Genre theory 101
Jun. 11th, 2005 08:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hazelkElder son’s mission to research the running times of every movie title listed on amazon.co.uk inspired the following conversation:
HIM Is Pale Rider like Easy Rider?
ME Well yes but with cowboys.
But isn’t Dean Moriarty the cowboyest boy that ever cowed? Easy Rider is just one big damm hippy Western.
They’re talking Firefly on the ATP board. Is it Science Fiction? Is it good Science Fiction? A big part of sf is the world-building, it’s as important as characterisation is to mainstream fiction. So one problem people have with Firefly is that even after 15 episodes so much of its world remains obscure. Are the Alliance benevolent, what’s their connection with the Blue Sun company, are Companions genuinely respected or secretly reviled, why the persistence of 19th century lifestyles on most of the planets we’ve visited, how can Mal afford to run a spaceship. And we haven’t even seen a Reaver.
In mainstream fiction with its focus on character it makes sense to begin by presenting a Cliff’s notes, big picture version of the major players and gradually fill in the gaps, flesh them out over time. A lot of SF takes the same approach to world-building. Favourite devices to facilitate the introduction to a ‘verse include having a naïve or non-native main character (Luke Skywalker, John Crichton) who needs everything explained. Or the B5 tactic of having characters whose daily business is running the place so naturally they’re going to be tallking about the big issues.
Firefly has neither of these. We only see brief glimpses of aspects of the ‘verse, each from a different character’s biased and partial perspective. It’s like a storytelling striptease or that old parable of the four blind men describing an elephant. The approach lends itself to pyschomachic interpretations along the lines of the Reavers representing the characters’ fear of the unseen. Or the Alliance and the Reavers being the Scylla and Charybdis of blind obedience and total freedom from morality between which Mal must steer a course. But it’s hard on viewers curious about the world apart from the characters’ personal issues.
What’s also interesting are the two bits of ‘science’ that ME do get right. The silence in space and that River’s problem are related to operations on her amygdala. The silence I suspect is there for the psychology rather than the physics. Deep Space in the series serves the same function as the great open landscapes in traditional Westerns, the great impersonal unknowable unknown. I think Joss would have wanted to make it silent even if the physics allowed for noise.
River’s amygdala may be co-incidental. It could be just the brain region du jour. Or not. The amygdala complex is associated with emotional control and the ability to recognize even simple emotions, such as anger, in others. More recently it’s been implicated as the key area required to support Theory of Mind – the concept that that the mental states of others differ from and are separate from our own. With River it seems that that literally isn’t the case. Other people’s thoughts flicker in and out of her consciousness as if the boundaries between her and the world are constantly in danger of breaking down. Is this what it’s like to experience schizophrenia? Schizophrenics like autists have difficulties with Theory of Mind. Well I think it’s interesting and actually only came across that possible link between the two conditions because thinking about River got me googling pubmed.
HIM Is Pale Rider like Easy Rider?
ME Well yes but with cowboys.
But isn’t Dean Moriarty the cowboyest boy that ever cowed? Easy Rider is just one big damm hippy Western.
They’re talking Firefly on the ATP board. Is it Science Fiction? Is it good Science Fiction? A big part of sf is the world-building, it’s as important as characterisation is to mainstream fiction. So one problem people have with Firefly is that even after 15 episodes so much of its world remains obscure. Are the Alliance benevolent, what’s their connection with the Blue Sun company, are Companions genuinely respected or secretly reviled, why the persistence of 19th century lifestyles on most of the planets we’ve visited, how can Mal afford to run a spaceship. And we haven’t even seen a Reaver.
In mainstream fiction with its focus on character it makes sense to begin by presenting a Cliff’s notes, big picture version of the major players and gradually fill in the gaps, flesh them out over time. A lot of SF takes the same approach to world-building. Favourite devices to facilitate the introduction to a ‘verse include having a naïve or non-native main character (Luke Skywalker, John Crichton) who needs everything explained. Or the B5 tactic of having characters whose daily business is running the place so naturally they’re going to be tallking about the big issues.
Firefly has neither of these. We only see brief glimpses of aspects of the ‘verse, each from a different character’s biased and partial perspective. It’s like a storytelling striptease or that old parable of the four blind men describing an elephant. The approach lends itself to pyschomachic interpretations along the lines of the Reavers representing the characters’ fear of the unseen. Or the Alliance and the Reavers being the Scylla and Charybdis of blind obedience and total freedom from morality between which Mal must steer a course. But it’s hard on viewers curious about the world apart from the characters’ personal issues.
What’s also interesting are the two bits of ‘science’ that ME do get right. The silence in space and that River’s problem are related to operations on her amygdala. The silence I suspect is there for the psychology rather than the physics. Deep Space in the series serves the same function as the great open landscapes in traditional Westerns, the great impersonal unknowable unknown. I think Joss would have wanted to make it silent even if the physics allowed for noise.
River’s amygdala may be co-incidental. It could be just the brain region du jour. Or not. The amygdala complex is associated with emotional control and the ability to recognize even simple emotions, such as anger, in others. More recently it’s been implicated as the key area required to support Theory of Mind – the concept that that the mental states of others differ from and are separate from our own. With River it seems that that literally isn’t the case. Other people’s thoughts flicker in and out of her consciousness as if the boundaries between her and the world are constantly in danger of breaking down. Is this what it’s like to experience schizophrenia? Schizophrenics like autists have difficulties with Theory of Mind. Well I think it’s interesting and actually only came across that possible link between the two conditions because thinking about River got me googling pubmed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-12 04:54 am (UTC)I don't want to be at all spoilery, but a couple of these issues are addressed pretty strongly in the movie.
It’s like a storytelling striptease or that old parable of the four blind men describing an elephant.
I think that's a great description of the series, and a very accurate one. Joss described the show as being about nine different people looking into space and seeing nine different things. Sci-fi or Western or unholy hybrid of the two, what I think the show really is is nine character studies. The background is almost incidental.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-12 03:14 pm (UTC)And the million dollar question. Was it was a good movie?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-12 03:20 pm (UTC)Yes. Yes, yes, yes!
no subject
Date: 2005-06-12 06:02 am (UTC)The visual info was certainly luscious and welcome, though. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-12 03:20 pm (UTC)