ASK ME TABITHA

Why must this go on...

Why others will join you...

Why nothing can stop these men...

Why it happens so much here...

Why souls can be so twisted...

Why death is absolute...

Why these questions have no answers...

I've just realized a dream I've been working on for 29 years. It started with a theological conflict of faith. In my freshman year at ULowell I immersed myself in the contentious inner debate concerning the nature of God. The problem was: If Christianity is correct and Jesus is the Messiah and he is salvation, then Judaism (and any other faiths by default) is a false proposition and therefore against the will of God. Conversely, if Christianity is incorrect and Jesus was not the Messiah (or he didn't actually exist at all), then Judaism or Islam is the Truth and belief in Jesus as God is a damnable falsehood. It appeared very chimerical that God should place our souls on so uneven a footing as the simple fact ones place of birth, culture or learning. As I studied more I decided to search outside religion for the ultimate nature of our existence. I caromed from Lao Tzu to Sartre, from Einstein to Adams, from St. John to Sagan.

As the years wore on I started to envelop the mystery with thoughts from Albert Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory of Relativity with the attitudes present in the literature of Franz Kafka and Albert Camus. I saw the scientific Holy Grail of Grand Unification in Physics as the same goal and added more ideas to the mound. Eventually my scientific understanding became enhanced by reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and Julian Barbour's The End of Time and an untold amount of articles in such diverse publications as Scientific American, Discover, The Skeptical Inquirer and Astronomy Today. I never lost sight of the contributions of thinkers outside the realm of core-sciences. I evolved into a philosopher, for I believe philosophy is the bridge between theology and hard science, as well as the interface between everyday life and the extreme classification and dissection of our existence from the quark to the postulation of multiple universes and dimensions.

I began to suspect our theories on Time as the fourth dimension could lead to an astonishing insight beyond the hoped intentions. I decided to study mechanisms that demonstrate the essence of Time. Therefore I turned to Stephen Jay Gould's works for his contention that evolution is not so much a progression like the rungs of a ladder but rather a diversification emerging as the branches of a tree. His view fit the model of a universe less propelled by Time marching per se, but rather becoming revealed. If Time is an illusion as far as a constant, it is rather a dimension relative to placement within the three "physical" dimensions. Gravity, a property connected to tangible objects, can distort Time, for instance. So I kept going far afield to garner other bits of evidence to a question as much as to an answer. In building answers to questions we all too often pile them with the narrow-minded intention of a solution, ignoring the fact that the identical exhibits of reasoning could shed light on a possibly equal (or superior) mental challenge. How many examples are there of people tackling a problem discovering/creating something unforeseen - instruments designed to perform a task, which applied in another fashion have an unexpected impact. With this in mind I continued my interest in History. The Lewis and Clark expedition, the French and Indian War and the life, accomplishments and authorship of Theodore Roosevelt may be personal favorite subjects, yet when taken in context with the myriad other areas I enjoy reading about (The life and works of literature's giant William Shakespeare, the exceeding deep Thomas Aquinas and the historical writings of Francis Parkman, Barbara Tuchman, Fred Anderson etc) I've developed a sense of the grand scale of human activity. I slowly became aware that Mankind is not progressing - we are performing just as nature is: we are diversifying. No "period of activity" is more important than another.

If the evolution of Species is not a majestic march forward and upward... if the exploits and achievements of Humanity are not an ever improving state... if Time does not tick exasperatingly on and on passing incessantly in the same form everywhere... I call the hypotheses generally "accepting" a beginning of the Universe a la Big Bang as unsteady as the notion that the universe is expanding, implying a movement from what has been to an inexorable future that is to be. Just as a six-day Creation and an Earth-centric may be faulty by placing us in the hub of existence, most theories spoken of presently either confine the universe within Space (the three physical dimensions) or Time. As for physicality, how can the universe have boundaries if by definition Universe is the total of all that exists? The Universe expanding should be derided for the obvious oxymoron it is. How does something, which is the entire state of reality, expand? Expand past what... into what? Another Universe... or realm? Aren't we making the same error all over again? As with the demarcation of Species, Geological Eras, Historical Centuries and Cosmological Classification - we are imposing classification and pressing our interpretation as Law. Many point to the Doppler Effect and Hubble's evidence with a certainty that it means objects are moving away spreading apart. They are quick to "remind" us that the Milky Way is not in the center. How quaint and insincere. Do our telescopes find a limit of field in any direction? Like it or not any observation puts us at the center. It's revisiting the assertion we're closer to the center and not some far-flung arm with a massive blue shift designating a huge chuck of the observable space coming towards us. More likely, we're only capable of seeing an insignificant percentage of a whole, a view bound to enlarge. It's just that the expanse is so huge we end up like the blind men studying the elephant. A Phonetician fisherman sitting in a boat lowering a net into the water had no clue as the full nature of oceans. Scientists scoff at tales of the Great Deluge encompassing the entire world, explaining the event was local and the limited view of the world distorted the perception of the immensity of the flood. They're doing the same thing. There is no evidence we're ever going to find parameters for the Universe to make informed opinions as to our place in it. I maintain parameters don't exist; yet if indeed they do, our scant knowledge should realistically preclude any serious discussion of hard realities based on scientific "laws" no matter how intelligent and interesting the claims and claimants may be. Doesn't it become apparent that our knowledge consistently alters our differentiation of existence: Aristotle, Lamark, Newton lose their grasp of science - the creator of the wheel is forgotten by inventors and discoverers from antiquity, most of whom are in turn forgotten or trivialized by modern inventors and discoverers, who in turn will visit the same fate in the future - leaders and nations progress and make war while looking back and predicting outcomes.

What if instead we realize that our rules on life forms are delusional, they're not leading anywhere - they're simply manifesting different properties altered by environment and generational whim. We designate terms and boundaries on Time and the Universe. My comments speak of Past and Future. Still remove one instant from anything and the entire state of existence collapses. If Time were to "Freeze" our ability to realize it or communicate about it would cease, therefore Change/Movement which is called Time is paramount no less than height, width or depth. If any of those three dimensions were to cease, once again Movement would be impossible - therefore Time is negated again. All four dimensions are interdependent. Remove one and the others might as well not be. Just as significant is what should be an obvious truth: If the Universe is all we know of and ever will know, if it includes every piece of matter and every bit of energy - it cannot add or subtract from the matter/energy total. There is no outside for anything to go to or come from. The combination of Matter and Energy is a mix that logically cannot be altered. There is not a single thing that has ever existed that became or came from nothing. It either changed physical state into or from another material form or realized in a form of energy. The sum total of All from the formation of NGC 6397 to the birth of a trilobite to the D key on my keyboard originated within the single amalgamation of all things, the Universe. Not one atom can be obliterated into nothingness. Einstein tells us, "Mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing."

Where am I leading? I put forth a proposal, perhaps to be perceived as heretical or nonsensical. I have not the opportunity here expound on the theory in toto. Still, I believe I've laid out an interesting if not convincing argument for a concept, which although touched on by countless others from one angle or multitude of facets, has not been articulated in the form I present here. I claim there is a Fifth Dimension. How many people have searched through a mountain of statistics and abstract reasoning? How many have proclaimed our mind or some outside force, be it Supernatural or Deistic, accounts for intangibles? I forward the concept that just like the other four dimensions the Fifth is obvious and prevalent everywhere in everything. There will be a tendency to try to measure it; we already do without assigning the fact by the nomenclature of Dimension.

Step back. Imagine you're not a Firefly fan who thinks Joss Whedon has a halo of genius and that not all episodes of great shows are created equal.

I did not see Firefly when it originally aired (for reasons beyond my control). I did however buy the DVD of Serenity, fell in love with it and purchased Firefly - and loved that also.

The Good: Excellent casting (I do feel there is one exception - not to be named), great sets and effects, and a wonderful universe concept. Absolutely sold on the language - both the Chinese elements and the Western jargon. I also like the costumes - all those earth-tones.

The Bad: Fox totally messed up in not airing the double length pilot first. They should have given the series a longer chance. Also, they were dense about the Sci-Fi Western idea.

The Ugly: The ratings weren't very good. The guest stars were uneven - some wonderful - example Richard Brooks in Objects in Space - and a few were substandard. To me the real damning item involves the writing. Since the pilot had not been aired, Whedon and company must have known they were on shaky ground.

The Train Job is a super rebound after losing the pilot. We're treated to excellent characters (likewise, the cast portraying them) involved in an engaging heist tale with WOW-level special effects to boot.

It is beyond me how Bushwhacked ever was released as the second episode. It has such glaring problems, it comes across as something you'd expect in season three as filler to give the writers chance to think up some new material. The Reavers - we never see them. OK, I can dig that, saving them for impact later in the series. So what do we learn about them? They're vicious, practically inhuman. We are told this. We also find out they carefully clean up after themselves, leaving not one spot of blood to alarm the Firefly's crew. Again, in keeping with their tidiness, they pick up all the dead and neatly hang them up, apparently drained of unsightly blood, since there is no trace of any below them. Always the domestic madmen, they know not to leave the door open, so they lock the room where a bounty of food and the bodies are. We get past this to where Mal decides that the survivor they've rescued has been turned into a dreaded Reaver. His first thought: get everyone away from him and lock him in the medical room - without restraints! Nothing like giving homicidal madmen access to drugs and sharp objects. It gets better. The crew and the Reaver-in-waiting are brought aboard an Alliance ship. Big, big alliance ship with an operating room right by the entrance I guess, because the now raging full-blooded 130 pound Reaver actually gets out of an OR and navigates his way past all security and defenses with his mighty scalpel. His small size worked as a joke for his run-in with Jayne, but here it just plays wrong because this segment is serious (not that a sizable dude should have been able to find his way out). Poor guy, survives Reavers and a mini-army to be finally killed by Mal with handcuffed hands.

If you watched the Serenity film with its accompanying Joss Whedon commentary, you heard him explain how audiences don't like to see the good guys win purely on the stupidity or ineptitude of the bad guys. Well, after establishing that the Alliance military is uncaring and lazy in The Train Job, we are now served the notion that they are thickheaded and incompetent. As for the Reavers, we'll have to wait to see their flaws, as they've already impressed us with their ability to neatly kill defenseless people.

After Bushwacked things got better with four good episodes. Shindig is all manner of fun. Safe is a foundation sort of installment. It's not so much about what goes on, but rather a fine exercise in character development. Next is one of my favorites, Jaynestown. It's a fantastic hoot, with humor well spread on-board and off. My one snicker: Stitch is pretty spry for a guy cooped up in a 3X3X3 crate for four years. Can we spell atrophy? Yeah, but Ray, how about that song? "The Hero on Canton" is one hi-larry-ous audible concoction, well written and funny enough to save many a show less gifted. Our Mrs. Reynolds is a cute romp with a cute guest star, the type of episode best used sparingly so as to be viewed as a bit of fresh air.

Then followed the peak stretch of Out of Gas, Ariel and War Stories - three awesome shows. Could go on and on about all sorts of greatness, but that's not the aim of this blog. At this point Fox would be totally 100% wrong in ditching Firefly. The weaknesses so far were more than half of their own making. Yet, the next turn of events would offer them ammunition to defend their decision to axe the show, because after War Stories, things fell apart.

Having a SECOND episode with a goofy "cute villainess" plot line (Trash rehashing Our Mrs, Reynolds) so early makes it appear that once again the writers were relying heavily on the world they constructed and the tightness of the characters to carry a poor story. The thing is, the world they constructed and the tightness of the characters hadn't really been established fully yet, partially because the pilot wasn't aired. WAKE UP JOSS! He's too smart to be excused for not putting out his best stuff early, knowing the network was watching with a wary eye. Well, Trash didn't air and I don't think it was a great loss. It's not terrible, it's simply rehash. If it were to appear a season later it would be OK, maybe even very welcome, but it was too soon.

The biggest challenge was the fact that Firefly being a serial series, had potentially important info in every installment. So if an episode doesn't air, all the more confusion for the viewers and a jolt to the writers that they must retell the important stuff some other time. All this might be excusable if they hadn't offered The Message and Heart of Gold as the next two episodes. The Message is flawed, the continuity is awful - especially Jayne's hat. Alan Tudyk's commentary notes the vanishing and reappearing straw stuck to the hat. What he doesn't mention is how often Adam Baldwin takes the hat off - in one short segment he removes it twice. I do have a hard time watching the main guest star. If you can buy into the plot's far out concept, that's one matter. Believing anyone would remotely trust this obvious Bozo with such rare, expensive and potentially life-saving items is really pushing it. The commentary more than hints at other weaknesses. Still, I enjoy The Message - because I've bought into the whole Firefly idea. On it's own it's just OK. The beginning is very entertaining and offered plenty of promise, plus the villain looks cool, even though his sidekicks look ready for a frat keg party rather than taking on a ship full of hard cases (like it or not, the fact is we are rooting for some unrepentant killers). Thrown in the fact that bad guys are outnumbered 3 to 1 and stupid and we revisit the recurring evidence that Joss either was full of crap about the notion that serious bad guys needing to be more than buffoons or he meant it only applied to feature films - or he was doing weed. Hey, he jokes about it why can't I?

Then there's Heart of Gold. Need a lot of weed or an uncritical bias in order to forgive such a disaster . Underwhelming villain played by unconvincing actor using an unremarkable weapon while leading unscary henchmen VS unbelievably inept crew (leaving ship practically unattended in a knowingly hostile place) protecting an unconvincing group of harlots. Looks like they outnumber the towns non-hooker residents, don't it? But the worst is the absolute ham playing the pregnant girl. Throw in some bad direction and dialogue to really make sure the thing stays dead. No wonder it didn't air... and the series was only about halfway through it's first season. I've stated my distaste for this fiasco elsewhere and don't want to go on about it now. If someone wants to knock me on it, I'll be glad to get more detailed. This should have been titled Trash.

Then came a large serving of redemption.

Objects in Space is a masterpiece: story and subtext (Depth of suspense, logic and philosophical context), rich atmosphere via Greg Edmonson (his music a consistent bonus throughout the series, I've wondered why he wasn't tapped to orchestrate the film Serenity), Ah, Richard Brooks as Jubal Early (I'm strongly tempted to assume Whedon wanted to morph this role to fit into the Serenity motion picture). Generally I'm more engaged in cinema than television, but so many superior facets meld in Objects that I would love to see it in a theatre environment. I feel it's as good as some of the greatest sci-fi films.

If you watch only the episodes that aired, you end up with Out of Gas, Ariel, War Stories and Objects in Space running one after another. The snags here and there could be written off as mere missteps. It becomes easy to understand the frustration of viewers at the initial time when Firefly was on the Fox schedule. Instead we can look back and see many of the flaws the audience was spared. There were a couple stumbles beyond missteps.

Was Firefly a good show? Yes. It could very often be a great show... maybe often enough to be considered a great show, when the heights of it's best moments are weighed in. Still, I return to my premise, Step back... survey the entire series with a critical eye. It's not perfect. As much as I think Fox should have kept it going, I believe there were signs that perhaps it wasn't realistically fated for a long run, instead a fantastic jumping board for an excellent movie franchise.