Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mavourneen:
Thanks for linking this, Chris.

I have to say, this blogger's points are poorly developed, under researched, and as others on his blog pointed out...flat out wrong.

There will always be people who don't "get" a piece of fiction, be it a novel, a movie, a tv show. And of course, that's okay. What is unfortunate is that this particular person is using his religion as a backdrop to paint with quite a broad brush.

------------------------------------------------
]


Well, I say, Pi&& on the blogger and the horse he rode in on.


---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
But I'm not tall enough to pi$$ on a horse...

They may think their sins are original, but for the most part they are petty and repetitive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
. . .
Is that everything?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

One point I find really interesting, which I never noticed: Kaylee had her little victory over the rich bitches in Shindig when a man accused one of them of being loose. Which... Kaylee kind of is herself. I can't quite wrap my head around that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nemeweh:
For my first post ever -

---

Quote:

---

I'd use stronger language, but I'm not sure it's allowed here.

---

Quote:

---

Irregardless, as a SciFi lover, Whedon has continued a long line of great SciFi writers who looked ahead to the future and made predictions of social change.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
I suppose Kaylee's victory is related to the hypocrisy of the head rich bitch, in that, while she may be loose, she'd be mortally offended to have it pointed it to her, and moreover, wouldn't dream of doing anything but pretend the opposite.

Whereas Kaylee is pretty open about who she is and what she does, and doesn't try to hide it, or behave publicly as if it were immoral, or in some way 'wrong'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

One point I find really interesting, which I never noticed: Kaylee had her little victory over the rich bitches in Shindig when a man accused one of them of being loose. Which... Kaylee kind of is herself. I can't quite wrap my head around that.

---

I suppose Kaylee's victory is related to the hypocrisy of the head rich bitch, in that, while she may be loose, she'd be mortally offended to have it pointed it to her, and moreover, wouldn't dream of doing anything but pretend the opposite.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by baptismo:
I dont really think Firefly is science fiction at all.

...

What "science" does Firefly attempt to provide? Little to none. Thats not what the show is about. It is about relationships and character interaction.

...

Space is just the setting, science/physics doesnt come into it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by traveler:
No rocketships in RedWall.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by baptismo:
I dont really think Firefly is science fiction at all.

...

What "science" does Firefly attempt to provide? Little to none. Thats not what the show is about. It is about relationships and character interaction.

...

Space is just the setting, science/physics doesnt come into it.

---

Defining science fiction is something many people consider impossible, yet we still try.

If I understand what you've said properly, and I may not, you define science fiction as fiction that is about science. I get this impression because of the second excerpt above.

So, if I'm right, you would not classify anything with a so called sci-fi setting as science fiction, even if it went to great lengths to be correct in it's science (which is how some people define science fiction) if it did not dwell on the science.

Is that right or am I way off?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by xardoz:

So both the activist Left and the reactionary Right think FF sucks. Humorless, imagination-less twits the lot of them.

them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by baptismo:
Sci-Fi attempts to give scientific reasons and explanations and attempts to ensure that the verse they have created works within accepted scientific and physics laws. Faster than Light drives, inertial dampers, vast distances.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by baptismo:
Sci-Fi attempts to give scientific reasons and explanations and attempts to ensure that the verse they have created works within accepted scientific and physics laws. Faster than Light drives, inertial dampers, vast distances.

---

You are aware that the second part of that, "ensure that the verse they have created works within accepted scientific and physics laws," totally fails to describe Star Trek, and if you ignore the, "ensure," and just say, "the verse they have created works within accepted scientific and physics laws," actually describes Firefly better than most of Star Trek? You know that right?

Even with that little bit of nitpick, I think I might see where you're going. In real life people don't usually ask how things work, they hop in the plane/car/boat and accept that the fact it works means there is a perfectly logical, rational and scientific explanation for it working. Science fiction is not real life, and so does not need to agree with that trend. Instead there are explanations, even when it makes no sense to explain people don't say, "I need to fix the engine otherwise we don't breathe," they say, "I need to reroute the [technobable] through the [technobable] with a variance of less than [small number] otherwise the [technobable] will interact with [technobable] causing a meltdown in the [technobable] and life support will fail." (Star Trek script writers are famous for actually using the word technobable and letting other people fill in a realistic sounding word.)

(The following assumes you have seen the show "Eureka".)
The point is that, if I'm understanding correctly, Science fiction is the people in Eureka who give explanations unnecessary to the plot but interesting in a sort of "That almost sounds vaguely plausible" kind of way, and all other similar things which are not science fiction are represented by the Sheriff who says, "Why don't you just say, 'Death Ray'?"

I have another question though, once again returning to: "Sci-Fi attempts to give scientific reasons and explanations and attempts to ensure that the verse they have created works within accepted scientific and physics laws." Is that really an "and" or should it be an, "or"?

I ask because a lot of Star Trek (which I like by the way) makes no attempt at the latter but makes up for it by giving scientific reasons for everything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sister:
I believe this person has an agenda and I believe it is a religious one. What other sci-fi program even attempted to add a regular religious figure? (Book)...And saying Firefly was "bad" science fiction because of an emphasis on "sex"? Hellooooooo...??? Unless, of course, sex is indeed science fiction to the writer? Now if the writer just didn't like the show...fine, different strokes (oops, is that a sexual innuendo??) but saying it's bad science fiction...??? Whatever..

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You're right that science & technology can add to sci-fi films. I have no problem with that...all their gadgets and doo-hickies are fun accessories....it's only when these mumbly-gook whatchamacallits are used as default problem solvers that I get annoyed. I mean...I like all of Star Trek a lot, but the over-usage & ever-changing abilities of the deflector dish started to become ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

One point I find really interesting, which I never noticed: Kaylee had her little victory over the rich bitches in Shindig when a man accused one of them of being loose. Which... Kaylee kind of is herself. I can't quite wrap my head around that.

---

I suppose Kaylee's victory is related to the hypocrisy of the head rich bitch, in that, while she may be loose, she'd be mortally offended to have it pointed it to her, and moreover, wouldn't dream of doing anything but pretend the opposite.

---

While that might be true I don't think it had anything to do with sexuality and how quickly one would have sex.

I think it was simple: there was a social order, the bitch was at the top, Kaylee was not, the bitch knew that, the bitch pointed that out, the bitch was proving she was better than Kaylee. ("What did they have last year?" "Standards.") By walking up and insulting her, instead of Kaylee, and worse still doing it publicly, what's-his-name placed her on a lower level. Suddenly the position was reversed, she wasn't at the top and Kaylee was looking down at her.

How could such a horrible non-hierarchal thing happen? Who else might have seen her being treated less well than the standard-less girl she was being snotty to?

Time to run away.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:


[...]

One point I find really interesting, which I never noticed: Kaylee had her little victory over the rich bitches in Shindig when a man accused one of them of being loose. Which... Kaylee kind of is herself. I can't quite wrap my head around that.

---