The premise, Joss's genre playground, and the problem. (slight movie spoiler!))
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 16:17
VIEWED: 9326
PAGE 4 of 4
^^^ Ah! Well I do indulge *chuckle*, and here is where I loose my mind when it comes to more academic pursuits - a lack of understanding what it intales. See kids? A lack of education can make you look like a fool online! Don't be like Ghoulman... go to school!
At least this thread has been a revelation for me in that regard. 
Sooo what I had done is reductionism?
Quote:
HKCAVALIER wrote:
A deconstructionist view of Firefly would prolly talk about America at the turn of the 21st century. It would prolly talk about the shows post-watergate mistrust of governance, the marginalization of old-style conservatism in the multi-national corporate culture of the post-modern age, it might even go after Firefly as a reprehensible exercise in revisionist nostalgia for the culture of the pre-war south, efacing as it does the bitter reality of the "peculiar institution."
Nicely done. Loved your points here.
Quote:
HKCAVALIER also wrote:
A deconstructionist would argue that the forms which concern you so are not what makes people love the show, for instance. If they were, then any western or space western would be popular. Deconstruction tells us that the show is popular or loved because it fills the emotional needs of its viewers by supporting their prejudices and justifying their sense of entitlement.
Hmm. Is this where deconstruction tends to skew when it comes to what deconstruction should accomplish? Surely it's not just what people perceive or enjoy about a work of Art but also what isn't perceived? Especially in a hindsight view of the cultural context of the work?
Or am I just boring everyone now?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, neither Ghoulman nor HKCavalier is doing a deconstructionist reading of Firefly. Ghoulman is doing a structuralist analysis and HK is doing a cultural and ideological critique. The true deconstructionist in the thread is River, with her comments on the gun. In fact, OIS is in some ways a duel between two deconstructionists, River and Early.
Deconstruction has as its main purpose the denial of ascertainable meaning and can always take a given sentence or a given work of art and show that its apparent meaning is not its meaning at all. It always begins at the level of language, of word choice, syntax and grammar. (I'm a university English professor, and they pay me to know the difference among these different critical methodologies.)
To spare everyone a pages long essay, as an example of the method at work, I'll deconstruct one pithy line from the show, say "I'll be in my bunk.": The context of this remark causes the viewer to make the assumption that Jayne is retiring to the privacy of his bedroom in order to masturbate. But what does the statement actually tell us? Jayne is announcing the place in which he will exist. He will "be" in his bunk. The word "bunk" refers not only to a certain sort of bed, but also designates something that is untrue and fraudulent. Moreover, the common idiom "in my bed," which Jayne semantically alters to "in my bunk," misrepresents the relationship of man and bunk. One lies on a bed or bunk, not in it. The use of "in" implies a blurring of the distinction between man and bunk, and the double meaning of bunk thus has Jayne announcing that his existence, his being, is bunk. In other words, Jayne suffers from a false consciousness and does not have a true self or being. While Jayne apparently asserts himself as dominated by the heterosexual hyper-masculinity he projects to others, the statement actually reveals the emptiness and indeterminacy of his internalized self image.
. . .Which of course sounds pretty much like bunk in quite another way, doesn't it? 
So by all means keep up the fascinating analyses. I'd strongly caution anyone to stay far away from truly deconstructing Firefly, however. It's never very illuminating.
Cardie
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Cardie,
That's so funny! You are absolutely correct. I kinda blocked all that real deconstruction out of my mind and replaced it with this kinda neo-historicist psychoanalysis of the text. "The denial of ascertainable meaning." Does that ever take me back! Bunk is right. That "purpose" is wholely nehilistic. It serves no one but the deconstructionist's ego (which doesn't exist, either, btw). I hate the real deconstruction! I'll take my marxist/feminist fakey kind any day of the week! I now intend to retire to my futon and choke the chicken, fer cryin' out loud!
Anyway, now that that's been cleared up, I've been thinking about this toning down of the western in the new movie and I don't get it. First of all, they can't be talking about changing the way the characters speak, right? You might as well recast the whole thing, if you're silly enough to do that. But if they don't change the way the characters talk, and they go ahead and change all the western settings to cool futuristical high tech enviros then the cast is gonna sound like a bunch of hicks for no reason. I sure hope the "toning down" is gonna be of the kind that only diehard fans would even notice. Like giving Wash a cool futuristic jumper to wear.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sometimes I scare myself that I can just make up that stuff at a moment's notice! Thank heavens deconstruction has more or less played itself out in academia. It had to, as its whole purpose was always to wind up nowhere, and, as you said, that sort of nihilism doesn't go very far!
As for the "toning down," I'm just assuming that this will be a bit more like "Ariel" than like "Heart of Gold," but that the dual high tech core/low tech rim contrast will be preserved.
Cardie
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Cardie:
Actually, neither Ghoulman nor HKCavalier is doing a deconstructionist reading of Firefly. Ghoulman is doing a structuralist analysis and HK is doing a cultural and ideological critique. The true deconstructionist in the thread is River, with her comments on the gun. In fact, OIS is in some ways a duel between two deconstructionists, River and Early.
Oh, wish I had more time...
Thanx! It's a real pleasure to have you comment.
And your take that River and Early were battling deconstructionists really strikes me. As I said I noticed this dynamic as well (even if I didn't undersand, er, comprehend, er... anyho'). Truly it's shows like this that are consistantly ignored by the Emmy people thus proving the brilliance. 
Quote:
SNIP!
. . .Which of course sounds pretty much like bunk in quite another way, doesn't it?
Really? How odd. Somehow I was under the impression a deconstructionist was looking for the basic meaning (basic truth). But I see this is still structuralist now. I think. You know, it looked bigger when I couldn't see 'em.
Quote:
HKCAVALIER wrote:
Anyway, now that that's been cleared up, I've been thinking about this toning down of the western in the new movie and I don't get it. First of all, they can't be talking about changing the way the characters speak, right? You might as well recast the whole thing, if you're silly enough to do that. But if they don't change the way the characters talk, and they go ahead and change all the western settings to cool futuristical high tech enviros then the cast is gonna sound like a bunch of hicks for no reason. I sure hope the "toning down" is gonna be of the kind that only diehard fans would even notice. Like giving Wash a cool futuristic jumper to wear.
Can't say I disagree with this. Gotta say that, to me, the Western premise is really great given the other elements added to give the show the feeling of a truly futuristic Western setting. Surely it need not be skewed to satisfy any perceived problem as there isn't one. Right? Gorram right!
After all, if the setting felt like bullplop it wouldn't matter what the details of it were. You know, the new Star Wars movies have terribley cartoony settings and social structures (and rather fascistic). Compared to this Firefly seems like the real thing.
One big thing I love about Fireflys' setting is that there are actually living poor. Not the peasants we are used to seeing in Hollywoodland stuff.
Quote:
CARDIE
Sometimes I scare myself that I can just make up that stuff at a moment's notice! Thank heavens deconstruction has more or less played itself out in academia. It had to, as its whole purpose was always to wind up nowhere, and, as you said, that sort of nihilism doesn't go very far!
Well I for one thank you for it!
Quote:Here here.
As for the "toning down," I'm just assuming that this will be a bit more like "Ariel" than like "Heart of Gold," but that the dual high tech core/low tech rim contrast will be preserved.
Gotta bail. Thanks again!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME