Book Review: Finding Serenity
Finding Serenity: Anti-Heroes, Lost Shepherds, and Space Hookers in Joss Whedon's 'Firefly'
Edited by Jane Espenson
'Introduction' by Jane Espenson
This is a pretty standard intro: the genesis of Firefly as Jane Espenson remembers it, since she worked very closely with Joss on Buffy. I have to admit, when Jane made a Marti Noxon/Zoe comparison, I did cringe a little, because as I see it, sappy melodrama and kickass warrior goddesses have very little in common. Sure, Marti was Joss's executive producer, but she's also responsible for the pussification of Spike and the painful drug metaphor anvils of season six. So, um. Yeah. All in all, this is a nice little setup piece tempered with personal memories from the set. Good stuff.
'The Reward, the Details, the Devils, the Due' by Larry Dixon
This article fell more towards the fannish side than the academic, but it's one of the most readable and interesting, nonetheless. Larry Dixon worked on the sets of the show, and he has some interesting things to point out that make complete sense, but that I never consciously picked up on. For instance, the brown leather of Mal & Zoe's clothing isn't only a Browncoats reference, but it serves to tie them into the color schemes of the ship. Also, early shots of Simon were almost always off-center to unsettle the viewer, and to convey the mistiness of Simon's intentions. These visual cues tell parts of the story while saving verbal exposition time. Dixon's prose is conversational and insightful. A lot of detail went into this article.
'The Heirs of Sawney Beane' by Lawrence Watt-Evans
This book was published before Serenity came out in theaters, so this article is slightly outdated. It postulates on the origins of the Reavers, citing real-life cases of extreme circumstance leading to cannibalism (like the Donner party) and the Scottish legend of Sawney Beane. It uses the psychological theories behind the Stockholm Syndrome idea to explain the "survivor"-turned-Reaver in 'Bushwhacked,' and wonders about the workings of a Reaver society. Serenity has since answered the Reaver genesis question, but there is still much to think about-- do they reproduce? How do they survive so near to unshielded reactors? Who's flying the ships?
'Asian Objects in Space' by Leigh Adams Wright
The main function of this article is to question whether or not the Asian elements of Firefly act as a simple glaze of exoticism to add flavor, much like the imperialistic Brits exploiting India's culture at the turn of the 20th century. If there was a Anglo-Sino alliance, why, then do we never visit a primarily Asian planet? Why are there no Asian main characters?
Wright describes how the show often abstracts and blends elements of Asian culture in a way that strips it of meaning, and she worries that "using [Asian culture] in this manner, as exotic, as a future fantasy and not as a contemporary reality, is damaging to attempts at multiculturalism now." I think that point is valid if the show were to continue in the same mold as the first 13 episodes, but I think (and Wright concedes) that judgement might be premature, considering the show was cancelled before its time. The show very much could have taken on more Asian culture and gone more in-depth, but was simply pulled off air too soon to tell. For instance, in the shooting script for the episode 'Serenity,' one of the ships at the Eavesdown Docks had a no-Asian, no-Catholic boarding policy. This is really interesting, and there's a lot of exploration that could have been done with that tidbit were the show given enough time to develop it.
'The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Firefly' by Glenn Yeffeth
A hysterical parody in the form of emails from "Early 'Nutcrusher' Jubal, Vice President, Fox Programming" to Joss Whedon, detailing all of the changes that Fox wanted made.
"Rule #1: Tits
Rule #2: Gratuitous sex
Rule #3: Breasts
Rule #4: Explosions
Rule #5: Washed-up celebrities and/or midgets"
It picks apart Fox's terrible taste in programming (celebrity sumo wrestling, GOP cronyism, etc). My favorite part? "It's pretty clear from your script that the Alliance represents the Democratic Party, in its ongoing efforts to crush state rights and tax us into oblivion. And obviously, Malcolm Reynolds is intended to be George W. Bush. Very nice," followed by pleas to work in a villain named "Heintz Kerry" and make the Reavers evil Muslims. Heh.
Anyway, it's funny, and it points out, through mocking, just how much Fox didn't get the show.
'Who Killed Firefly?' by Ginjer Buchanan
This was kind of a waste. The entire article could be summed up thusly:
"Westerns aren't hot right now. Neither is science fiction. Blending the two was a risky venture. The end."
Instead, it goes on for pages. Pointless.
'"The Train Job" Didn't Do the Job' by Keith R.A. DeCandido
This article runs down a list of reasons why 'The Train Job' was not the most stellar introduction to the 'Verse, including too much exposition, not enough character development, a two-dimensional villain, etc.
However, this is kind of a crappy thing to write an article on for a very specific reason. That reason is this: 'Serenity,' not 'The Train Job,' was meant to introduce viewers to the 'verse. It was a 2-hour episode that sets up the characters, has moral conflict, and does much less verbal exposition. It was designed as an introduction, and, if Fox's programmers weren't all a bunch of morons with attention spans of gnats, it would have served as one. Unfortunately, Fox sucks, so Joss and Tim Minear had 48 hours to come up with a new pilot that was half as long and also met all of Fox's specifications (particularly more action and a plot-driven episode). Understandably, it's not the best choice of introductions, but it's pretty damn good considering the stress and limitations put on it. This article is wholly irrelevant and kind of uninteresting, to boot.
'Serenity and Bobby McGee: Freedom and the Illusion of Freedom in Joss Whedon's Firefly' by Mercedes Lackey
I'll start off by saying that I'm not a Mercedes Lackey fan. I find her fiction interminable. That said, this article kicks ass. It explains the illusion of freedom-- i.e., Mal would see himself as very free as long as he keeps flying, but in reality, he is free because the Alliance lets him be. The strength of this article is pointing out all of the subtle things that go unmentioned, but if we look, we can see are true. For instance, we see in 'Serenity' that the ship gets away not because of any freedom, but because the Alliance does not have enough manpower to effectively police its territory. If the Alliance were to track down Serenity, it would not have much trouble in doing so-- for instance, the man hunting Tracey in 'The Message.' However, the ship is allowed to fly on because its crimes are seen as petty, and the Robin-Hoodiness of the crew acts as a secondary policing-system that keeps the poorer classes from revolt (I am saying this badly, but the article makes it clear).
At any rate, in addition to exposing the illusory freedom of each of the ship's crew (save Zoe and River, who are the most clearsighted on the issue), Lackey postulates that rather than opposing the Alliance, Mal actually does a fair bit to help keep it in power. I found that interesting.
The only thing I questioned is Lackey's lack of citing specific episodes. For instance, she says that the Alliance maintains control by a "combination of internal and external fear... the external fear of the Enemy. No matter how bad things may be inside the Alliance, the Enemy is much worse... the Enemy is capable of every terrible thing." I'd like to see some textual evidence of this. What enemy is she speaking of? The Reavers..? The Alliance dismisses them as myths. The Browncoats, then? They seem too poorly beaten down to be a threat, as evidenced by the man who insults Mal at the beginning of 'The Train Job.' What specific enemy is she referencing here?
'Firefly vs. The Tick' by Don Debrandt
Wacky, zany, kind of funny, but highly irrelevant. Colorful, but lacking in any real meaning. Next.
'We're All Just Floating in Space' by Lyle Zynda
By far, this was the most academic of the articles written for this collection. Lyle Zynda examines the show, particularly 'Objects in Space,' using the lens of nontheistic existentialism. Existentialism is one of those concepts that can be so abstract as to be completely un-graspable. I've read The Stranger, so I get the gist. Deeper than that, though? I'm kind of hazy. Zynda does a wonderful job of explaining existentialism by using comparisons to Sartre's Nausea, which Joss Whedon mentions in the commentary of 'Objects in Space' as being his most important theological influence.
In a nutshell, if we view all objects as just that-- just objects-- then the only meaning they have is the meaning with which we imbue them. For instance, when we a gun, we think 'killing machine.' We do not see the simple object, because we are so blinded by our associations. River, on the other hand, notes its form, its shape-- an object completely divorced from any inherent meaning. Much of the article deals with Jubal Early and River Tam as existentialists, comparing and contrasting the two.
'More Than a Marriage of Convenience' by Michelle Sagara West
A fan essay on why Wash and Zoe work as husband and wife. It points out that unlike shows like Buffy, where the characters are all still forming, Firefly showed a solid, mature relationship free of romantic angst, but one that also did not gloss over the complexities of maintaining said marriage. This essay is not particularly deep, but it deals with my favorite pairing, so I ate it up anyway.
'Thanks for the reenactment, sir' by Tanya Huff
This essay examines the archetypal role of Zoe as Warrior Woman. It was interesting in that it points out that Zoe was neither "neutered" in the way of Scooby Doo's Thelma, nor was she made hyper-feminized and underdressed like Gabrielle on Xena. She is in command of her sexuality without said sexuality being exploited. Also, unlike many of Joss's other female characters, Zoe is not on a search for a sense of self-- she is whole, she already knows who she is.
The article also examines the relationships Zoe has with Mal and with Wash, and her role as warrior. For instance, Zoe does not defer to Mal because she is female, she follows his lead because she views him as her military commander. Even so, Mal values Zoe to the point where she always has her say before they enter the fray. All in all, nothing groundbreaking, but an interesting and complete character study on one of my favorite characters.
'Whores and Goddesses: The Archetypal Domain of Inara Serra' by Joy Davidson
Let me say this: my reaction to this essay came in two parts.
Part one explained that "once upon a time, well before the advent of recorded history, there existed a world that revolved around women. Women were honored as the givers of life, the embodiments of the Great Goddess... and they were the sole tenders of her temples... Priestesses led their tribes in ritual celebrations of Eros through ecstatic union with the divinely feminine life force."
Oh, and "the goddesses of this period, though worshipped in multiple locales under a variety of names, were all related to Kali Ma..."
My 'Fluffy Bunny Wiccan Detector Shield' went up full force, let me tell you. This is such utter, complete BS that I have "NO!" written in my book, circling the errors. I absolutely cannot stand an unresearched, blindly-regurgitated "Matriarchy is Awesome!" argument, because dude, there is no evidence whatsoever of a worldwide, peaceful, matriarchal society. Ever. Ever ever. Furthermore, where were these supposed celebrations held? And how the hell is every goddess ever related to Kali Ma?! Got a source for that? Thought not.
Then came the inevitable "men suck" portion. Davidson writes that "beginning around 3000 B.C.E., hordes of invaders from distant lands began pludering this utopian, matriarchal society, wresting power from womens' hands... slowly subsuming the Goddess under their dominion." This is later referred to as "the first holy holocaust: the annihilation of the divine feminine by the malevolent power-mad invaders."
Or, you know, settlers with a male chief deity who intermingled customs as they searched for resources. But whatever. I'm sure you got that straight out of your "Starhawk's Guide To History." Carry on. In my book, I simply wrote, "oh, shut up."
But you know what's more mind boggling? This entire section is 99.993% irrelevant to the rest of the article!
So, part 2: A discussion of the Grecian heterae class and Japan's geishas, both of which deeply influenced the creation of Inara, a Companion. This makes perfect sense, and, though I cannot boast a knowledge that can confirm its veracity, the information seems at least somewhat relevant.
The real meat of the article comes under the heading "A Woman's Worth," which is a dissection of 'Shindig.' It deconstructs the roles of a Companion versus the role of the woman beneath it. It illuminates Mal's view of Inara-- he is not condescending to Inara, but to the role she plays, for he sees it as selling her worth short. This is why he punches Atherton Wing, because Wing cannot tell the difference between Inara the woman and Inara the paid entertainment.
This article is well worth reading, but trust me, skip the first few pages. Your brain cells will thank you.
'The Captain May Wear The Tight Pants, but it's the Gals Who Make Serenity Soar' by Robert B. Taylor
The gist: Firefly's women are exemplary in that they are strong and defy convention. They come through and save the day where they would stereotypically be damsels in distress. Go them!
Not terribly academic, but it is awash in fan-love and a delight to read, nonetheless.
Point of interest: this essay lists Wash's full name as Jerry Lee "Wash" Warren, where it was established in Serenity as Hoban "Wash" Washburne. I went WTF? Then I heard Mal call Wash "Jerry Lee" in 'Our Mrs. Reynolds.' I wonder what that was about? Also, the official Serenity magazine referred to Zoe both as "Zoe Warren" and "Zoe Alleyne Washburne." The official site goes with the latter.
** edit. Via
settiai:: "Actually, he said "Nice work, Kaylee." A lot of online transcripts have it wrong, but I just watched the scene on my DVDs with the subtitles to make certain. If I'm not mistaken, the author of that particular essay admitted that they found the name somewhere online and went with it -- and, when they found out it was wrong, they were surprised that it slipped through."
'I Want Your Sex: Gender and Power in Joss Whedon's Dystopian Future World' by Nancy Holder, who sucks
In essence, the women of Firefly are empowered, but not empowered enough. This show should be all about a feminist utopia, after all.
Highlights, since it made my brain hurt:
Page 142 contains Holder positing that Firefly cannot have any strong female characters because it is a Western, an Westerns are all about male power. The rest of this article seems to stretch to accommodate this flawed point.
Page 145-- the fact that Wash says that people don't get him and Zoe is "the end of Zoe's machisima, and the crash an burn of Joss' strafing run on stereotypical male-female power issues." Um. How? Just because something is atypical does not make it invalid. In this case, it makes it exemplary.
Page 146 features a long, random dialogue about The Princess Diaries in which Holder rants on girl-empowering movies that teach young girls that they're every bit as smart and worthy of respect as boys. Why? Because young girls should just know it in the first place!
Newsflash, Nancy. Most of the girls of America (and even more of girls of the world) were not raised by feminists. The news is still getting out that the genders are equal, and that's because we don't live in a utopian society. Movies that empower girls are part of the message. Maybe in 50 years, your preaching will have a point, but right now, those movies have an important purpose. Blame the culture for inequality, not the movie that is seeking to address said inequality. And in the meanwhile, get back to Firefly.
Also, "Zoe is like unto the princess, except that she does have to get married to rule her kingdom." OMG. WTF. BBQ. CRACK. I cannot comprehend this wild twist of logic. Maybe Zoe married Wash because *gasp* she loves him?! Die, Nancy Holder. Die a lot.
There's also some serious lack of sense of humor wherein Nancy picks apart the "take me sir, take me hard" gag of 'War Stories' as evidence that Zoe is allowing Mal to "give" her back to Wash, her husband. My brain broke at this point.
Page 148-- Dear Nancy, the reason why Patience isn't all beautiful and glowy is because there's no moisturizer in the desert. Get off it.
Page 149-150. It is anti-woman that Wash said "some people juggle geese" in response to the marriage customs of Saffron's people, rather than "remember that planet we visited where three fourteen-year-old-boys all wanted Kaylee to allow them to please her?" Point A: Ew. Point B: So fucking what? Firefly portrayed a flawed, real universe, NOT a utopia, let alone a feminist one.
P.S.-- Have you seen 'Our Mrs. Reynolds'? Remember that nifty little speech about how women shouldn't be all meek and beholden and all that? You're not property and quit your sniveling and be like a woman is? That was feminism. Equality. Malcolm Reynolds is a feminist!
Page 150-- "Mal equated succumbing to Saffron's sexual invitations as a loss of power, with which he is preoccupied." Then, "Women may find each other beautiful, but power is to be found when a man deems a woman beautiful." In the same paragraph. This is very, very sloppy. There's also some commentary that "it is more valuable to be seen as beautiful enough to be raped than to be seen as ugly enough to be spared," which is too wrong and unfounded for me to even contemplate.
Page 151-- River is sexless, which diminishes her. However, Inara is very sexual, which of course makes her an exploited sex toy. This diminishes her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, apparently.
Page 151-- "So, in some measure, Joss needed to adhere to the Code of the West: pretty little girls and big strong men; villains, heroes, and damsels in distress." Ahem. Hello. Zoe.
The rest of the article is spent backpedaling and completely unraveling the previous pages-- Kaylee could have easily been cast as a man, but she wasn't. She eventually gets to "and while the gender-power subtext of Firefly may be rooted in past and current inequalities, Joss has, once again, pushed things forward." (page 152). This should have been the thesis, point blank.
And the final line: "But I, the mother of a young girl who only recently learned that some people think princesses are only good for marrying princes, cannot help my disappointment that on Firefly, it is really cooler to be a boy."
My response? You are profoundly stupid. Also, your novels suck.
'Jush Shove Him in the Engine, or The Role of Chivalry in Joss Whedon's Firefly' by John C. Wright
I retitled this essay. In my book, it is:
'Jush Shove Him in the Engine, or The Role of Chivalry (As I Define It, Which Is Not Necessarily The Actual Definition) in Joss Whedon's Firefly' by John C. Wright, a Verbose Moron
To start: The one point in this entire sodding article that I found myself nodding to is the concept that combining a sci-fi show with a western may produce what he terms "incompatible protocols." These genres do largely follow completely different concepts/models of society, as he points out-- westerns being largely manly-men-pwotect-the-widdle-wimminzes, and sci-fi being largely egalitarian.
Now for my real reaction. Jane Espenson hated this article. It made her punch upholstery. I see why, because I had the same exact reaction, and I pity Skyler for having to sit through my multiple, frazzled explanations of "What a fucking chauvinistic ass!"
This article is condescending and biased in the extreme. For instance: "Chivalry is a concept unpopular with delicate modern sensibilities; it is a concept by its nature alien to the genre of science fiction. On the other hand, showing men of honor who abide by a Code of the West is a natural and graceful element of the western. The code is typically American..."
[Emphasis mine.]
Okay, so right off the bat, you are a wussy. Also, you cannot be chivalrous if you have a vagina or are not American. I will concede that women do not play into the concept of classical chivalry, and if he had stated that this article is founded upon such, I would have little cause for quarrel. However, as you will see, Wright's definition of chivalry is much much narrower than you'd expect from any other definition you've likely encountered.
Chivalry, he posits, "is a concept unique to the Christian era." Classical chivalry, yes. Chivalry as we've come to know it, no. Have you ever seen a samurai flick, dude? He goes on to say that this chivalry is much like a soldier returning home from war-- one can only be chivalrous if he is effectively a lion on the battlefield and a lamb at home. "In the pagan world, however, greatness had no such bipolarity." Achilles was teh evol, you see. Ulysses was humiliated, not humble.
I circled those words. In Wright's limited view, Christians = good. Pagan = bad. Pagan =/= chivalrous or honorable. Gotcha.
A few pages later, he explains what he sees as a flaw in the sci-fi outlook-- that women and men are essentially equals at home, in the workforce, and most relevantly, on the battlefield. Men in sf are trained to face combat without the "masculine warrior mystique, without a sense of that mysterious thing called masculine honor, and trained to regard exposing young women to the rigors of war..."
You see, honor is not gender neutral. You must have masculine honor to be effective in battle, and of course, men are much better prepared for experiencing the outright atrocities of war.
This is chauvinism, not founded in any sort of fact.
Jumping around, then he says that "Science fiction is about what changes, not about what stays the same." You know, because Joss hasn't said numerous times that this little show called Firefly is all about what stays the same, because no matter the time period, people will be people.
Wright also implies that sf disdains the ordinariness of man-woman relationships. Zoe and Wash interest me plenty, thanks.
Okay, I could dissect this more, since this article is all scribbled on. I'll just give you the highlights of dumbassitude. All emphasis is mine.
Page 162.
--The Old West calls for chastity. WTmother-effingF!?
--Wash must have a gun in order to be considered chivalrous. Zoe is not chivalrous because she has a vagina.
--"A man can be brave without being chivalrous in the specific way I have defined it here: fearsome in battle and meek at home" An outright statement that we're not talking about chivalry, but a limited and biased view of it.
--Therefore Simon cannot be chivalrous-- he is not violent.
--Regarding the haziness of Shepherd Book's religious sect: "Note that the religion of the "shepherds" is nowhere specifically defined. Only ax-murderers are allowed to be portrayed as Christian these days. Delicate modern sensibilities find only Eastern mysticism inoffensive." What. An. Asshole.
--Shepherd book's age makes him "noncombatant." Nevermind his proclivity for hand-to-hand combat and the fact that he can take somebody out, unseen, in a matter of seconds.
Page 163.
--"The thing to notice here is that any of these characters could have been translated into western archetypes with fairly little change... none of the womenfolk, however, belong in a western." Okay, so no women (unless they need protecting!), and cardboard cutouts. Check. Fucktard.
--"The whole point of having a gorgeous woman in the sidekick and combat-buddy role is to make the point that things in the future will not be as they are now and might actually be a lot rougher than they are now." I. I can't even touch this one. Okay, Bill O'Reilly.
--Dumbass gets an episode wrong. He says that River shoots the guards in "Ariel." My suspicions that he's never watched the show may be founded.
Page 164.
--Mal's concern for Inara is foolish. He should not try to protect her honor ("whatever the honor of a harlot might consist of").
--The implication that Wash took Zoe's place in 'War Stories' to save her from harm. It wasn't about safeguarding his wife, idiot. It was about Wash being upset that he had nothing to do with Zoe's bond to Mal. It was about conflicting Captain/Lieutenant vs. Husband/Wife relationships. Did you even watch the show?! The whole point ist that Wash is not a soldier. Zoe is, and she knows how to handle herself. And that's okay.
Page 165.
--Wright disdains that there "seems to be no evidence of a 'code' guiding Captain Mal's actions,' then in the same paragraph, says that "Captain Mal is noble enough not to have a thief's code of honor," in 'The Train Job.' You know that thing that made Mal return the medicine, numbnuts? That would be a code of honor.
Page 166.
--"Portraying woman character according to the protocols of the western migt well alienate a large segment of [Whedon's] audience. Delicate modern sensibilities do not approve of anything as rough and manly as westerns, in which responsible adult men protect women and children." Point A: 'Heart of Gold,' wherein men protect women and children. Point B: there's something cool about being artistic. You're free not to do the expected thing. Viewers like some variation, or they get bored. Point C: Maybe women are able to protect their families, too. Check out any bear cub in peril. It happens, man. The shock. The horror. The being torn to shreds.
Page 167.
--"Making his space western more like a western might have made it even less popular. Even hinting that young women should not serve as cannon fodder on the bloody field of war on an equal footing with men could cause some modern thinkers to faint like overheated Victorian matrons: for good or ill, the public is delighted with radical egalitarianism, and disgusted by chivalry." Point A: Zoe is the only woman we ever see on a bloody battlefield, ever. You're positing this argument on something that was never brought up within the context of the show. Point B: We're disgusted by machismo, which seems to be a better word for your limited definition of chivalry.
In conclusion, we should stick this guy in a room with Nancy Holder and see who dies first. Two birds, one stone, you dig?
'Mirror/Mirror: A Parody' by Roxanne Longstreet Conrad
I know jack about Star Trek, but this parody, which compares the crews of two ships, is mildly amusing nonetheless. I imagine if you're a Trekkie, you'll like it quite a bit, as Conrad can be quite funny.
'Star Truck' by David Gerrold
Kind of a roundabout discussion of many aspects of the show. There's no clear topic, but it does touch on the intricacies of terraforming and the realistic purpose of Shepherd book aboard Serenity.
'Chinese Words in the 'Verse' by Kevin M. Sullivan
A painstakingly researched explanation of the implications of Chinese speech on the show, as well as its place in fandom. It's quite dry, but full of technical shading. I imagine if you have a linguistic bent, this would mean more to you.
'Listening to Firefly' by Jennifer Goltz
A beautiful explanation of Firefly's musical motifs, with notes on how the music helps us to emotionally connect to the characters and discern more about their relationships to one another. As a musician, I really got a lot out of this one. Wonderful.
'Kaylee Speaks: Jewel Staite on Firefly' by Jewel Staite
Fannishness at its best-- Jewel recounts her favorite on-screen and off-screen moments from each episode. I particularly like her insights into Jayne and her complete love for the entire cast. This was a heart-warmer, and a must-read for fans.
'Unofficial Glossary of Firefly Chinese' by Kevin M. Sullivan
All of the Chinese dialogue translated. I've heard that some of these are not 100% accurate, so that said, it was pretty interesting to read.
Overall, this is a good book for the diehard fan, or for the fanfic-writer, for the lovely questions it raises. I would have liked to see more on speculation of Book's past, the Simon-River relationship, and the ethical quandaries of Jayne, but I got a lot in this little tome. Perhaps there will be a follow-up book. I certainly hope so.
Also, please point out any typos so I can fix them in the morning. It's late, and I'm tired.
Edited by Jane Espenson
'Introduction' by Jane Espenson
This is a pretty standard intro: the genesis of Firefly as Jane Espenson remembers it, since she worked very closely with Joss on Buffy. I have to admit, when Jane made a Marti Noxon/Zoe comparison, I did cringe a little, because as I see it, sappy melodrama and kickass warrior goddesses have very little in common. Sure, Marti was Joss's executive producer, but she's also responsible for the pussification of Spike and the painful drug metaphor anvils of season six. So, um. Yeah. All in all, this is a nice little setup piece tempered with personal memories from the set. Good stuff.
'The Reward, the Details, the Devils, the Due' by Larry Dixon
This article fell more towards the fannish side than the academic, but it's one of the most readable and interesting, nonetheless. Larry Dixon worked on the sets of the show, and he has some interesting things to point out that make complete sense, but that I never consciously picked up on. For instance, the brown leather of Mal & Zoe's clothing isn't only a Browncoats reference, but it serves to tie them into the color schemes of the ship. Also, early shots of Simon were almost always off-center to unsettle the viewer, and to convey the mistiness of Simon's intentions. These visual cues tell parts of the story while saving verbal exposition time. Dixon's prose is conversational and insightful. A lot of detail went into this article.
'The Heirs of Sawney Beane' by Lawrence Watt-Evans
This book was published before Serenity came out in theaters, so this article is slightly outdated. It postulates on the origins of the Reavers, citing real-life cases of extreme circumstance leading to cannibalism (like the Donner party) and the Scottish legend of Sawney Beane. It uses the psychological theories behind the Stockholm Syndrome idea to explain the "survivor"-turned-Reaver in 'Bushwhacked,' and wonders about the workings of a Reaver society. Serenity has since answered the Reaver genesis question, but there is still much to think about-- do they reproduce? How do they survive so near to unshielded reactors? Who's flying the ships?
'Asian Objects in Space' by Leigh Adams Wright
The main function of this article is to question whether or not the Asian elements of Firefly act as a simple glaze of exoticism to add flavor, much like the imperialistic Brits exploiting India's culture at the turn of the 20th century. If there was a Anglo-Sino alliance, why, then do we never visit a primarily Asian planet? Why are there no Asian main characters?
Wright describes how the show often abstracts and blends elements of Asian culture in a way that strips it of meaning, and she worries that "using [Asian culture] in this manner, as exotic, as a future fantasy and not as a contemporary reality, is damaging to attempts at multiculturalism now." I think that point is valid if the show were to continue in the same mold as the first 13 episodes, but I think (and Wright concedes) that judgement might be premature, considering the show was cancelled before its time. The show very much could have taken on more Asian culture and gone more in-depth, but was simply pulled off air too soon to tell. For instance, in the shooting script for the episode 'Serenity,' one of the ships at the Eavesdown Docks had a no-Asian, no-Catholic boarding policy. This is really interesting, and there's a lot of exploration that could have been done with that tidbit were the show given enough time to develop it.
'The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Firefly' by Glenn Yeffeth
A hysterical parody in the form of emails from "Early 'Nutcrusher' Jubal, Vice President, Fox Programming" to Joss Whedon, detailing all of the changes that Fox wanted made.
Rule #2: Gratuitous sex
Rule #3: Breasts
Rule #4: Explosions
Rule #5: Washed-up celebrities and/or midgets"
It picks apart Fox's terrible taste in programming (celebrity sumo wrestling, GOP cronyism, etc). My favorite part? "It's pretty clear from your script that the Alliance represents the Democratic Party, in its ongoing efforts to crush state rights and tax us into oblivion. And obviously, Malcolm Reynolds is intended to be George W. Bush. Very nice," followed by pleas to work in a villain named "Heintz Kerry" and make the Reavers evil Muslims. Heh.
Anyway, it's funny, and it points out, through mocking, just how much Fox didn't get the show.
'Who Killed Firefly?' by Ginjer Buchanan
This was kind of a waste. The entire article could be summed up thusly:
"Westerns aren't hot right now. Neither is science fiction. Blending the two was a risky venture. The end."
Instead, it goes on for pages. Pointless.
'"The Train Job" Didn't Do the Job' by Keith R.A. DeCandido
This article runs down a list of reasons why 'The Train Job' was not the most stellar introduction to the 'Verse, including too much exposition, not enough character development, a two-dimensional villain, etc.
However, this is kind of a crappy thing to write an article on for a very specific reason. That reason is this: 'Serenity,' not 'The Train Job,' was meant to introduce viewers to the 'verse. It was a 2-hour episode that sets up the characters, has moral conflict, and does much less verbal exposition. It was designed as an introduction, and, if Fox's programmers weren't all a bunch of morons with attention spans of gnats, it would have served as one. Unfortunately, Fox sucks, so Joss and Tim Minear had 48 hours to come up with a new pilot that was half as long and also met all of Fox's specifications (particularly more action and a plot-driven episode). Understandably, it's not the best choice of introductions, but it's pretty damn good considering the stress and limitations put on it. This article is wholly irrelevant and kind of uninteresting, to boot.
'Serenity and Bobby McGee: Freedom and the Illusion of Freedom in Joss Whedon's Firefly' by Mercedes Lackey
I'll start off by saying that I'm not a Mercedes Lackey fan. I find her fiction interminable. That said, this article kicks ass. It explains the illusion of freedom-- i.e., Mal would see himself as very free as long as he keeps flying, but in reality, he is free because the Alliance lets him be. The strength of this article is pointing out all of the subtle things that go unmentioned, but if we look, we can see are true. For instance, we see in 'Serenity' that the ship gets away not because of any freedom, but because the Alliance does not have enough manpower to effectively police its territory. If the Alliance were to track down Serenity, it would not have much trouble in doing so-- for instance, the man hunting Tracey in 'The Message.' However, the ship is allowed to fly on because its crimes are seen as petty, and the Robin-Hoodiness of the crew acts as a secondary policing-system that keeps the poorer classes from revolt (I am saying this badly, but the article makes it clear).
At any rate, in addition to exposing the illusory freedom of each of the ship's crew (save Zoe and River, who are the most clearsighted on the issue), Lackey postulates that rather than opposing the Alliance, Mal actually does a fair bit to help keep it in power. I found that interesting.
The only thing I questioned is Lackey's lack of citing specific episodes. For instance, she says that the Alliance maintains control by a "combination of internal and external fear... the external fear of the Enemy. No matter how bad things may be inside the Alliance, the Enemy is much worse... the Enemy is capable of every terrible thing." I'd like to see some textual evidence of this. What enemy is she speaking of? The Reavers..? The Alliance dismisses them as myths. The Browncoats, then? They seem too poorly beaten down to be a threat, as evidenced by the man who insults Mal at the beginning of 'The Train Job.' What specific enemy is she referencing here?
'Firefly vs. The Tick' by Don Debrandt
Wacky, zany, kind of funny, but highly irrelevant. Colorful, but lacking in any real meaning. Next.
'We're All Just Floating in Space' by Lyle Zynda
By far, this was the most academic of the articles written for this collection. Lyle Zynda examines the show, particularly 'Objects in Space,' using the lens of nontheistic existentialism. Existentialism is one of those concepts that can be so abstract as to be completely un-graspable. I've read The Stranger, so I get the gist. Deeper than that, though? I'm kind of hazy. Zynda does a wonderful job of explaining existentialism by using comparisons to Sartre's Nausea, which Joss Whedon mentions in the commentary of 'Objects in Space' as being his most important theological influence.
In a nutshell, if we view all objects as just that-- just objects-- then the only meaning they have is the meaning with which we imbue them. For instance, when we a gun, we think 'killing machine.' We do not see the simple object, because we are so blinded by our associations. River, on the other hand, notes its form, its shape-- an object completely divorced from any inherent meaning. Much of the article deals with Jubal Early and River Tam as existentialists, comparing and contrasting the two.
'More Than a Marriage of Convenience' by Michelle Sagara West
A fan essay on why Wash and Zoe work as husband and wife. It points out that unlike shows like Buffy, where the characters are all still forming, Firefly showed a solid, mature relationship free of romantic angst, but one that also did not gloss over the complexities of maintaining said marriage. This essay is not particularly deep, but it deals with my favorite pairing, so I ate it up anyway.
'Thanks for the reenactment, sir' by Tanya Huff
This essay examines the archetypal role of Zoe as Warrior Woman. It was interesting in that it points out that Zoe was neither "neutered" in the way of Scooby Doo's Thelma, nor was she made hyper-feminized and underdressed like Gabrielle on Xena. She is in command of her sexuality without said sexuality being exploited. Also, unlike many of Joss's other female characters, Zoe is not on a search for a sense of self-- she is whole, she already knows who she is.
The article also examines the relationships Zoe has with Mal and with Wash, and her role as warrior. For instance, Zoe does not defer to Mal because she is female, she follows his lead because she views him as her military commander. Even so, Mal values Zoe to the point where she always has her say before they enter the fray. All in all, nothing groundbreaking, but an interesting and complete character study on one of my favorite characters.
'Whores and Goddesses: The Archetypal Domain of Inara Serra' by Joy Davidson
Let me say this: my reaction to this essay came in two parts.
Part one explained that "once upon a time, well before the advent of recorded history, there existed a world that revolved around women. Women were honored as the givers of life, the embodiments of the Great Goddess... and they were the sole tenders of her temples... Priestesses led their tribes in ritual celebrations of Eros through ecstatic union with the divinely feminine life force."
Oh, and "the goddesses of this period, though worshipped in multiple locales under a variety of names, were all related to Kali Ma..."
My 'Fluffy Bunny Wiccan Detector Shield' went up full force, let me tell you. This is such utter, complete BS that I have "NO!" written in my book, circling the errors. I absolutely cannot stand an unresearched, blindly-regurgitated "Matriarchy is Awesome!" argument, because dude, there is no evidence whatsoever of a worldwide, peaceful, matriarchal society. Ever. Ever ever. Furthermore, where were these supposed celebrations held? And how the hell is every goddess ever related to Kali Ma?! Got a source for that? Thought not.
Then came the inevitable "men suck" portion. Davidson writes that "beginning around 3000 B.C.E., hordes of invaders from distant lands began pludering this utopian, matriarchal society, wresting power from womens' hands... slowly subsuming the Goddess under their dominion." This is later referred to as "the first holy holocaust: the annihilation of the divine feminine by the malevolent power-mad invaders."
Or, you know, settlers with a male chief deity who intermingled customs as they searched for resources. But whatever. I'm sure you got that straight out of your "Starhawk's Guide To History." Carry on. In my book, I simply wrote, "oh, shut up."
But you know what's more mind boggling? This entire section is 99.993% irrelevant to the rest of the article!
So, part 2: A discussion of the Grecian heterae class and Japan's geishas, both of which deeply influenced the creation of Inara, a Companion. This makes perfect sense, and, though I cannot boast a knowledge that can confirm its veracity, the information seems at least somewhat relevant.
The real meat of the article comes under the heading "A Woman's Worth," which is a dissection of 'Shindig.' It deconstructs the roles of a Companion versus the role of the woman beneath it. It illuminates Mal's view of Inara-- he is not condescending to Inara, but to the role she plays, for he sees it as selling her worth short. This is why he punches Atherton Wing, because Wing cannot tell the difference between Inara the woman and Inara the paid entertainment.
This article is well worth reading, but trust me, skip the first few pages. Your brain cells will thank you.
'The Captain May Wear The Tight Pants, but it's the Gals Who Make Serenity Soar' by Robert B. Taylor
The gist: Firefly's women are exemplary in that they are strong and defy convention. They come through and save the day where they would stereotypically be damsels in distress. Go them!
Not terribly academic, but it is awash in fan-love and a delight to read, nonetheless.
Point of interest: this essay lists Wash's full name as Jerry Lee "Wash" Warren, where it was established in Serenity as Hoban "Wash" Washburne. I went WTF? Then I heard Mal call Wash "Jerry Lee" in 'Our Mrs. Reynolds.' I wonder what that was about? Also, the official Serenity magazine referred to Zoe both as "Zoe Warren" and "Zoe Alleyne Washburne." The official site goes with the latter.
** edit. Via
settiai:: "Actually, he said "Nice work, Kaylee." A lot of online transcripts have it wrong, but I just watched the scene on my DVDs with the subtitles to make certain. If I'm not mistaken, the author of that particular essay admitted that they found the name somewhere online and went with it -- and, when they found out it was wrong, they were surprised that it slipped through."'I Want Your Sex: Gender and Power in Joss Whedon's Dystopian Future World' by Nancy Holder, who sucks
In essence, the women of Firefly are empowered, but not empowered enough. This show should be all about a feminist utopia, after all.
Highlights, since it made my brain hurt:
Page 142 contains Holder positing that Firefly cannot have any strong female characters because it is a Western, an Westerns are all about male power. The rest of this article seems to stretch to accommodate this flawed point.
Page 145-- the fact that Wash says that people don't get him and Zoe is "the end of Zoe's machisima, and the crash an burn of Joss' strafing run on stereotypical male-female power issues." Um. How? Just because something is atypical does not make it invalid. In this case, it makes it exemplary.
Page 146 features a long, random dialogue about The Princess Diaries in which Holder rants on girl-empowering movies that teach young girls that they're every bit as smart and worthy of respect as boys. Why? Because young girls should just know it in the first place!
Newsflash, Nancy. Most of the girls of America (and even more of girls of the world) were not raised by feminists. The news is still getting out that the genders are equal, and that's because we don't live in a utopian society. Movies that empower girls are part of the message. Maybe in 50 years, your preaching will have a point, but right now, those movies have an important purpose. Blame the culture for inequality, not the movie that is seeking to address said inequality. And in the meanwhile, get back to Firefly.
Also, "Zoe is like unto the princess, except that she does have to get married to rule her kingdom." OMG. WTF. BBQ. CRACK. I cannot comprehend this wild twist of logic. Maybe Zoe married Wash because *gasp* she loves him?! Die, Nancy Holder. Die a lot.
There's also some serious lack of sense of humor wherein Nancy picks apart the "take me sir, take me hard" gag of 'War Stories' as evidence that Zoe is allowing Mal to "give" her back to Wash, her husband. My brain broke at this point.
Page 148-- Dear Nancy, the reason why Patience isn't all beautiful and glowy is because there's no moisturizer in the desert. Get off it.
Page 149-150. It is anti-woman that Wash said "some people juggle geese" in response to the marriage customs of Saffron's people, rather than "remember that planet we visited where three fourteen-year-old-boys all wanted Kaylee to allow them to please her?" Point A: Ew. Point B: So fucking what? Firefly portrayed a flawed, real universe, NOT a utopia, let alone a feminist one.
P.S.-- Have you seen 'Our Mrs. Reynolds'? Remember that nifty little speech about how women shouldn't be all meek and beholden and all that? You're not property and quit your sniveling and be like a woman is? That was feminism. Equality. Malcolm Reynolds is a feminist!
Page 150-- "Mal equated succumbing to Saffron's sexual invitations as a loss of power, with which he is preoccupied." Then, "Women may find each other beautiful, but power is to be found when a man deems a woman beautiful." In the same paragraph. This is very, very sloppy. There's also some commentary that "it is more valuable to be seen as beautiful enough to be raped than to be seen as ugly enough to be spared," which is too wrong and unfounded for me to even contemplate.
Page 151-- River is sexless, which diminishes her. However, Inara is very sexual, which of course makes her an exploited sex toy. This diminishes her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, apparently.
Page 151-- "So, in some measure, Joss needed to adhere to the Code of the West: pretty little girls and big strong men; villains, heroes, and damsels in distress." Ahem. Hello. Zoe.
The rest of the article is spent backpedaling and completely unraveling the previous pages-- Kaylee could have easily been cast as a man, but she wasn't. She eventually gets to "and while the gender-power subtext of Firefly may be rooted in past and current inequalities, Joss has, once again, pushed things forward." (page 152). This should have been the thesis, point blank.
And the final line: "But I, the mother of a young girl who only recently learned that some people think princesses are only good for marrying princes, cannot help my disappointment that on Firefly, it is really cooler to be a boy."
My response? You are profoundly stupid. Also, your novels suck.
'Jush Shove Him in the Engine, or The Role of Chivalry in Joss Whedon's Firefly' by John C. Wright
I retitled this essay. In my book, it is:
'Jush Shove Him in the Engine, or The Role of Chivalry (As I Define It, Which Is Not Necessarily The Actual Definition) in Joss Whedon's Firefly' by John C. Wright, a Verbose Moron
To start: The one point in this entire sodding article that I found myself nodding to is the concept that combining a sci-fi show with a western may produce what he terms "incompatible protocols." These genres do largely follow completely different concepts/models of society, as he points out-- westerns being largely manly-men-pwotect-the-widdle-wimminzes, and sci-fi being largely egalitarian.
Now for my real reaction. Jane Espenson hated this article. It made her punch upholstery. I see why, because I had the same exact reaction, and I pity Skyler for having to sit through my multiple, frazzled explanations of "What a fucking chauvinistic ass!"
This article is condescending and biased in the extreme. For instance: "Chivalry is a concept unpopular with delicate modern sensibilities; it is a concept by its nature alien to the genre of science fiction. On the other hand, showing men of honor who abide by a Code of the West is a natural and graceful element of the western. The code is typically American..."
[Emphasis mine.]
Okay, so right off the bat, you are a wussy. Also, you cannot be chivalrous if you have a vagina or are not American. I will concede that women do not play into the concept of classical chivalry, and if he had stated that this article is founded upon such, I would have little cause for quarrel. However, as you will see, Wright's definition of chivalry is much much narrower than you'd expect from any other definition you've likely encountered.
Chivalry, he posits, "is a concept unique to the Christian era." Classical chivalry, yes. Chivalry as we've come to know it, no. Have you ever seen a samurai flick, dude? He goes on to say that this chivalry is much like a soldier returning home from war-- one can only be chivalrous if he is effectively a lion on the battlefield and a lamb at home. "In the pagan world, however, greatness had no such bipolarity." Achilles was teh evol, you see. Ulysses was humiliated, not humble.
I circled those words. In Wright's limited view, Christians = good. Pagan = bad. Pagan =/= chivalrous or honorable. Gotcha.
A few pages later, he explains what he sees as a flaw in the sci-fi outlook-- that women and men are essentially equals at home, in the workforce, and most relevantly, on the battlefield. Men in sf are trained to face combat without the "masculine warrior mystique, without a sense of that mysterious thing called masculine honor, and trained to regard exposing young women to the rigors of war..."
You see, honor is not gender neutral. You must have masculine honor to be effective in battle, and of course, men are much better prepared for experiencing the outright atrocities of war.
This is chauvinism, not founded in any sort of fact.
Jumping around, then he says that "Science fiction is about what changes, not about what stays the same." You know, because Joss hasn't said numerous times that this little show called Firefly is all about what stays the same, because no matter the time period, people will be people.
Wright also implies that sf disdains the ordinariness of man-woman relationships. Zoe and Wash interest me plenty, thanks.
Okay, I could dissect this more, since this article is all scribbled on. I'll just give you the highlights of dumbassitude. All emphasis is mine.
Page 162.
--The Old West calls for chastity. WTmother-effingF!?
--Wash must have a gun in order to be considered chivalrous. Zoe is not chivalrous because she has a vagina.
--"A man can be brave without being chivalrous in the specific way I have defined it here: fearsome in battle and meek at home" An outright statement that we're not talking about chivalry, but a limited and biased view of it.
--Therefore Simon cannot be chivalrous-- he is not violent.
--Regarding the haziness of Shepherd Book's religious sect: "Note that the religion of the "shepherds" is nowhere specifically defined. Only ax-murderers are allowed to be portrayed as Christian these days. Delicate modern sensibilities find only Eastern mysticism inoffensive." What. An. Asshole.
--Shepherd book's age makes him "noncombatant." Nevermind his proclivity for hand-to-hand combat and the fact that he can take somebody out, unseen, in a matter of seconds.
Page 163.
--"The thing to notice here is that any of these characters could have been translated into western archetypes with fairly little change... none of the womenfolk, however, belong in a western." Okay, so no women (unless they need protecting!), and cardboard cutouts. Check. Fucktard.
--"The whole point of having a gorgeous woman in the sidekick and combat-buddy role is to make the point that things in the future will not be as they are now and might actually be a lot rougher than they are now." I. I can't even touch this one. Okay, Bill O'Reilly.
--Dumbass gets an episode wrong. He says that River shoots the guards in "Ariel." My suspicions that he's never watched the show may be founded.
Page 164.
--Mal's concern for Inara is foolish. He should not try to protect her honor ("whatever the honor of a harlot might consist of").
--The implication that Wash took Zoe's place in 'War Stories' to save her from harm. It wasn't about safeguarding his wife, idiot. It was about Wash being upset that he had nothing to do with Zoe's bond to Mal. It was about conflicting Captain/Lieutenant vs. Husband/Wife relationships. Did you even watch the show?! The whole point ist that Wash is not a soldier. Zoe is, and she knows how to handle herself. And that's okay.
Page 165.
--Wright disdains that there "seems to be no evidence of a 'code' guiding Captain Mal's actions,' then in the same paragraph, says that "Captain Mal is noble enough not to have a thief's code of honor," in 'The Train Job.' You know that thing that made Mal return the medicine, numbnuts? That would be a code of honor.
Page 166.
--"Portraying woman character according to the protocols of the western migt well alienate a large segment of [Whedon's] audience. Delicate modern sensibilities do not approve of anything as rough and manly as westerns, in which responsible adult men protect women and children." Point A: 'Heart of Gold,' wherein men protect women and children. Point B: there's something cool about being artistic. You're free not to do the expected thing. Viewers like some variation, or they get bored. Point C: Maybe women are able to protect their families, too. Check out any bear cub in peril. It happens, man. The shock. The horror. The being torn to shreds.
Page 167.
--"Making his space western more like a western might have made it even less popular. Even hinting that young women should not serve as cannon fodder on the bloody field of war on an equal footing with men could cause some modern thinkers to faint like overheated Victorian matrons: for good or ill, the public is delighted with radical egalitarianism, and disgusted by chivalry." Point A: Zoe is the only woman we ever see on a bloody battlefield, ever. You're positing this argument on something that was never brought up within the context of the show. Point B: We're disgusted by machismo, which seems to be a better word for your limited definition of chivalry.
In conclusion, we should stick this guy in a room with Nancy Holder and see who dies first. Two birds, one stone, you dig?
'Mirror/Mirror: A Parody' by Roxanne Longstreet Conrad
I know jack about Star Trek, but this parody, which compares the crews of two ships, is mildly amusing nonetheless. I imagine if you're a Trekkie, you'll like it quite a bit, as Conrad can be quite funny.
'Star Truck' by David Gerrold
Kind of a roundabout discussion of many aspects of the show. There's no clear topic, but it does touch on the intricacies of terraforming and the realistic purpose of Shepherd book aboard Serenity.
'Chinese Words in the 'Verse' by Kevin M. Sullivan
A painstakingly researched explanation of the implications of Chinese speech on the show, as well as its place in fandom. It's quite dry, but full of technical shading. I imagine if you have a linguistic bent, this would mean more to you.
'Listening to Firefly' by Jennifer Goltz
A beautiful explanation of Firefly's musical motifs, with notes on how the music helps us to emotionally connect to the characters and discern more about their relationships to one another. As a musician, I really got a lot out of this one. Wonderful.
'Kaylee Speaks: Jewel Staite on Firefly' by Jewel Staite
Fannishness at its best-- Jewel recounts her favorite on-screen and off-screen moments from each episode. I particularly like her insights into Jayne and her complete love for the entire cast. This was a heart-warmer, and a must-read for fans.
'Unofficial Glossary of Firefly Chinese' by Kevin M. Sullivan
All of the Chinese dialogue translated. I've heard that some of these are not 100% accurate, so that said, it was pretty interesting to read.
Overall, this is a good book for the diehard fan, or for the fanfic-writer, for the lovely questions it raises. I would have liked to see more on speculation of Book's past, the Simon-River relationship, and the ethical quandaries of Jayne, but I got a lot in this little tome. Perhaps there will be a follow-up book. I certainly hope so.
Also, please point out any typos so I can fix them in the morning. It's late, and I'm tired.