But all of it isn't, surely? I figure there's what you put in on purpose, there's what you can't help letting in, and then there's what I take out of it that may never have been placed there.

Verily, ita. Because *I* the audience, bring my own shit to the table as well, and read into it my own personal experiences, biases, blah blah thinkingcakes.

Both essays attribute these views to the writers.

In this case, the writers are alive and chatty. It's easy enough to ask them.

Joss may have seen Zoe as iconic, Tim may have seen her as closer to the Earth, but if I had to venture a guess, it'd be that both of them just thought she was really fucking hot.

just thought she was really fucking hot

Well, yeah. But of course the fact that a strong--physically strong--tough-minded, soldierly woman is what the writers define as hot is part of the message. They could have cast someone who looked like, um, Miss Hathaway and given an entirely different message.

They could have cast someone who looked like, um, Miss Hathaway and given an entirely different message.

Now I wanna see Miss Hathaway with Zoe's sawed-off shotgun.

In all fairness, and I don't know Joss, just Tim, but questions about ideologies arent so much part of the interview process, as much as, "can you write the shit of this in 48 hours so I don't have to rewrite it all on set?"

Anything else is icing.

I'll defer to Robin on all things script related, but my experience watching Tim hatch a story from an idea, to beats to draft to finish is that there are specific ideas he wants to get across, and the story is the suspension liquid to bridge those ideas. The question is usually, "what do I need you to learn about these characters?" And then the subtextiness in the story is added to further the answer to that question. Some words are added because, well, "that line was really cool!" But not at the expense of the story, we hope.

Now I'm gonna have nightmares: [link]

I started this here, because this didn't have so much to do with Firefly per se, but essays in general.

You're not really discussing essays, but analysis, in general. Essays are a personal point of view, "this is what I saw, how I felt, and why."

I try to never to say, "this is what Robin saw, what Robin felt, and why she felt it," unless I'm quoting Robin.

So for the essayist to say that about either Joss or Tim without a direct quote is a value judgment on the essayist's part.

I was taught that in an academic essays you shouldn't ascribe thematic intent to the writer. Not even if you've got quotes from him saying, "I intended this." It's not that you're dismissing the idea that the writer had any intent, but if you discuss it that way, you've gone from talking about the work to doing a psychological profile. And it's just a short step to, "Tim is obviously into BDSM" and the like. You can find writers who say contradictory things about their own work. Their contemporary comments may not match what they say 20 years later, so then what do you do?

So it was drilled into me that if you want to talk about the text, talk about the text. Bringing the writer into it opens a very large can of worms. I blame postmodernism for making the text an excuse for theorizing about the author's political/sexual/sociological beliefs. But I blame postmodernism for most things.

"Tim is obviously into BDSM" and the like.

I still want to choke the fuck out of that poster.

You can find writers who say contradictory things about their own work. Their contemporary comments may not match what they say 20 years later, so then what do you do?

Oh sure. Such is life. I'm just gonna be more interested on their take on their own work, and find it more genuine, than the dude writing that he knows what's in Joss' head because he watched the same show I did.

Well, that pretense didn't last long. It was suggested I come home.

Did I mention the hatred of my body?

Poor ita, though I am glad it was suggested.

Do you think you can sleep soon?