision to avoid extensive tissue damage and limit pain. This is where the Reavers of Firefly part with the barbarians of reality.

GEEZER

Friday, March 26, 2004 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Ladies and gentlemen, the reavers eat human flesh and sew human skin into their clothing. Nobody short of Jeffrey Daumer does stuff like that.
HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Many aboriginal cultures keep part of a victim as a talisman; scalps, shrunken heads, ears, etc. The Nazis bound books and made lampshades of human skin. Cannibalism isn't that rare either.

And ethics aren't that strong in parts of the Firefly 'verse, what with slavery either legal or winked at, for example.

Also recall the vendor selling tasty cuts of "Good Dogs" off the grill in "Serenity: Part 1" and Jayne's comment "If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak." maybe cannibalism isn't that much of a leap for desperate folk.

I still vote for pirates. Really nasty pirates, maybe, but pirates nevertheless.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KALIMEERI

Friday, March 26, 2004 10:59 PM

I tend to agree.

Jen dao mei.

KUGELBLITZ

Friday, March 26, 2004 11:52 PM

I favor the simplest explanation. The Reavers are mean people. Not brain wacked super soldiers, or virus infected psychos. They are just plain mean. In the great Yin and Yang, they are probably THE balance to the alliance.

"We are exporting democracy because we have all of this unused democracy lying around at home. Why not make some money doing it?"

PEACE

Saturday, March 27, 2004 12:30 AM

For me there have always been problems with the Reavers. Joss is correct in placing them on the frontier of space after a civil war; piracy often springs up in the wake of civil disturbances or wars, when weapons are plentiful and civil authority weak; for example, SE Asian waters today. What bothers me is the extreme way in which they are portrayed, and the methods they use.

Pirates historically have often been cruel, take-no-prisoners sorts, and many have been damaged men (and women) caught in the wake of traumatic social upheaval; but they have also shown considerable thought in how they operate. Modern pirates, in fact, often have high-rolling backers, employ sophisticated methods of attack, and understand how to decoy and deceive the various maritime authorities in order to launder the cargoes and even the ships they steal. Pirates in the Caribbean in the late 17th and early 18th Centuries usually had bases of operation (e.g. Port Royal on Jamaica) and conducted their affairs with other pirate vessels in a fairly orderly manner (if there were disputes between pirate crews, the captains of all the vessels in port would often sit in council together to adjudicate the matter). All of this is worlds away from the animalistic image we get of the Reavers from the episodes. It is an important point that a ship, esp. a spaceship, implies a base, repair facilities, and backers-- even a pirate ship needs repairs and upgrades and fresh fruit (Heinlein made this point in "Citizen of the Galaxy"). Ships run on the Reaver plan probably wouldn't last a month.

And then there's the Reaver recruitment methods. Frankly, the "torture them until they join us" method never rang true for me. It might work, but not in a matter of hours or days; we're talking about a method of brainwashing that would take months to break down the ingrained habits and attitudes of a lifetime; and then it would not work on everyone. Historical pirates, esp. those on the Spanish Main, often employed very rational methods of recruitment. When they took a ship, they would usually kill the captain, because he would be the most likely to resist to the end. Any specialist crew members, such as cooks, carpenters, sailmakers, etc., were usually forced to join the pirates, with special priviledges, extra shares and a promise that they'd be released after a certain term of service (a promise that was usually kept). Oridnary sailors, believe it or not, often clamored to join the pirates, despite the risk of hanging-- the life of a pirate was much more free and easy than that of an ordinary sailor on a merchantman of the era.

The only way the Reavers as they are in the series would work for me is if they were some sort of religious cult-- and there have been plenty just as violent and grotesque in history. But nothing in the episodes has set that up.

I hope Joss rethinks the Reavers if he uses them in the movie.

Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kugelblitz:
I favor the simplest explanation. The Reavers are mean people. Not brain wacked super soldiers, or virus infected psychos. They are just plain mean. In the great Yin and Yang, they are probably THE balance to the alliance.

That’s hardly a simple explanation. “Mean” people might maim, torture and otherwise inflict disfiguring pain on other people, but they aren’t likely to perform the same actions on themselves. That’s simply contrary to human nature, and it’s self-defeating, because one can hardly be a successful “pirate” if one is wreaked with pain from self-inflicted wounds.

BENSHAHN

Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:34 AM

The “predecessors of River” idea is an interesting one, but there is nothing in the actual series to support it. So far, there are two possibilities that are based on what is in the series.
1. The Reavers are exactly what we've been told they are
2. The Reavers are former Alliance soldiers tortured into madness by the Independents.
In Safe, there is a possible allegory for this. The young River talks about a pretend Alliance group that is cut off by the Independents. The Alliance members resort to cannibalism
Mal knows more than most about the Reavers.
When the survivor in Bushwacked mutilates himself, the Alliance officer says he hasn't seen that kind of torture since the war and he says it with disgust. He is accusing Mal, who he knows to be a former Independent of doing it.
This idea of the Reavers and Mal’s possible knowledge or involvement in it fits nicely with Whedon's writing style; wanting to surprise the viewer with the unexpected, main characters with dark backgrounds, and the theme of redemption. When Mal says," Nothing worse than a monster thinks he's right with god", what if he knows this because he's also talking about himself?

ITSALLSHINY

Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:53 AM

Quote:
And then there's the Reaver recruitment methods. Frankly, the "torture them until they join us" method never rang true for me. It might work, but not in a matter of hours or days; we're talking about a method of brainwashing that would take months to break down the ingrained habits and attitudes of a lifetime; and then it would not work on everyone.

Well, they'd just eat the ones who didn't show signs of breaking really fast!

--------------
Zoe: "If they board us, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we are very lucky, they'll do it in that order."

CAPNRAHN

Saturday, March 27, 2004 3:02 PM

My twopenny join-in:

I feel the Reavers are in Joss's 'Verse are much like the Fremen in Frank Herbert's Dune 'Verse.

Tough nasty scrappers that have a myth of them that is based on fact, yet not fully on the nose with the details of the gory series of legends that encompass those known as Reavers.

They could be comprised of various 'special' people, much like River or other oddities. With attitudes closer in relation to the more agressive Native Americans and most definitly the Mongols. The combination of both real cultures really illustrates what I see as the potential Reaver worldview and their understanding of yin-yang of full spectrum of life. That means that Death and its ilk is the stuff of everyday life for the Reaver, not to be feared. They probably are taught that fear is the mind-killer and panic will ALWAYS kill. So all who 'become' Reavers are taught to confront fear standing firmly on their feet. In addition, I can also see them trained on how to CAUSE panic in their enemies.

How iz that?

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

JARED

Saturday, March 27, 2004 3:50 PM

i think that part about "cattle" might be important. if for some reason you stop thinking of humans as different from animals, as "special" then it wont be long until need and desperation will do the rest. crashland in a place, where you cant find food and if your will to survive is strong enough it will defeat any morals that keep you from eating the others. flesh is flesh, you can eat it and stay alive or dont and be food for the others.

and there you have it. there arent any cows floating in space, but humans will do. natural ressources, too scared to fight back. self mutilation probably helps with that, or maybe that way of life actually DID spawn some sick rituals and beliefs. get rid of all your moral and ethics, do what you have to do to survive and satisfy your needs and youre probably pretty close to reavers.

of course there is one little problem: if you need food, clothes and sex and attack ships, then they should have "normal" food on board and wear normal clothes. so unless youre so many that you need more than that or dont find enough victims to make use of EVERYTHING you can get theres no reason to eat and skin them. and nothing should stop them from having sex among themselves (except maybe looking for something different and maybe a "partner" thats not looking like a walking tool kit).

if they have been out there for several generations, how long would it take to arrive at one thats nothing but intelligent animals. they wont forget how to fly ships or "hunt" in a pack and pass that knowledge on, because its vital. humanity isnt, it just gets in the way.

still wouldnt explain how just watching them can cause you to become like them (even if that might be on a smaller scale and just imitation). id rather expect the opposite, disgust and hatred letting you lose your own ethics and humanity when dealing with reavers. it would take far too much time to convince survivors of their ways. though it might be along the lines of "be strong and in control or be cattle waiting to be slaughtered and at the mercy of others". a little like nice guys becoming jerks when they are fed up with watching them get the girls ,-)

ITSALLSHINY

Saturday, March 27, 2004 8:20 PM

In all this discussion about the dynamics of Reavers, their origins, etc., I think we're forgetting the most important thing -- humans have a viceral fear of being prey animals ourselves.

Seriously, if you don't agree, just try this experiment: Sit down and imagine what it would be like to be eaten alive. You're trying to get away -- adrenaline pumping -- the beast swipes at you and brings you down -- you try to struggle, but loss of blood is making you weak -- your flesh is being ripped, tugged, bitten off in chunks -- you begin to go into shock -- finally you succumb to unconsciousness and death. (If any of you don't get the willies and an almost uncontrollable urge to look over your shoulder, then man, are you a robot!)

And Reavers, thanks to Joss, are the ultimate predatory monster because they eat people alive, abuse the people and their corpses in unspeakable ways, are really out there lurking in the dark, and they have the intelligence of humans. When you ponder the notion of someone breaking from watching their friends and family raped and eaten alive (or vice versa) for weeks on end, all the while knowing that your turn is coming, remember that fear we all have of being eaten alive -- how tough do you really think you are?

Personally, I think I would kill myself, but there are people who are more doggedly stubborn about holding onto life than I am, and it doesn't take a very large leap to see them adopting the horror as a way to survive. Plus, history is rife with examples of people who have done just that because it was the only way to survive -- take most of the medical personnel in the Nazi regime, for instance. Splitting off the good and bad and adopting the bad as 'good' is a well-worn psychological/sociological process. [Ref: "The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence," E. Staub, Cambridge University Press, 1989.)

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:04 PM

Quote:
so unless youre so many that you need more than that or dont find enough victims to make use of EVERYTHING you can get theres no reason to eat and skin them. and nothing should stop them from having sex among themselves (except maybe looking for something different and maybe a "partner" thats not looking like a walking tool kit).

Gotta disagree here. As mentioned earlier, lots of violent cultures take trophies from their victims. It's not about not having enough clothes, it's about sewing the skins of your victims into the clothes you have.

Also, as far as cannibalism goes, (a) it's not that rare if you just count by percentage of cultures that do it on a fairly regular basis rather than number of people (the larger cultures tend to find cannibalism utterly distasteful these days), (b) it might be considered a display of machismo to eat the flesh of your fallen enemy, and (c) they have space rations on Serenity. Not overly tasty stuff. Forgetting for the moment how you feel about cannibalism (which I've already said is far from a universal aversion), would you rather have space rations or fresh meat?

And finally, sex: when's the last time you heard of reason factoring into rape? Desperation, sure, sometimes, but many rapists have plenty of opportunities for consensual sex. It's also a pretty recent thing that society hasn't considered rape of a fallen enemy acceptable. The Bible talks about what to do with conquered survivors: kill the men and non-virgin females. Take the virgins home to be your wife. The virgins had no say in the matter. Other cultures were often not quite so picky about virginity, and some just raped the women and left them to fend for themselves, but rape and warfare have gone hand in hand, probably since before we split with chimps.

JARED

Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Gotta disagree here. As mentioned earlier, lots of violent cultures take trophies from their victims. It's not about not having enough clothes, it's about sewing the skins of your victims into the clothes you have.

good point, guess i was a little too fixed on everything they do as being need driven.

concerning cannibalism, its really not rare, considering cultures where its quite normal to eat dead relatives (or some of the organs or their ashes) or your enemies heart to get his strength (might be a common practice for reavers when i think about this babbling about being "weak".. the simple concept of strong=good and weak=unpleasant end of food chain might be their kind of thing).

hmm.. so far i saw the reason for war and rape being closely connected in the simple fact that youre usually surrounded by other men. but then there might be more reasons. trying to imagine a situation where youre enemy is reduced to a body that has to be killed or at least heavily wounded women automatically become bodies that can be used. not a nice thought, but most likely a natural reaction to the situation.

and interesting enough, watching reavers do all that to your friends and family might easily result in you wanting to do the same to them. if for some reason you cant it might cause a displacement activity(?) and instead you do it to whatever potential victim is available. much in the same way like some very sad people might lose their job and beat their wives because they cant beat their former boss.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, March 27, 2004 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jared:
hmm.. so far i saw the reason for war and rape being closely connected in the simple fact that youre usually surrounded by other men. but then there might be more reasons. trying to imagine a situation where youre enemy is reduced to a body that has to be killed or at least heavily wounded women automatically become bodies that can be used. not a nice thought, but most likely a natural reaction to the situation.

The act of taking women as brides in the spoil of war was quite common among ancient cultures. In fact wars were sometimes fought expressly to get another tribes women and or slaves. This wasn’t really done so much out of a need to violate the enemy as it was to broaden the gene pool. It may be difficult for us to understand this today, because we’re packing over 6 billion people on this planet, but that’s been relatively recent. A thousand years ago, most people lived in very isolated and small villages and tribes. And often it was necessary to bring in fresh blood to keep the number of toes constant.

Quote:
Originally posted by ItsAllShiny:
Personally, I think I would kill myself, but there are people who are more doggedly stubborn about holding onto life than I am, and it doesn't take a very large leap to see them adopting the horror as a way to survive. Plus, history is rife with examples of people who have done just that because it was the only way to survive -- take most of the medical personnel in the Nazi regime, for instance. Splitting off the good and bad and adopting the bad as 'good' is a well-worn psychological/sociological process. [Ref: "The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence," E. Staub, Cambridge University Press, 1989.)

That’s true. But what you are referring to is generally an act of desperation conducted under desperate circumstances. It’s not a permanent transformation. There’s little evidence of Jews becoming Nazis and remaining that way. In fact, in general, the desperate acts of captive Jews under the Nazi regime generally served to heighten the hatred for the Nazis. The impression I get from the show is that becoming a Reaver is something of a permanent transformation, which should suggest that it is a not an act of psychological desperation. Although, that may be what Whedon is going for.

ARDEN

Saturday, March 27, 2004 10:36 PM

Although the concept of Reavers as being essentially pirate bands who sprung up after the war seems historically valid in our own world, I'm curious how this might work in the timeline of the Firefly verse. Primarily in that in "Serenity" when the Reavers are brought up, Simon reacts to them as if they are a sort of urban legend ('versal legend?). He's obviously heard stories/rumors, but never particularly believed they existed. While this holds water in that he is a moneyed individual from a priviledged society, and as far as we know had very little to do with the war, it also leads one to believe that the stories must have been around for quite a while in order to spread so far and wide- to exist as a legend throughout the 'verse. The show takes place what, 6 years after the end of the war? I somehow doubt it's enough time for a powerful enough urban legend/folktale to form that spread throughout space. Even Jayne has apparently never seen a Reaver ship before, but he's deathly afraid of them from their first mention. I would think that the stories would need to be around for many, many years to have developed that much widespread exposure and belief.

Anyone with more detailed knowledge on pirate history might be able to help out here, and it's not me. If you are out there, any ideas how long it took for traditional pirates to become a commonly known or feared concept in our world? Moreover, was there a specific rash of piracy or the like that sprang up after the American Civil War, and might have served as Joss's inspiration in creating the Reavers?

You got a wife? All I got is that dumbass
stick sounds like its raining.

BUTTERFLY043

Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kurukami:
Only problem is, that theory has some holes in it. Namely the "survivor" found onboard the derelict in "Bushwhacked". That guy didn't seem to have had any surgery done on him -- as evidenced by the fact that he was running around less than two weeks after his ship went missing. And there's very little voluntary about watching savages cut your family and friends apart.

I don't know if this has already been commented on, but that guy they found was a victim of the reavers, not a reaver himself. The original theory at the top of this thread could still be valid. The 'gone wrong' experiments could have overtaken the ship and killed all of them except that one whom they made watch while his family were killed. Then they left, and he was trying to turn himself into one of them. But he wasn't one.

I don't really think that the reavers have turned the way they have by unnatural causes though. I don't think they are even human to begin with. I don't mean they are 'monsters' but I just think they are cdifferent from us.

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:53 PM

Quote:
The act of taking women as brides in the spoil of war was quite common among ancient cultures. In fact wars were sometimes fought expressly to get another tribes women and or slaves. This wasn’t really done so much out of a need to violate the enemy as it was to broaden the gene pool.

I think you give the people of ancient cultures too much credit when it comes to their knowledge of genetics and inbreeding. Marrying first cousins was not only common, it was often more or less a requirement (and still is in many parts of the world.) Better mixing of the gene pool was a side effect of this kind of thing, but I have to think it wasn't the main purpose: mixing happened regardless, and even if it didn't, there are large parts of the world where the genetic benefits to breeding with someone who isn't traceably related to you are far from well known.

The more reasonable explanation is this: say you're a man living in a tribe of 40ish people. Maybe you're just getting to be old enough to marry, or maybe your wife just died, or maybe you just want a 2nd or 5th wife. There aren't going to be a whole lot of women available for you to marry, whether the custom is to marry within your tribe, or to marry women from 1 or several neighboring allied tribes, and there's no guarantee that the few available women won't go to someone else.

Now, you have a few friends/relatives in the same situation. And there's this other tribe that has an obvious vulnerability that will allow you to kill off the men fairly easily (or maybe not even that easily--some of you may die, but you can't say which ones, and you're almost guaranteed to be on the winning side). If you end up victorious, there's maybe 10 new women that you can split between you and your friends/relatives.

Women are often viewed as a valuable commodity. In fact, possibly the most valuable commodity. For anything else (food, water, clothing, etc.) you get to a point that you have all you could possibly ever use in your current situation, and more food, etc., is worthless to you. But if you have one wife, you can have n children with her. If you have 2 wives, you can have 2n children, and so on.

PEACE

Sunday, March 28, 2004 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by ItsAllShiny:
Personally, I think I would kill myself, but there are people who are more doggedly stubborn about holding onto life than I am, and it doesn't take a very large leap to see them adopting the horror as a way to survive. Plus, history is rife with examples of people who have done just that because it was the only way to survive -- take most of the medical personnel in the Nazi regime, for instance. Splitting off the good and bad and adopting the bad as 'good' is a well-worn psychological/sociological process. [Ref: "The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence," E. Staub, Cambridge University Press, 1989.)
That’s true. But what you are referring to is generally an act of desperation conducted under desperate circumstances. It’s not a permanent transformation. There’s little evidence of Jews becoming Nazis and remaining that way. In fact, in general, the desperate acts of captive Jews under the Nazi regime generally served to heighten the hatred for the Nazis. The impression I get from the show is that becoming a Reaver is something of a permanent transformation, which should suggest that it is a not an act of psychological desperation. Although, that may be what Whedon is going for.

I think most people under the circumstances described in the show would not have an overwhelming need to join the Reavers to deal with what they've experienced, but would be filled with a raging need for vengeance, and woe betide the first Reaver who unties them (try the thought experiment of seeing your nearest-and-dearest tortured, consumed and/or killed and I think you'll see what I mean). Striking back, not identification, appears to me to be the natural reaction. There are circumstances in which victims of violence and oppression do things to appease and even ape their oppressors, but as Finn says, this generally only serves to heighten the victim's hatred of the oppressor. Let the tables be turned-- let the concentration camp be liberated, for example-- and the most beaten-down prisoner will often rise up and be the most vicious in attacking the former guards.

Maybe it's just me, but I do think it is "a very large leap to see them adopting the horror as a way to survive." I don't think the Reavers were very well thought out.

Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!

JARED

Sunday, March 28, 2004 8:20 AM

how about a misunderstanding coupled with already being out of your mind. after going through all this, you are discovered, attacked, knocked out, locked away, tied to a table and have a group of people pressing you down. sufficiently confused the difference between being operated and slaughtered might not be so clear to you. nobody really seemed to try and convince them that they are friendly and want to help. first you get hit by reavers, then by smugglers, then by alliance and all the time youre helpless until you snap.

if he really couldnt tell his "saviours" from reavers, his imitation might make sense, as a way to not be discovered. babbling about cattle, maybe repeating what he heard, self mutilation to look like them and not be discovered. thinking it didnt work when ending up on that op table and trying to fight his way out.

still not really working out too well, especially since it all happenend in a very short time. and how would mal know so much about it? he seems to know that he will start acting like them. thats making the above theory kind of pointless.

and i have my doubts that after buffy and angel joss would go for "they found something evil at the edge of the galaxy and it consumed them".

he doesnt seem like the kind of writer who is just making something up because it's cool, so i'll trust he has a perfectly fine explanation for them. and even if its not 100% water tight, scientifically accurate or historically correct, i can live with that as it's still fiction and maybe in 500 years humanity will have changed on a psychological level, too.
think of the people believing that violent video games and movies will turn children into brutal killers.

DARTHVEGAS

Monday, March 29, 2004 6:43 AM

I also thought of them as some sort of cult that has taken thier belifes WAAAAY off the deep end. It allows them to keep order within thier society, and allows for them to commit all sorts of nastyness on the outside since anyone who isnt a Reaver isnt 'pure'.

we also may have been only part of the story about Reavers, sort of the Dread Pirate Roberts thing. Sure they are mean and nasty and will kill ya as soon as look at ya, but they have amped up thier rep to make thier job easier.

Just thinkin....

No power in the 'Verse can stop me.

DARTHVEGAS

Monday, March 29, 2004 6:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jared:

and i have my doubts that after buffy and angel joss would go for "they found something evil at the edge of the galaxy and it consumed them".

Oooo, THAT would be kinda cool, something I didnt think of, sort of a Babylon 5 type of idea.

No power in the 'Verse can stop me.

JARED

Monday, March 29, 2004 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DarthVegas:
Oooo, THAT would be kinda cool, something I didnt think of,

cool, maybe. but thats why it has been done to death and would even remind a little too much about event horizon. so part of me is still expecting him to stay away from supernatural or even mystic stuff. though some of the things river did seem already beyond the results of pure science.

to hijack it a little:
i like the theory that our subconsciousness is able to perform incredible things, even to the extend to blame it when someone is "foretelling" something. its great in picking up details and information that our conscious part is completely missing. able to do the math it might result in a gut feeling that something is about to happen, because our sc actually DOES know it has to happen.

one step further connected to things said in ariel. if they were tearing down the wall between consciousness and subconsciousness it might explain quite a few things: walking around the ship like in a dream in objects in space, knowing things she shouldnt know, talking "crazy" (actually, when im really tired and about to fall asleep, when you could argue that my sc is taking over, i guess if you read my thoughts they would sound a little like river).

only problem is that some things look more like good old mind reading and adding that ability to our sc might be going a little far.

but back to the reavers: they look a little like lovecraft in space. see too much of them and you lose your mind. kind of lead me to the point of finding something evil in outer space. but have a look at our world and tell me the darkest demons arent deep inside us. no need to look for them at the edge of the universe.

KUGELBLITZ

Monday, March 29, 2004 1:38 PM

Yep, that is what I mean about simplicity being more elegant. We can make up the most evil forms of behavior on our own. There are plenty of instances where the apallingly barbaric Reaver rituals discussed by Mal and Zoe were considered pretty normal by particular groups of people. Of course the victims of said people had plenty to say about them later.

"We are exporting democracy because we have all of this unused democracy lying around at home. Why not make some money doing it?"

JARED

Monday, March 29, 2004 2:29 PM

of course that means we're back to: what could be so absolutely horrible and shocking to cause the effect we have seen in bushwhacked? but maybe thats the wrong question and the point of this episode was to show the effects so we can imagine anything that will work for us (which i consider a brilliant idea that will now become a little dangerous.. if he is going to show it i couldnt think of anything that would really work.. so maybe these details will be avoided or covered under "the movie is NOT the show")

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, March 29, 2004 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
I think you give the people of ancient cultures too much credit when it comes to their knowledge of genetics and inbreeding. Marrying first cousins was not only common, it was often more or less a requirement (and still is in many parts of the world.) Better mixing of the gene pool was a side effect of this kind of thing, but I have to think it wasn't the main purpose: mixing happened regardless, and even if it didn't, there are large parts of the world where the genetic benefits to breeding with someone who isn't traceably related to you are far from well known.

I didn’t say they had an understanding of genetics, but it is a fact that ancient scripts speak very clearly about denying close incestuous relationships. Ancient Hebrew texts, for instance, prohibit marrying between a man and a “close relative.” [See Leviticus 18] It goes on to list the relatives that are prohibited to marry. And this is not something that is limited to the Hebrews, but has been shown to be something that is universal among ancient people, from Native Americans to African to Europeans to Asians. Therefore it cannot be simply a cultural thing, but must reside in the effects of these kinds of marriages, and that stands to reason.

It is also true that cousins were not always included in these prohibited groups, and sometimes even encouraged, as you say. But the genetic inbreeding effect between cousins is not always readily obvious, especially in a polygamist society where cousins were likely to be more genetically distant then one would think of them today.

So for a small tribe, or perhaps even a large tribe, where the number of single women was limited, it was very likely and reasonable to conclude that they would kidnap women from other tribes in order to maintain the validity of their marriage laws, which in turn, whether they understood it or not, maintained the necessary breadth of the gene pool.

CYBERSNARK

Monday, March 29, 2004 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jared:
only problem is that some things look more like good old mind reading and adding that ability to our sc might be going a little far.

Actually, telepathy might not be as far out there as you might think.

It's been proven that some animals have electromagnetic senses (migratory birds, for one, have built-in compasses). Others have thermographic senses (pit-vipers that can "smell" heat).

Organic brains produce electrical impulses between the synapses. We also produce and interact with electrical fields outside our own bodies (notable when you get a shock from staticy carpet and a metal doorknob). Possibly these are the "auras" that some psychics claim to read.

Think of the evolutionary advantage to a predator (or even a prey animal) who could learn to sense those electrical impulses in another creature's brain. If both the "reader" and the "target" are of the same species (i.e., River and the Serenity crew), they might even be able to interpret those impulses (by virtue of having the same physical layout in their brains --so that you could take the pattern of another's synapse-firing pattern and overlay it on another brain). Possibly this is part of what the Alliance did to River (and maybe Early).

Couple that with just being really really perceptive (watching people's breathing, how they act, their eyes, etc), and suddenly you have a crazy genius mind reader.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

JARED

Monday, March 29, 2004 4:04 PM

,-) thats why i said far shot rather than impossible, as i think subconsciously reading body language and eye movement are still a different level from sensing electric fields and being able to turn them back into thoughts and images. maybe some people really are able to do this in a very (very, very, very) limited way. and thinking about it the only scenes troubling me are:

-safe: knowing what happened to the child
-safe: immediately knowing what happened to the old patron
-shindig: immediately knowing a lot about badger

all of that could of course be explained by hearing rumors and putting pieces together, hearing other crew members talk about badger, maybe just having to hear his accent to know where he's from and having a lot of information she picked up during her life to figure the rest (might explain her interest in that thing on his jacket).

in fact, i pretty much like the idea of rivers abilities being the result of removing the wall between consc. and subconsc... a little wink to the myth that people only use 10-20% of their brain. maybe by turning it around make that "consciously using 20%", while the rest is automated functions (heart beat, breathing, lets say another 10% to pull more numbers out of thin air), leaving a lot of potential if the remaining 70% could be used in a controlled fashion rather than having it run wild and do nothing but giving us gut feelings or bad dreams.

and why we're at it: yes, why not allow that our subconsc. can also to some extend pick up electric fields and interpret them (its scifi after all and this explanation still seems better than just saying "mind reader"). not to mention how wonderfully it would explain her somewhat confused state and daydreams.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, March 29, 2004 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Actually, telepathy might not be as far out there as you might think.

It's been proven that some animals have electromagnetic senses (migratory birds, for one, have built-in compasses). Others have thermographic senses (pit-vipers that can "smell" heat).

Organic brains produce electrical impulses between the synapses. We also produce and interact with electrical fields outside our own bodies (notable when you get a shock from staticy carpet and a metal doorknob). Possibly these are the "auras" that some psychics claim to read.

Interesting concept. I have to admit that this is an explanation that I've not actually heard before.

Although the amount of electricity that you're talking about is very small. If someone were sensitive to say the magnetic field generated by brainwaves one might find it very uncomfortable living on a spaceship where, conceivably, electric devices produce magnetic fields thousands or millions of times stronger. Even the earth's magnetic field (~0.5 gauss) is much larger then brainwave activity.

JARED

Monday, March 29, 2004 5:06 PM

an even better explanation for rivers behaviour. "vroom vroom tchka tchka clonk clonk" "oh boy, is she mind reading the engine again?" "nah, i think its jayne"

LTNOWIS

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:31 AM

About the inbreeding: like all emotion-based ethics, we evolved them. The reason it just feels wrong is becuase for thousands of years of evolution inbreeding, killing your own kind, eating gross-looking things and the like were surefire ways of not having a healthy genetic future.

Say, that's a nice theory about reavers. A colony ship gets lost, they've got a couple generations of rations, they practice inbreeding, they run out of rations, their only option is to attack non-reavers. It would help if the colony ship was run by some weird, sick, self-mutilating cult, that taught that outsiders aren't people, and took it on faith that they'd actually get somewhere when they set out to roam the outskirts of the galaxy/solar system/star cluster. The only hole in the theory is that inbreeding usually causes things like hemophillia, not things like gibbering insanity. Maybe one person was exposed to radiation and mutated the "no morals! Kill Kill Kill!" gene.
Actually, now that I think about it, the stress and such on an already messed-up people would have caused most if not all of the insanity. To quote Hank Hill, "You're putting extra stress on a structure that wasn't up-to-code to begin with." If you need some more examples of civilized people turning ultra-sadistic, just look at the Balkan guerillas and Russians in WWII.

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:25 AM

Quote:
has been shown to be something that is universal among ancient people

Not true. Siblings were almost universally prohibited from marrying, with a few notable exceptions, the most notable being Egyptian royalty. This was probably unnecessary, given that siblings pretty much never want to marry each other, anyway. Certain cultures prohibited other relatives from marrying, even out to "traceable" relatives, but many of the rules about who someone could and could not marry had nothing to do with blood relation.

Quote:
Therefore it cannot be simply a cultural thing, but must reside in the effects of these kinds of marriages, and that stands to reason.

Are you trying to say that there are no cultural universals? First, this isn't universal, and 2nd, there are plenty of other reasons to set down rules about who's allowed to marry whom. Remember that in some cultures, you're required to marry a cousin. But it's not just any cousin--almost all require you to marry a cross cousin, rather than a parallel cousin. Marriage is about alliances between groups of people. You generally can't marry within your own group, because there's no new alliance. But you can't marry into just any group, either. A parallel cousin (your father's brother's kid or mother's sister's kid) is either going to live in your same group or in some group that may well have exactly 0 alliance with your group. But a cross cousin is from a group your group has dealt with at least once before, a generation earlier.

Quote:
But the genetic inbreeding effect between cousins is not always readily obvious, especially in a polygamist society where cousins were likely to be more genetically distant then one would think of them today.

From a genetic/evolutionary standpoint, it's obvious enough. And a cousin is either a cousin or a half cousin, both of which are pretty closely related to you. (Ok, we can get into double cousins, but they're more closely related, not less.) I'm not sure what you're arguing here. But prescriptive rules about mate choices that require you to marry a relative (which are very common throughout the world, to this day) really didn't have anything to do with the genetic effects of inbreeding.

Quote:
So for a small tribe, or perhaps even a large tribe, where the number of single women was limited, it was very likely and reasonable to conclude that they would kidnap women from other tribes in order to maintain the validity of their marriage laws, which in turn, whether they understood it or not, maintained the necessary breadth of the gene pool.

I absolutely agree with that. My point was that women, when seen as commodities, are always in short supply. In polygynous societies, it's tough to find any man who isn't at least contemplating getting another wife. He may think it's impractical, that he won't be able to support another wife, etc., but he probably thinks about it. And in all societies, it's hard to find men who aren't at least tempted to find a mistress or 3 on the side, or at least some one night stands. So men always have some incentive to go grab more women. The reason they don't do it more often in our society and most of the world today is that there's enough disincentive to outweigh the incentive.

ELFRENETICO

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:21 PM

Great thread.

You guys cover most of the options, just thought I'd add that "barbarian" communities traditionally stayed on the outskirts of "civilized" society using horses (Huns) or ships (Vikings) to make raids and then quickly fade into the wilderness. They often used terror tactics including piling up bodies and skulls and leaving them as calling cards. This gave the relatively small units a reputation, striking fear and softening resistance.

In time it turned out these were pretty evolved cultures, but to the victims of course they were, barbarians, subhuman creatures. But they were just poor people making raids on rich people without pity or mercy. White settlers pictured American Indians this way. Maybe Joss started with this premise?

I like the idea of Blue Sun & the Blue Hands playing a part in the Reavers story though.

Shiny

JARED

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Elfrenetico:

In time it turned out these were pretty evolved cultures, but to the victims of course they were, barbarians, subhuman creatures.

so maybe book had a good reason to insist on them being human beings and again knowing far more than he should?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Quote:
has been shown to be something that is universal among ancient people

Not true. Siblings were almost universally prohibited from marrying, with a few notable exceptions, the most notable being Egyptian royalty. This was probably unnecessary, given that siblings pretty much never want to marry each other, anyway. Certain cultures prohibited other relatives from marrying, even out to "traceable" relatives, but many of the rules about who someone could and could not marry had nothing to do with blood relation.

Actually it's quite true, and it was demonstrated in 1949 by G.P. Murdock.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Are you trying to say that there are no cultural universals? First, this isn't universal, and 2nd, there are plenty of other reasons to set down rules about who's allowed to marry whom.

You just asserted in the last paragraph that it wasn't true to begin with? Are you changing your story now?

And exactly how do you know that siblings never wanted to marry? This isn't really something you can know. But since throughout most of history marriages were arranged, it makes little difference anyway. It is true that cousins were sometimes married because the family wanted to maintain the homogeneity of the blood relationships in the family, but then why didn't cultures more frequently marry siblings if that's the case? If cousins maintain a close blood kin in the family, wouldn't marrying siblings maintain a closer blood kin, or at least as close? But almost universally, marriage laws prohibit the marrying of siblings. There is only one reasonable explanation for this and that is that they understood the dangers involved in incestuous relationships.

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:54 PM

Quote:
Actually it's quite true, and it was demonstrated in 1949 by G.P. Murdock.

Huh? What exactly is true? That close relatives are universally prohibited from marrying? I've given counter-examples to that premise, so it can't really be true.

Quote:
You just asserted in the last paragraph that it wasn't true to begin with? Are you changing your story now?

No. You said it (and I'm still not quite sure what "it" is) was universal, then said that because it was universal, it had to be more than just cultural. I said (a) it's not universal, and (b) even if it was, that doesn't mean that it's not cultural.

Quote:
And exactly how do you know that siblings never wanted to marry?

There have been many studies on sibling incest taboos. There have been cultures that have tried to get people who were raised together to marry. People raised together see each other as siblings, and don't find each other sexually attractive. The marriages never really work. Also, avoidance of sibling incest is common throughout the animal kingdom, or at least mammalia. I'd argue that an animal without language shouldn't have much trouble identifying at least a subset of their siblings (e.g., animals born in the same litter may recognize each other as siblings, but if a female sends out one litter on their own before having the next one, animals born a year apart to the same mother wouldn't recognize each other as siblings) but would have no way of identifying cousins. The sibling incest taboo is pretty well ingrained in our psyches. Parent-offspring incest is similar, although more common, even among humans.

Quote:
It is true that cousins were sometimes married because the family wanted to maintain the homogeneity of the blood relationships in the family

That was the reason given by European royalty, but I've never heard of it anywhere else. In most cultures, there's little or no mention of "blood"--it's all about alliances.

Quote:
But almost universally, marriage laws prohibit the marrying of siblings. There is only one reasonable explanation for this and that is that they understood the dangers involved in incestuous relationships.

Nope. I see 2 other explanations: (1) universal revulsion at the thought of siblings marrying, genetically programmed into our brains, with no actual understanding that siblings are far less likely to produce healthy children with each other, and (2) no benefit to a family's alliances.

ELFRENETICO

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jared:
Quote:

so maybe book had a good reason to insist on them being human beings and again knowing far more than he should?

Or he just belives in the humanity of all peoples and frowns upon superstious talk, like preachers tend to do. Check out the "Book" thread for some cool ideas on his past.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JARED

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Elfrenetico:
Or he just belives in the humanity of all peoples and frowns upon superstious talk, like preachers tend to do. Check out the "Book" thread for some cool ideas on his past.

well, my favorite version would be: both ,-) knowledge can be such a nice little help for faith.

CORWYN

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:50 PM

My first thought when I saw them was that they were suffering from 'laughing sickness', a problem similar to BME (mad cow disease). It is one of the problems of cannibalism.

I don't think cannibalism is as hard to explain as some people here. If you were hungry enough and you had dead comrades, could you really spend thirty days or so, dying and not eat them?

So, they start hungry, become crazy, and the rest follows. As much as people want there to be an external 'reason' why people do horrible things, for the most part it is not required.

I think people are also giving too much credence to Mal's pop psychology. A person who endured a reaver attack is likely to become a little crazy. The exact symptoms are not that important.

DRAGONFLYDIRECTOR

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by corwyn:
My first thought when I saw them was that they were suffering from 'laughing sickness', a problem similar to BME (mad cow disease). It is one of the problems of cannibalism.
B]

Just a note of interest: Kuru, aka the laughing death or laughing sickness is spread only by eating the brain of one infected.

Strange, but true!

It has been limited to tribesmen in New Guinea and is very unusual to come across.

"Observe Analyze & Respond"
Motto of the A.P.E.s
Alliance Protean Engineers

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 3:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Huh? What exactly is true? That close relatives are universally prohibited from marrying? I've given counter-examples to that premise, so it can't really be true.

You haven't given counter examples of anything.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
There have been many studies on sibling incest taboos. There have been cultures that have tried to get people who were raised together to marry. People raised together see each other as siblings, and don't find each other sexually attractive. The marriages never really work. Also, avoidance of sibling incest is common throughout the animal kingdom, or at least mammalia. I'd argue that an animal without language shouldn't have much trouble identifying at least a subset of their siblings (e.g., animals born in the same litter may recognize each other as siblings, but if a female sends out one litter on their own before having the next one, animals born a year apart to the same mother wouldn't recognize each other as siblings) but would have no way of identifying cousins. The sibling incest taboo is pretty well ingrained in our psyches. Parent-offspring incest is similar, although more common, even among humans.

I think you need to go back the re-read those studies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Nope. I see 2 other explanations: (1) universal revulsion at the thought of siblings marrying, genetically programmed into our brains, with no actual understanding that siblings are far less likely to produce healthy children with each other, and (2) no benefit to a family's alliances.

First, neither of these “explanations” demonstrate anything contrary to my point. The fact remains, and despite your claims you have yet to demonstrate any counterexamples whatsoever that marriage laws almost universally prohibit the marrying of siblings.

Second, there is no “genetically programmed” “universal revulsion” to sexual sibling relationships. You’ve misinterpreted the studies or something, but that’s not what the Westermark effect is. In fact, there is something called GSA, Genetic Sexual Attraction, which is a sexual attraction that occurs when sibling separated at a young age are reunited as adults.[1] It is a documented effect, which suggests that if any genetic programming exists at all it is not at all revulsion. On the other hand, the Westermark effect is not limited to Siblings, and says the children who grow up in close contact together are not likely to experience a sexual attraction as adults.

Third, to your second point of there being no benefit to family alliances, you’ve already been kind enough to demonstrate that is wrong, because siblings were married in ancient Egypt for purposes of family alliances and political gain.

Incest taboo is not something I invented yesterday. It is a widely accepted anthropological theory that has been around for a lot longer then I have. If you have anymore confusion on this issue, I suggest you consult Murdock’s book or Edward Westernmark’s writings. Both helped to pioneer the theory of incest taboo and they will explain to you that marriage laws do in fact prohibit certain exogamic or endogamic unions.

Finally, it’s fairly obvious to me that this discussion is probably not going to go anywhere, and I think it’s detracting form the current "Reaver" discussion, so this will be my last post on this subject.

[1] http://www.postadoptioncentre.org.uk/Publications/gsa.htm

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:21 AM

Quote:
Finally, it’s fairly obvious to me that this discussion is probably not going to go anywhere, and I think it’s detracting form the current "Reaver" discussion, so this will be my last post on this subject.

Agreed. All I have to say is that I think that at least one of us (not sure which), if not both of us, has been arguing our points rather poorly and/or reading the other one's poorly. You seem to think you're contradicting some things that I don't think I said. (e.g., I was never arguing that marriage laws universally prohibit marriage of siblings. I was arguing that the prevalence of such marriage laws didn't depend on any explicit understanding of the genetic downsides to inbreeding. And I certainly have given at least one counter-example to the idea that close relatives are always prohibited from marrying: Egyptian royalty.) Whatever. It's late, and I don't care anymore.

Back to your regularly scheduled Reavers.

SHINY

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Siblings were almost universally prohibited from marrying

"That's just not something brothers and sisters do...well, on some planets, but only pretty bad ones..."

Please help Haken keep this site running by occasionally clicking on some of the sponsored ad links on the side of the page!