Several things I noticed about FF's "verse"
POSTED BY: Allronix
UPDATED: Monday, December 30, 2002 14:48
VIEWED: 10617
PAGE 1 of 4
Aside from fanfic, most of my reading is nonfiction...politics, history, religion...spice it with the odd L'Amour or McCaffery.
(Yes, I'm a fan of both, and the combination -Firefly's first selling point for me)
This is modified from something I posted in the "Necropsy" threads now on Troll Country. I've made some observations about the series (so far?)...
VIOLENCE
I appreciate that these folks had the balls to play it straight with the violence. You can't believe how gorram SICK I am with the Matrix-style acrobatics and slo-mo. Seems everyone's got in in their heads it's necessary.
This is why I appreciated "War Stories." It didn't blink, didn't demurely cut away, didn't do some "stylish" trick. It just sat there and let us see our heroes writhe in agony, and us with 'em.
It's not the Matrix where the characters behave like it's a giant video game and they have cheat codes. It's not some Tarantino flick where the bar explodes in a gunfight while Bee Gees plays in the background and the characters walk out talking about dry cleaners for their bloodstained suits.
It's a Western, and the best part about several post-1970 Westerns is that they aren't as clear cut and they tend to get fucking brutal. Take "The Man With No Name" series, Young Guns, Glory, Unforgiven, Tombstone...
GENDER ROLES:
Something else that disturbs me. It would seem that among the very rich and the very poor, the status of women has gone back to the bad old days.
Working-class women like Zoë and Kaylee have more freedom, but look at Shindig with the upper-class women - placid arm ornaments, trophy wives...their only concern is to land a rich man, look good on his arm, and whelp his heirs. "Safe" added fuel to that speculation when Daddy Tam brushed off any notion of River's future...years before the Academy came into the picture. His SON was to be the family pride, his daughter didn't appear to matter.
I had a bad feeling that marriages in the upper class take the form of business arrangements or corporate mergers. In situations like that, a "geisha" like Inara would be a valuable service - a respite from commerce both domestic and social. In addition to providing sex, she is also a cultured and educated woman, probably trained in psychology, music, dance, history, literature...After all that, she's too valuable to "waste" on being a trophy wife. Becoming a rent-a-mistress may have been the only way she'd be able to see the galaxy, get an education, and have some autonomy.
Among the poor, it's a little more blunt. It's "barefoot and pregnant" all over again - back to doing unpaid domestic labor and working the fields while being breeding stock for the colony. Like the American West, women might not be as plentiful on the borders, so they become commodities again. Bought, sold, traded, bred...you get the idea.
Again, the crew of Serenity seems to be examples to the contrary.
ALLIANCE:
The Alliance does show signs of collapsing. Armies are stretched thin, certainly there aren't enough to terrorize the citizens into silence like they appear to want. Reavers are making inroads. The Core is dependent on the Colonies for raw material and labor, but can't make it worth their while to be loyal the Alliance or share in the prosperity. (hell, there's doesn't seem to be the illusion of prosperity that makes American colonialism so effective). Corruption abounds, and we don't know if there are problems on the Core that we don't see.
The FIRST Independence revolt may not be the last.
------------------------------------
OTOH, I am a leftist (not a liberal...I will actually fight back), an idealist, and believe that the last thing we need in this society is more jaded nihilism, fashionable irony, and defeatist apathy. As a good many GunFen will tell you, the fact that "our boys" were killed in "Jump the Shark" wasn't what pissed us off the most - what pissed us off was the opening monologue about how "good guys always lose," and the heavy-handed hopelessness that pervaded the ep - including a pessimis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Allronix makes some fascinating points, particularly about the status of women. Inara's station in life seem inspired by the classical Greek hetairai -- the flute-girls who provided intelligent conversation as well as sex for Greek men who treated their wives like possessions and kept them uneducated (except for memorizing Homer) and unskilled.
Also hadn't noticed that the throaway line about "[The reavers are] pushing out fartther all the time" in the 2-hr piot suggestsx the Alliance is stretched wayyyy to thin. If true, that could have opened up a seriously interesting plot thread in Firefly.
The big question, to my mind, is: does the Alliance know what's going with River? Are the guys with blue gloves officially sanctioned? OR are they a rogue black ops unit? If they've got clearance from the ighest levels and official comlicity, then the Alliance has got to go 'cause it's The Fourth Reich. I mean, we're talkin' Josef Mengele stuff here.
On the other hand, if the blue glove boys did not have official clearance for their torture-experiments on River, then the possibility exists for reforming the Alliance from within.
That would also offer an interesting plot thread. Suppose, after Simon and River expose the blue-glove boys, Alliance brass gave Mal & his crew carte blanche to root out other rottenness in the post-civil-war 'verse?
Several other aspects of the Firefly 'verse that particularly struck me as innovative:
[1] Firefly has no weapons! And no force fields! This is a real breakthrough for ship-based film or TV science ficiton. None of that hackneyed ridiculous "the shields are holding" or "fire main phasers" stuff. Once again, as in the real world, if someone shoot at 'em, they die. No magic force fields. No fairy-tale energy screens. No press-a-button-and-we're-all-safe nonsense.
That was a daring decision on Joss Whedon's part and I strongly applaud it. Giving Firefly no weapons creates a lot more tension and many more plot possibilites, IMHO. Mal can't just tsnd there with his shields up and thumb his nose at the bad guys. Without weapons and without forcefields, the crew of Serentiy has to _engage_ the enemy.
[2] The deliberately huge contrast between the Core systems and the outlying worlds. Was this Joss Whedon's way of commenting on the currently immense gap twixt life in the Third World and in rich developed countries here on earth? If so, works great. Seeing Mal & company going from a super-rich Core system city to a dirt-poor rim world really hits you in the face with the obscene gap twixt rich and poor on our planet. Reminds you of the shocking fact that 50% of the people on earth live and die without ever seeing anything as hi-tech as a telephone. Some 60% of the population of our planet survives on an annual income of less than $100 U.S.
Firefly deserves high praise for being socially conscious in that regard. Like Roddenberry Trek, Firefly seems to have had strong elements of this kind of social commentary -- a pity the show didn't last long enough to devcelop more on this theme.
One of my favorite scenes in the show occurred when Kaylee is rooting around the junk pile near the hospital. Her eyes glow as she finds valuabel ship comenents the rich folks on that planet have just thrown out. Great stuff! When was the last time we saw anything like _that_ on TV science fiction? Hey..on TV period?
[3] The not-so-subtle contrast between the decency of the dirt poor ordinary folks like Mal and Zoe (with the exception of the townspeople in "Safe") and the cruelty and ice-cold creepiness of all the high-class folks on the wealthy Core systems (particularly Simon and River's creepy parents). I've noticed that on TV and in the movies over the last 20 years in America, the heroes seem increasingly to be rich guys. That's distinctly un-American, since for most of American history the villains and butts of the jokes have traditionally been rich folks while the heroes have been average folks. Check your Mark Twain for examples aplenty. Th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You could even go as far to say that the crew are Anarchists, it is nice to see Anarchism portrayed in a way that is true to its real message, co-operation, personal autonomy, and volentary association.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wouldn't go so far as to call the crew anarchists. Mal and Zoe fought for a different government than the Alliance, so they do feel there is a place for government--just not the Alliance's government. Inara openly supported unification, and the Shepherd is more concerned with The Lord,I think, than with toppling the powers that be. Jayne on the other hand...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by xed:
Firefly offers a welcome return to that American tradition. After the grotesque abberrant period in the 80s and 90s where we made heroes out of CEOs who turned out to be corrupt thieves, Firefly's portrayal of ordinary dirt-poor folks like Mal and Zoe and Kaylee as heroes and all the rich guys in the Core systems as corrupt crooks is refreshing... At least to me. If I see another billioniare on the cover of TIME magainze being praised to the skies, I think I'm gonna puke.
I'm not so sure I'd call it an American tradition. After all, stories making heros out of the poor and portraying the rich as evil come from the old world.
In fact, the formation of a majority middle class in the US, is the reason that many stories that take place in modern times (say, post 1950 US) don't necessarily link wealth to hero status. Heros can be rich or poor, so can the bad guys.
But with Firefly, gone is the "pure" democracy and capitalism that has made the US the most powerful nation on Earth. Gone is the ideal that all men are created equal. And with that I assume we can say that the World has taken a step backward to the times when money and power weren't created, they were stolen.
Joss has made a powerful statement to compare our current situation with this potential future.
As for your other statements... not quite sure what you have against the wealthy. I suppose each person has their own experiences and we can all become jaded when we learn of someone becoming successful in an unethical manner. But, I'm constantly impressed with the creation of wealth in the U.S. How over half of our millionaires weren't born rich, but made their own wealth. To me, it's proof that in the U.S., anyone can make it.
GatorMarc
Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But, I'm constantly impressed with the creation of wealth in the U.S. How over half of our millionaires weren't born rich, but made their own wealth. To me, it's proof that in the U.S., anyone can make it
This belief, in my mind, is actually what is ruining the U.S. There may have been a time when "anyone could make it" big in this country, but short of the occasional janitor winning the lottery, those days are long gone.
The wealthy have their money and, understanding what a finite resource it is, have no plans on sharing it with anyone. For most the dream of wealth is just that, a dream. It's the carrot at the end of the stick that keeps us all from noticing our whole lives we've been fighting over the scraps left by the uber wealthy.
Soon we will have the world's first trillionaire. It'll make the front pages and some will look upon this individual as some kind of genius or hero. I guarantee you on that day, the world's poverty level will reach an all time high as well. You might see that article on page 16. The massive wealth of the few and the poverty of the many are permanently intertwined.
Despite all this, I don't have any real problem with some people being richer than others. That is after we've guaranteed everybody has the following: Food, a roof over their head, healthcare, access to a decent education. After all of this is achieved and cannot be interfered with in any way, then let the rich be the rich.
mattro
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
This belief, in my mind, is actually what is ruining the U.S. There may have been a time when "anyone could make it" big in this country, but short of the occasional janitor winning the lottery, those days are long gone.
That is absolutely incorrect... just the fact that half of our millionaires as I mentioned above, are first generation is proof of that.
Quote:
The wealthy have their money and, understanding what a finite resource it is, have no plans on sharing it with anyone. For most the dream of wealth is just that, a dream. It's the carrot at the end of the stick that keeps us all from noticing our whole lives we've been fighting over the scraps left by the uber wealthy.
There is no doubt that "old-money" still exists, however, today, like no other time in the history of the world, they are being outnumbered by new money. And of course, without some financial planning, "old-money" gets depleted too.
Quote:
Soon we will have the world's first trillionaire. It'll make the front pages and some will look upon this individual as some kind of genius or hero.
How soon do you think that will be? The current richest man is more than a magnitude away from that.
Quote:
I guarantee you on that day, the world's poverty level will reach an all time high as well. You might see that article on page 16. The massive wealth of the few and the poverty of the many are permanently intertwined.
But that isn't reality. Less people live in poverty than every before... less people are starving than ever before... and more people are wealthy than ever before!
It is part of the litany of socialism that we are on a downward trend when reality shows the exact opposite.
Quote:
Despite all this, I don't have any real problem with some people being richer than others. That is after we've guaranteed everybody has the following: Food, a roof over their head, healthcare, access to a decent education. After all of this is achieved and cannot be interfered with in any way, then let the rich be the rich.
I think the problem is you feel that the two are mutually exclusive. Wealth is not a finite entity that must be spread out (take from the rich to give to the poor). The creation of wealth has played a huge role in creating bare minimums for the poor that were unheard of 100 or 200 years ago.
GatorMarc
Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gatormarc makes what seems to me an excellent point about how Joss Whedon draws some harsh comparisons twixt the Firefly 'verse and today's America.
Chances are we're not gonna resolve the F. A. Hayek laissez faire vs. J. K. Galbraith social responsibility debate anytime soon, 'specially as regards the last 20 years in America.
However, regardless which way ya slice it, the stats do seem to show a drastic increase in the gap twixt poorest & richest quintile in America from 1973 to now. (You could argue that is due to the fact that the 1945-to-1973 period was bizarre because all the other industrialized nations had been blown up by WW II, leaving America to supply 50% of the world's GDP -- or you could argue as Ralph Nader does that it's due to the corrupting power of concentrated modern monopolies, but that's neither here not there as regards the point in question.) Irrespective of _why_ it happened, this massive gap twixt top and bottom quintiles today is historically more typical of most of American history. Some of us believe that's a bad thing, others (the Hayek "Road To Serfdom" crowd) will doubtless find it spiffy.
But if your point is that Joss seems to be poking us in the eye with the social consequences of this wealth gap in America today, that seems to be true. I'd noticed it but hadn't given it much thought until you mentioned it.
BTW, I don't have anything against rich people in America per se as long as they didn't start their fortunes with some heinous crime. Sadly, all too many of 'em did. (Specific examples include BASF, Bayrische Analine Soda Fabrik, which made a fortune manufacturing hideously mustard gas and chlorine gas weapons for the Kaiser in WW I. And then there's the Bush family fortune...kick-started when George Herbert Walker Bush's dad laundered money for the Nazi munitions firm Thysen so their war profiteering assets couldn't be seized when the Allies won. G. H. W. Bush's dad received a hefty bribe in 1945 in payment for his little side job of Nazi money laundering.) Of course there remain the Bill Gateses and the Sam Waltons of America, and they deserve nothing but praise. Recently, however, for every Sam Walton we seem to have 2 Jeff Skillings crawling out of the woodwork. If you want the skinny on why, check out Kevin Philips' latest book "Wealth and Democracy." The charts are fairly eye-popping. He ain't no bleeding-heart lib-er-al, neither; Philips a long-time hard-core coservative from way back... So if Kevin Philips is bugged by this wealth gap, there just might some social pathology behind it.
Anyhoo, Joss' social commentary on America's backslide into an earlier era of Social Darwinist wealth gap offers another reason why I miss Firefly so much. Most prime-time TV shows seem to assume everyone is doing great, living in cushy zillion-dollar apartments and half-million-dollar homes, yet with no visible means of support. (Eactly how *do* the people in Friends afford their deluxe living quarters, pray tell...? For that matter, there's the nagging issue of how Buffy manages to keep up property tax payments on her mom's house in one of the highest-priced real estate areas on the planet even though she doesn't seem to actually have much a job. Unless you count that stint in the burger place where the demon tried to eat her... Do the math as I may, still can't figure how Buffy provides food on the table plus health insurance plus property taxes plus car insurance plus school supplies plus tuition plus water & electric bills for a 4-bedroom house, all on minimum wage in a fast food burger joint.)
I don't think I have yet seen a prime-time TV show centered around a working family that has to live in a trailer 'cause they can't afford rent on apartments in the city where they work. Rings of such working-calss poor people surround all America's major cities today. We have yet to see one (1) on series TV. Such working poor families subsist in trailers or vans or even cardboard boxes, and rings these families surround most of America's major cities today. In Brazil the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
XED,
While discussing the wealth gap, many people get lost in the stats and fail to see the whole picture.
It's that old example of which society is better off:
Society 1:
The poorest individual makes $20,000
The richest individual makes $100,000
Society 2:
The poorest individual makes $30,000
The richest individual makes $300,000
Those that just look at the gap would actually claim that Society 1 is better off than Society 2, despite the fact that everyone in Society 2 is better off than their counterparts in Society 1.
GatorMarc
Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Excellent point about statistics, Gatormac. You've convincingly made the case that stats alone don't tell us much pro or con a society. However, many lines of evidence converge on theconclusion that the neo-con economic delusions of the 80s and 90s are now dead as a doornail.
You'll notice I mentioned a lot more than stats. I didn't see you trying to rebut Barbara Ehrenreich's points, probably because they can't be rebutted. Ditto Lester Thurow's remarks on the laissez faire extremists, and on general economic trends over the last 30 years.
The recent rash of CEO crime and corporate corruption and the immense impoverishment of the general public in the resulting stock market collapse has put the permanent lie to the always-kooky claims of the neo-cons that "if we only unleash the free market, life will improve for everyone." Despite that glaringly obvious reality, it's startling that people continue toe parrot the Hayek neo-con line as though Enron and Tyco and Worldcom never happened...as though the general public didn't lose trillions, while the corporate CEOs made trillions.
Another way of phrasing that intellectrually bankrupt neo-con argument is "A rising tide lifts all boats." We now know that's just not true. Since John Kennedy uttered those words in his 1961 inaugural speech, the U.S. real per capita GDP rose 36% from 1973 to 1995, but the real wages of the vast majority of the workforce fell 14%. The tide rose, and 2/3 of the boats sank.
The exact statistics don't matter. What counts is the overall trend, which cannot be argued out of existence no matter how hard the Chicago School of economics kooks try.
Lester Thruow, dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management, has talked about these social trends in detail. Forget about stats. Just look around -- you'll see a lot more homeless people on the streets than 30 years ago. We didn't see that prior to the election of the senile unindicted co-conspirator Reagan and his den-of-thieves administration (by far the most corrupt in American history, if you count number of per capita indictments). And what was the single most notable economic policy of the should've-been-impeached criminal Reagan? Vastly lowering taxes on the top quintile while immensely raising taxes on the lowest quintile (by enormously raising the FICA tax).
Sadly, examples like the senile criminal Reagan's administration and the recent vast improverishment of the public in the stock market swindles of hte 90s prove that when we unleash the power of the free market by removing all gummint oversight, the only thing that happens is that robber barons run amok. Of course American history teaches us this same sobering fact, so we shouldn't be surprised.
The free market works best if it's not completely free. Some external oversight is needed. The neo-cons who claim otherwise are stooges for corporate thieves who merely view society as a giant jewelry store window to smash-and-grab.
The extreme liberals who advocate massive amounts of social control are equally delusional. History shows extreme social bureaucracy doesn't work in combatting poverty, illegitimate birth, etc.
Bottom line?
Both the extreme laissez faire supply side wackos AND the fringe lunatics of the extreme left who think it's a great idea to shut down dams to save snail darters are advocating social schemes that just don't work. Reality is more complicated. The Chicago School of Economics headed by Milton Friedman and the Rational Economics clique headed by Riker have both made fools of themselves with pervasively false economic predictions and crackpot economic schemes that don't even pass cursory scrutiny by a small child.
The startling fact that these lunatifc fringe extreme laissez faire elements of economic theory have managed to capture the policy-making apparatus in Washington spells real trouble, and we're living through the ugly consequences right now. As a result I predict a populist bakclash in America, and soon.
The constant mindless mantra by the neo-cons "reduce capital g
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME