Firefly Week - Science fact in science fiction

Rabid Lit Major
Mood - Giddy

Book - Same book...I'm more excited that I'm buying "Tangled" today. If you haven't figured out my love of Disney by now...

Excerpt - (song from Tangled) "Seven AM: the usual morning lineup. Start on the chores and sweep 'til the floor's all clean. Polish and wax, do laundry, and mop and shine up. Sweep again...and by then it's...like...7:15."

Moving on.

Let's start off with a new literature rule, shall we?

Literature Rule 3
Those who write fiction should pay even more attention to realism than those who write non-fiction.

I believe I may have stated this before, but it bears repeating: writing fiction does not give you the right to avoid research. Quite the opposite in fact. Writing fiction constitutes a delicate balance between the fantastical and the realistic. Fiction, good fiction anyway, should always use the fantastic to accentuate and emphasize truth. At the very least, fiction should provide an escape to the reader...a new world to get lost in.

The more fantastic the story, the more the writer needs to make sure it conforms to rules.

This is for a very good reason: the fourth wall. For those unfamiliar with the term, the fourth wall is the wall between the audience and the work. "Breaking" the fourth wall occurs when the suspension of disbelief is destroyed and can be put to good use. (A good example is in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" whenever Matthew Broderick speaks directly to the camera, temporarily destroying the illusion that these are real people living out their life unaware they are in a movie.)

Despite some creative, deliberate breaking of the fourth wall, it does exist for a reason. As a writer, you want to immerse the audience in your work. You want them invested. You want them to feel for your characters, as if they were real people. You want them to gasp in genuine shock when Darth Vader reveals he's Luke's father.

This will not happen if, the entire time, the audience is thinking "these are just characters, it's not real."

To make the audience forget the falsity of the story, it is important to maintain enough realism to not throw them out of the story and say "Wait a second...that didn't make sense."

Hence, the reason realism is important.

(Brie...Brie? This is a post about Firefly. Get to the point?)

Right. Right. Sorry.

Joss Whedon, writer of Firefly, agrees with me on this topic. This is clear in his careful adherence to science fact within science fiction.

The show takes place in the future. General premise is that humankind left "Earth That Was" due, presumably, to overpopulation and exhaustion of resources. We now live in a new solar system full of terraformed planets made to simulate Earth. This was ages ago. When we catch up to our characters it is six years after a war between the "Alliance" and the "Browncoats/Independents". As their names suggest, the war was between those who wanted to Unite the various planets under a central government and those who wanted to remain independent.

Those of you who have heard of Firefly may have heard it described as a "space western". If this seems like a weird genre to you, let me explain. Joss Whedon put a lot of thought into what would happen if we were to "move" to a new galaxy. The "central" planets of the system, those close to the governmental center (yes, the Alliance won) look like a classic sci-fi world. Shiny metal, gleaming towers, wealth and technology. The "rim" planets, however, are rough. The people are obviously poor and as a result of their lack of resources, they function more like old Western towns than cities of the future.

Another logical leap he made when constructing the politics of his world is in the language and culture of these worlds. While many cultures are seen and represented, the two that seem to have held on are China and America. Everyone in the world speaks both English and Mandarin fluently. This, aside from being a logical leap given that they are the two most spoken languages, was a choice based in practicality. It's a gritty show, obviously meant for adults, but it aired on Fox. So while it seems weird for the characters not to curse, they simply would not be able to per television standards. So the solution was to have all of the cursing in Mandarin. It gets the point across and avoids the censors. However, I still give Whedon huge bonus points for taking into account that just because it's an American show, not everyone in the world speaks English.

Then there's the science. Due to the rugged Western feel, tech is pretty low key. You see small nods to it here and there. Guns represented are a mixture between ammo-and-gunpowder and laser weaponry. Hovercraft and spaceships are common for transport between worlds, but on-world tends to be dominated by trains and horses. One of the little details I love is that you still see duct tape used as a universal repair tool.

However what's really impressive is that Whedon does not sacrifice scientific facts in his writing. Much of the show takes place in space...and space in "Firefly" actually does function as a vacuum. Whenever the characters are "in the black" and not in the ship, there is complete silence aside from their communicators. In one episode, there is a fire in the ship which they get rid of by sealing off the areas on fire and opening up the air lock. As the oxygen rushes out, so does the fire...which dissipates the moment there is no air to burn. Even the design of the ship is carefully thought out to make its movements logical.

No sound here.

These are not things that most people notice...that's the idea. If you notice them, they grab your attention away from the story. They are logical and would work in the real world, so we file them away as "normal" and ignore them. That is a sign of a well-constructed fictional world.

HNBF note - One of the many wonderful charities supported by Nathan Fillion is "Kids Need to Read"...who can't get behind that? Join the fine folks at Help Nathan Buy Firefly in supporting the charity and showing that Browncoats care!

Radio Week - Oxford Comma

Good afternoon! You're listening to Rabid Radio. I'm L.M. Rabid and I'm delving deeply into the devious ditties you deigned to delegate to my dubious dealings. We're taking your requests and putting them through my tests. I'm taking my absurdly expensive college education in literary analysis to take apart the songs you've sacrificed at my altar. What better use could there be? Our first request comes from the Lovely Lora, who would love to hear some Vampire Weekend. Now I either live to serve Lora or I live to serve, Lora. Either way you're going to be treated to analysis of a song about the non-importance of commas.

First let's take a look at the music video and get as much information as we can.



That done, let's get started.

Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?
Oxford commas are an obscure grammar rule also known as "serial commas". They are an optional comma right before the "and" in a list...mostly useful to clarify when a list is over if it uses groups. For example, it helps clarify the meaning in the sentence. "There are many famous pairs in literature such as Romeo and Juliet, Sherlock Holmes and John Watson, Beezus and Ramona, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In this, the comma before the final group help clarify when the and is a sign of the list ending and when the and is just tying together the groups.

The salient point, in regards to the song, is that it is a fiddly rule of the English language that most don't bother with. It is usually only used by the most proper of grammaticians. In fact, it is called an "Oxford Comma" because it is primarily used by Oxford Press publications, which is British-based.

I've seen those English dramas too
They're cruel

Once more we have a reference to English, although the implication is "British English" rather than the language "English". Vampire Weekend is an American band, so the distinction could be indicative of something.

So if there's any other way
To spell the word
It's fine with me, with me

The song has already referenced a grammar rule used primarily by the Oxford press and made a reference to British English. This leads me to believe that these lines are a reference to how words are spelt differently between American English and British English...such as "favorite" and "favourite". Both are technically correct, but the word has a different spelling depending on where you are.

So why rant about how unimportant the distinctions between British and American English are? The next verse reveals the issue.

Why would you speak to me that way
Especially when I always said that I
Haven't got the words for you

Now, I'm going to introduce you to another RULE OF LITERATURE. The first one came from inimitable Dr. Walters, who taught my Creative Writing Fiction class. This second one is a favorite of the astounding Dr. Morrison...who appropriately taught the class that covered Poetry Analysis, as well as several others.

Second Rule of Literature
When analyzing a text, be careful not to confuse the speaker with the author.

To break it down for you non-lit majors: The "speaker" in a work is the character whose point of view you're seeing. It is important not to assume that the views expressed by the speaker are the same as the views of the author. Take Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" in which the speaker presents a case that it would be practical for the poor to sell their surplus children to the rich to eat. You should not come away from that story thinking "Jonathan Swift was pro-cannabalism". It's an extreme example but it gets the point across.

I present this rule to you for a reason. I am going to make some assumptions about the "character" speaking these lines based on the band. You should not do this as a rule, but it does help to take the author's experience into account when analyzing a work. You just have to remain aware that it might not be literal. Not every song about breakups is about a specific breakup that the writer experienced, as with Poison's "Every Rose Has Its Thorn" or 90% of Taylor Swift's songs.

I am therefore going to assume, given that the first verse designates British-English as a different dialect to the speaker's own, and because Vampire Weekend is an American band, that the speaker is American. Given the context I'll draw the conclusion that the song is told from the point of view of an American boy (again, taking my assumption from the band members) speaking to a British person. I feel that I can make these assumptions about the speaker because the music video does feature the lead singer of Vampire Weekend delivering the lines.

So, we have an American male speaker using confrontational language when speaking to a British character about the way the British characters talks to him.

All your diction dripping with disdain
Through the pain
I always tell the truth

The accusation being made by the speaker seems to be that the British person talks down to him. There is an implication that whatever was said, it was hurtful towards the speaker. The line "I always tell the truth" holds the subtext that the British "you" does not. This is confirmed later when the speaker asks "Why would you lie about anything at all?"

(If this seems random so far, don't worry. At the end, I'm going to put all of these pieces together in a nice, neat conclusion.)

Who gives a fuck about an Oxford climber?
I climbed to Dharamsala too
I did

Again, we see a repeat of "Oxford" as an adjective...this time modifying "climber" instead of "comma". Unlike "Oxford comma", an "Oxford climber" doesn't refer to any definable phrase. We must therefore assume that Oxford modifies "climber" in the same way that it modified "comma". Given the conclusions that we already have drawn about Oxford commas and the British language in regards to the speaker, we can draw the conclusion that an Oxford climber is a sort of elite climber. The British person puts a lot of stock in the "proper" British way of doing things and is derisive of the speaker's American ways. (We see this in the phrase "All your diction dripping with derision")

However, the speaker asserts that his abilities are the same and just as valid. He is as capable of climbing the Dharamsala as an Oxford climber would be in the same way that his way of speaking is just as correct as the British way.

I met the highest lama
His accent sounded fine
To me, to me

Dharamsala is a city in India located in a valley. Notably, it is where the current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, lives. Like America and England, much of India is English-speaking due to having once been a part of the English Empire. This is the speaker once again asserting that you don't need to speak proper "Oxford English" in order to be correct. The Dalai Lama is a highly respected figure. Presumably, his English would be an Indian dialect of the language and not "proper" by the British "you"'s terms. The speaker is making the point that the Brit. has unreasonable standards.

Now I'm going to give you the rest of the lyrics at once before breaking it down into its salient points...partially because it's kind of repetitive and partially because I'm running out of time.

Check your handbook
It's no trick
Take the chapstick
Put it on your lips
Crack a smile
Adjust my tie
Know your boyfriend, unlike other guys

Why would you lie about how much coal you have?
Why would you lie about something dumb like that?
Why would you lie about anything at all?
First the window, then it's to the wall
Lil' Jon, he always tells the truth

Check your passport
It's no trick
Take the chapstick
Put it on your lips
Crack a smile
Adjust my tie
Know your butler, unlike other guys
Why would you lie about how much coal you have?
Why would you lie about something dumb like that?
Why would you lie about anything at all?
First the window, then it's through the wall
Why would you tape my conversations?
Show your paintings
At the United Nations
Lil' Jon, he always tells the truth


There are several references and symbols in here. First, I'll handle the vaguely absurd reference to Lil Jon. I'll give you a link to the song its referring to, but honestly you don't need to know much more than this: Lil Jon is known for very vulgar lyrics put to fun dance music. The reference puts together the accusations that the Brit. is lying with the rambling about the "properness" of his or her speech. Put together, the speaker's assertion is that "you" may look down on the speaker for his less-than-perfect English, but even the most vulgar of English-speakers is capable of the truth while "you" are a liar.

"Get Low" lyrics - NSFW...or Grandmothers who read my blog.

The lines about the chapstick as well as the line "Why would you lie about how much coal you have?" are both evocative of coldness. The implication is that the British "you" is a cold person, who presented themselves as warmer to the speaker. The request that they put on chapstick and "crack a smile" seems to be a plea for the person to stop being so "cold". Taking into account the line "Know your boyfriend, unlike other guys", the implication seems to be that whoever "you" is, the speaker is their boyfriend. Since the line changes to "butler" upon repetition, it seems that until this point he or she has treated the speaker as inferior...which seems to fit with the derision assigned to him or her already in the song. "Unlike other guys" I believe is referring to the speaker...in other words "Your boyfriend is unlike other guys"...which is another reference to the couple being multi-cultural....British and American.

Finally, I'll add the lines about the United Nations and taping of conversations to create a full picture of the analysis.

The speaker is an American dating a British person. The British person has treated the American coldly, making fun of him in front of others (That's the United Nations bit...implying that the American has been "painted" by the British person in a cruel way and put on display in front of the world). Throughout their relationship, the British person has been derisive of the American as well as deceitful. The American speaker is retaliating by pointing out that all the "proper" speech in the world can't cover up a lie and no amount of dressing things up (adjusting ties) will hide the flaws of something.

There you are. Sorry if it's a little rushed and incoherent...but I have to go to work now.

That's all for today. More music tomorrow. I'm L.M. Rabid...stay tuned to Rabid Radio!

"Avatar" is just a rip-off of "Monster's Inc."

Stop looking at me like that.

No really, stop.

If you've gone to a cinema at all in the past year, you have seen the epic (and I mean epic in the sense of it being FREAKING LONG) CGI wet-dream that is "Avatar". Visually stunning, mechanically uncomfortable, and as ham-handed with the environmentalist propaganda as "Ferngully" but without Tim Curry, Robin Williams, or eighties-era hilarity.

Now, I'm going to make something very clear. I liked Avatar. I saw it in the theaters and thought it was very pretty. As I am a geek, I found the concept of hooking your brain up directly to a giant world-wide super computer very appealing. Besides, I like fantasy…and this had the flavor of every fantasy novel ever written…even if the mechanics of it were a bit shallow in comparison. (Think Eragon to Lord of the Rings).

Besides, I'm not a film snob. I love indie films and dark comedies, but I am just as capable of enjoying a bad film. In fact, I absolutely adore a hilariously terrible film. ("Xanadu" with Olivia Newton John is a particular favorite.) I find movies like "Wedding Crashers" and "Zoolander" just as satisfying as "Amelie" and "Synecdoche, New York" if in completely different ways. So the fact that everything James Cameron does is painfully mainstream and overly-marketed really didn't cut my enjoyment that much.

So yeah, I liked Avatar. Would I see it again? If there was nothing good on TV.

So why do I not worship the ground James Cameron walks on? It has to do with my first rule of Literature.

FIRST RULE OF LITERATURE
Any creative work should evoke an emotion, not force one.

So your friend wants to demonstrate to you, through film, that drowning puppies is wrong. You see two films. The first has a very righteous tone. You listen to people argue, vehemently, about the wrongness of drowning puppies. This is accompanied by BAD MEN drowning puppies anyway. The second film is generally happy. You are introduced to one or two very specific puppies. They have names and you are given a solid hour to get to know them and watch them be generally adorable. You grow to love them. At this point, during the climax, they are stuck in a river and are very close to drowning, and you are incredibly relieved that they are ok.

Which one worked better? The one where you are shown and told that puppy drowning is wrong. Or the one where you felt that it would be a terrible thing for a puppy to drown and made the connection on your own? Sure, after each film you probably felt very strong about your anti-puppy-drowning convictions. However, you likely leave the first thinking "Puppy Drowning is Bad because it's Bad." You leave the second thinking "I Love Puppies and Would Feel Awful if Something Happened To Them."

Avatar is definitely in camp #1.

"But Brie" I hear you say in my mind "This rant is all very well-and-good, but what does this have to do with Monster's Inc.?"

I'm so glad you asked, figments of my imagination. (And as this blog is brand new and has no followers as of my writing this...you really are fictional, dear reader.)

Allow me to restate my thesis: Avatar is just a cheap ripoff of Monster's Inc.

Yes. That Monster's Inc. The animated one. By Disney and Pixar. John Goodman, Billy Crystal etc.

No. It's not just because they feature a giant, blue protagonist.

It is because they are LITERALLY the same film plot-wise.

In case you are one of those sad people who don't watch children's films because you feel they are beneath you, allow me to explain the plot of "Monster's Inc."

There is a large corporation dedicated to obtaining a fuel source for the benefit of society. The protagonist works for this company and is in fact a key employee, singled out by the director of the corporation.

The fuel source is in the hand of a strange foreign people of a completely different species. Understanding of this foreign populace is very limited, but it is generally understood that they are DIFFERENT and SCARY. However, they are believed to be inferior, and are capable of being tricked out of their fuel source…especially since they don't really consider it a fuel source. Protagonist is charged with doing just this. However, in the course of performing his duties, he accidentally comes into contact with a girl from this foreign species. As time goes on he grows to understand the girl and have deep feelings for her. He becomes determined to protect her from what he's beginning to understand as the cruel and ignorant treatment of her species by his company. This culminates in an epic conflict with the director of his company. In the end, he stops the company and finds that through understanding and kind treatment of the other species, fuel can be obtained more easily and ethically.

Seriously, the only way this plot differs from Avatar is that in the end, instead of abandoning his own people, the protagonist manages to negotiate peaceful interaction between the two species and STILL get the damn fuel that his own people actually need. Which is a better ending anyway.

Those of you who have seen Monster's Inc. are now going through my synopsis and trying to reconcile it with what you remember of the movie. This is because it wasn't made to shove this moral down your throat. It's carefully hidden under the adorable story-telling and your concern for Boo. It concentrates on creating empathy with the main characters, not on The Message.

Please, tell me I'm wrong. I like telling people my opinion, I LOVE getting to argue it. Besides, I've been rolling this comparison around in my head for weeks and would love to iron out any holes in it if I can. If you see a weak point in this post, comment and let me know. The only thing more fun for an English major than literary analysis is literary discussion.

Also, as this is a new blog, please let me know what I can do to improve. Do I rant too much? Does my writing style annoy you? Do I annoy you? Too long? Too short? Any and all criticism welcome. Until next time, cheers!