tamsiblings

[tamsiblings]

so I've always wondered this in the back of my mind but your reblog recently brought it back to the forefront

this line especially, but also the vibe you get throughout the entire show that Simon is habitually caring for and protecting river since that what he's always done. And I've been wondering: protecting her from what? The show never shows us what Simon Protecting River looked like before he broke her out of the fucked up lab. I have a pretty good idea that it may have been a form of emotional neglect from their parents. They don't notice River's distress in her letters and basically disown Simon when he goes off to save her so maybe they were the type to never listen to their children or believe them when they expressed their needs. Or care more about how their children's behavior made their family appear socially and less about how their children were actually doing. I also wonder if River didn't have a bit of the Gifted Child syndrome going on and their parents treated her more as a prodigy than a daughter. And Simon had to stand up for her and try to get their parents to see her as a girl first and a genius second.

It would have been really cool to see this actually in the show as a flashback or something, but I bet you've thought about it loads and want to hear your take.

warning: this got reallly tangenty and long as i am wont to do oops <3 putting most of it under a cut

warnings for discussion of emotional neglect and a variety of other factors i think could reasonably be labelled as emotional and psychological abuse. emotional neglect on its own is to my understanding a form of emotional abuse, but i think there are other layers here as well.

anyway heyyyy bestie talking about the tams (including the parents tbh, the little we get of this family structure is fascinating to me) (we do actually get more on simon and river's background than anyone else! bc it's so connected to the current story anyway) is my favorite thing as you may have guessed so thank you for sending this.

and YES i have thought about this a lot <3

simon said he "always has" taken care of river and while i think on a literal level this is likely a Slight exaggeration (even if their parents weren't around physically for that whole aspect of taking care of, i think their material needs were always met and they likely had the means for a nanny or some other kind of support) but on an emotional level, i think this is very true.

i think you are 100 percent spot on with the emotional neglect and other unhealthy dynamics. here's some of what we know on that front:

the tam parents could be affectionate and even indulgent when it was easy and suited their own ends. ie. getting the source box for simon and assuring him he's worth it, calling them "you two geniuses" etc. this could be a very sweet moment and in some ways it is, because i truly believe the tams both believe in the worth and specialness of their children...

but their affection is clearly quite conditional. deeply. and, i think, more than anyone involved quite realizes. it's followed up by "that's the deal - dedicated sourcebox - brilliant doctor'. no matter how lightlyheartedly and affectionately it's said, it's clear it's seriously meant - and baby!simon clearly takes it to heart. (note: i've always interpreted this as simon already expressing interested in medicine and his father basically going "fine, but whatever you're doing, you have to be the best at it". i'm sure attorney or corporate ceo also would have sufficed for their image-focused needs, as long as he was successfuly and prestigious enough.)

i should also note that the the dynamic between regan and her children is far more implied because the focus in safe is mostly on gabriel.

a quote from an interview with sean maher: “It was great to learn where Simon came from. We see that his parents are incredibly ostentatious. There were so many expectations and Simon and River felt so much pressure, trying to be what their parents wanted them to be. And we got an idea of what happened to River. The parents sent her away to a school they thought would further her learning. Maybe they were naive in a sense, to think of only bettering her mind and not listening to her as a girl–as their daughter.” (emphasis mine)

notable here (and i love sean maher for noting this because, understandably because river isn't present in the flashbacks in the episode proper, it's not as clear what river's dynamic with their parents is, but certainly inferences can be made) is that both simon and river feel expectations and pressure from their parents, not just simon.

which leads to me wondering about river going to the academy. i think multiple things can be true here at once. i think, as simon says in the pilot, she did genuinely want to go. she was curious and brilliant and bright and not challenged enough in the current education system she found herself in or by her peers. she wanted something rigorous. i think a lot of that probably DID come from her. but i also do wonder if there was a level of their parents always expecting her to challenge herself in this way because, as you mention and i think implied in the quote above, they valued her brilliance and prodigy above her personhood. i also think it's possible (though i'm less sure on this) that river wanting to go to a school where she lives away from her parents and can both live up to their expectations but where she can distance herself from them could indicate something about how she feels. but might be reading too much into things.

there are also elements of controlling behavior that goes hand in hand with both the conditional love and the valuing their children for their intelligence/ability over simply valuing them as their childhood. in the shooting script, the offer simon gets goes through gabriel, and it's not presented as one opportunity or path simon can take. it's The Plan, and there's no room for deviation even when the most dire of circumstances calls for it. (and like, this would never happen because simon does genuinely value medicine and being a doctor, but in an interesting excercise: how would the conversation look if simon decided he didn't want to be a doctor o some other prestigious high paying XYZ? or even that he wanted to pursue a different opportunity he found on his own and is maybe not quite as prestigious in medicine? i don't get the sense it would have gone over that well.) we don't really get a sense of this with river because again, she's less present in the episode - but i think reasonable assumptions can be made.

^ it's a funny story that simon tells kaylee in object in space, about paying the feds off so they wouldn't tell his father about his drunken (and relatively harmless) escapade with his peers after making surgeon, and tbf, a lot of people probably wouldn't want their parents to know that. but in context with the rest of this, it feels very telling that simon did not want his father (or presumably his mother) knowing he acted at all in a way that could be considered undignified or that he got in any degree of trouble (it doesn't even sound like he was arrested, the police just showed up and he didn't want his parents to find out.)

in many ways, it seems clear both simon and river start off as golden children in their parents eyes - they care about them and value their gifts, but more like you would care about a trophy than a child. they care about what river and simon reflect on them. and notably, when river is no longer just the brilliant prodigy-child but vulnerable, in need of protection, and a symbol of inconvenient truth they don't want to face (a number of them, really - the misplaced trust in their government/society/system, the fragility of status and the false sense of security, their own culpability and failures to protect their children) - instead of helping her when she needs them the most, they ignore and abandon her. and when simon can't do the same, he - as the "truthteller" in many family dynamics of this structure often do - becomes some degree of a scapegoat. he faces the truth they are unable or unwilling to see. they turn a blind eye but simon can't, it's not who he is and he loves river too much. and suddenly, when he's not doing and saying and being exactly what they say he should because he's focused on helping river, he's treated like he's causing problems for no reason - like he's the problem. like he's making a big deal over nothing when he tries to show them the letters, when his father says "are you trying to destroy this family?" as though their daughter being kept and tortured against her will and their own refusal to acknowledge it isn't what's actually doing the family-destroying. and while i think simon getting scapegoated/othered/treated as a problem is a rather new development, and don't imagine they were getting constantly berated - in the scene at the end of safe, YMMV, but gabriel seems a little too comfortable quite ufairly berating simon for things that are quite obviously not his fault or for at all disappointing him. i don't think it was always happening - but i don't think this comes out of nowhere.

on the causing problems for no reason (or a reason they dismiss) component; this feels particularly insidious because they should know their son well enough to know simon doesn't do that. he doesn't do things for no reason, he has a highly overly developed sense of responsibility (which comes back into his dynamic with river ofc.) so like... either they do know that and are purposefully ignoring and even twisting it, or they don't know their son nearly as well as they should.

the scapegoating component lends itself to the extremely uncomfortable gaslighting component in safe. in fairness: i think this aspect of the Tams Very Poor Parenting Choices is likely much more situational and less indicative of past behaviors. regardless, it's pretty rough to watch simon point out things that are quite obviously strange (they don't KNOW anyone called d'arbanville) and have his parents treat him like he's paranoid and insane.

this also comes with a certain level of guilt tripping and beratement. i will say it forever: if i had a child and they were arrested, the FIRST thing i do is ask them if they're okay, figure the rest out later. "

and again: some aspects of all this are situational as we get into the river-at-the-academy component, but i think there's a lot that can be read into the tam family dynamic as a whole based on all this.

so on some level - a lot of THAT is why simon says he's always taken care of/protected river - i don't think he necessarily could have entirely saw or named or what their parents were doing for what it was (which i would argue, as you said, was some degree of emotional neglect and emotional abuse, though some of this is implied or inferred - i would argue based on evidence, but just something to keep in mind). but i do think he developed a sense of responsibility over her and a caretaking role as result.

because it's very notable to me that - for instance - in the river tam sessions, river specifically asks for simon. she doesn't say "i want to see my parents" or even "i want to see my family" but "i want to see my brother." and yes, you could argue that this is because that's who the audience who most care about/be familiar with - but with the rest of the context, it feels extremely significant. in the serenity film, she says something similar to what simon says in that shooting script flashback - "you take care of me, simon. you've always taken care of me. my turn" after simon gets shot and right before she goes in to get his bag and fight the reavers. and like, you could argue that she means ever since the academy - but "always" feels much more weighted than that to me.

it's also interesting to me that river doesn't seem to have as much difficulty reconciling with the fact that their parents abandoned them (and a whole host of other stuff, as established, but that's what the show most focuses on.) now, in fairness, river has a LOT going on - psychic and emotional overwhelm, lots of trauma and intrusive memories - both hers and others, etc - so it makes sense that maybe that just wouldn't be on her register regardless. but i also think... well 1) being so in tuned into what others think and feel, even if she might not have been quite able to name it, i do think she's understood longer than simon (maybe since before the academy; i am still curious if that's paret of why she left) how their parents really saw them. so she's had more time to accept and move on from it. 2) there's this other level where river DID have someone protecting her - simon - even if it took a long time to realize what he was protecting her from. while i think it probably looked less intense than it does in the show proper where she is so deeply traumatized, there is no doubt in my mind that if she was ever upset or anything ever went wrong, it was simon she turned to for comfort or help, not her parents. which tbc: <333 i love them. and this is not her fault at all. but simon Did Not Have That. i think he protected her without quite knowing that's what he was doing for a long time... and didn't realize he needed protection too and wasn't getting it.

which makes it difficult to reconcile and move on from, which is why in the moment in safe when river (seemingly talking about gabriel but likely talking about mal) insists "daddy" will come for them - simon totally shuts down. because he knows that's not going to happen, and it hurts a little too much to deal with, but he's still fairly RECENTLY coming to terms with How Their Parents Are - and the fact that he did not have emotional support. so now he doesn't know how to let himself even ADMIT that he also needs care.

final note (god sorry this is sooo long) i will also say that, while i (as a #tam siblings lover) am often very sad/angry/frustrated about simon and river's dynamic with their parents, and that i certainly will never excuse emotional abuse or this kind of parental behavior, that i try and hope to approach the tam parents in any analysis or ficwriting i might do from a very human angle. the range of human complexity is fascinating to me, and i don't think it does the themes of the show justice to act like the tam parents are outright monsters, totally good or totally bad (note: this is so not in the slightest me saying that i think you are doing this. more just thinking out loud about fandom discussions i have seen surrounding this topic.)

this gets at larger discourse both in fandom and in general i think there is a tendency in our society to want either completely villainize or idolize people (and this maybe becomes especially true in complicated relationships like this). when we talk about abuse to any degree and of any kind, people often want to dehumanize and villainize the abuser in such a way that separates themselves from that possibility - "abusers are evil and inhuman and i'm nothing like that so there's no way i could ever cause that kind of harm etc." but in actuality, there is no inherent internal quality that makes someone an abuser - it is a pattern of harmful behavior that people can choose to do and choose not to do. and i don't want to suggest that people who do this are abusive themselves, that's not what i mean - only that i think the mindset comes from a culture that insists on some very black and white thinking. i think it's a very natural human impulse to want to separate ourselves that way, but also maybe gets us away from seeing the bigger picture. and to be clear: i don't mean to suggest that anyone owes an abuser anything, or that simon and river, for example, should have to forgive their parents. that's not true here or in real life. i only mean to say that people are more complicated than being fully good or fully bad, and firefly reflecting this is one of my favorite things about it.

and again, this is complicated with the tam parents because i'm making a lot of (what i feel are supported, but even so) inferences and assumptions here. so whether you want to identify them as emotionally abusive/neglectful etc is a whole can of worms. but regardless, it's clear their behavior and parenting harmed their children. BUT here are where some major caveats come in:

similarly to the way people often do in other contexts, i have seen people want to outright completely villainize the tams and while i understand this impulse, i think it comes from the same place that a lot of well-meant but misguided discussions do. there are those that think they either must have never cared about river in any capacity at all or actively agreed to sell her out to the alliance (a theory i not only don't like or subscribe to but actually feel misses the point of what's going on with the tams and is less interesting even besides). but i think that sets up the tams to look cartoonishly evil in a way that the narrative doesn't support or intend. do i think the tams are good parents? well, no! i think it was easy to look like good parents when things were easy, but even then, there were cracks. (though i don't think everything was always bad - even in abusive situations, that is usually not the case - there are reasons why people love their parents and stay and have a hard time seeing the bad - because things aren't always like that.) i have also seen people insist or write like it's a given that the tams must have also been physically abusive, and while i don't want and would never tell anyone what they can and can't write, by my own reading, i find that unlikely. i think some of that is often coming from a place of people working through their own stuff, which again - never gonna tell anyone not to do that, you do you - but i also think at times it speaks to a societal tendency to assume that the harm isn't bad enough if it isn't physical - but i think we get a good sense of how deeply simon and river are affected even outside of the confirmation of any physical harm from their parents. (note: i do think the tams being willfully ignorant and leaving their daugher to be tortured and experimented on while on some level know that's what happening is a form of physical abuse or neglected, it's just situational and not in the traditional sense.)

but what i think is so important present, and much more interesting in this story, is that the tams are not evil, so to speak, or at least aren't mustache-twirling villains. they're not even entirely bad-intentioned; i believe they do genuinely want good things for their children, even if they have very specific ideas of what it should look like and how it will benefit them. but they have wholeheartedly, implicitly, without any room at all for questioning bought into the system values of the core and the alliance: prestige, status, and privilege treated as worth, family as a hollow projection of prestige, disruption as the ultimate trespass. to me, the story with regard to the tam parents isn't about them not caring or valuing simon and river at all - it's about valuing those things above them, and how their care is warped and shaped by those harmful systematic values.

now, this is rarer, but i have also seen people want to (maybe in response to above?), if not idolize, then absolve the tams of the role they played in river's abuse at the hands of the academy, but that doesn't ring true to me either. i want to be fair where it's due and say yes, there was danger involved (which simon put himself through) in helping river, but the fact is the narrative focuses much more on the tams focusing on what it could cost them on a social level - their status and "good name", prestige, etc. and at the end of the day, when you have children, you have responsibility to them - and the tam parents failed both of their children on that front.

one thing i also thing is so interesting to note is that simon and river are so loyal and value connection so deeply when it's clear that is not what was most instilled in them on a systematic level or taught to them by their parents. in fact, i think you could argue that while some of it was intrinsic to who they are (here's the old nature vs. nurture debate which i think you could argue simon and river are the two biggest representers of on the show), i also think it's a repsonse to this bond they formed specifically BECAUSE of their parents.

[tamsiblings]

btw firefly is technically a post-apocalypse narrative and we do NOT talk about that enough.

[tamsiblings]

"Fox lights up sci-fi 'Firefly' with Whedon" By Josef Adalian, Variety, 2001, archiving press/interviews/commetnary, accessed 5/27/2025

variety hyperlink

rawlink:

https://variety.com/2001/tv/news/fox-lights-up-sci-fi-firefly-with-whedon-1117857536/

wayback snapshot hyperlink

rawlink:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250528033854/https://variety.com/2001/tv/news/fox-lights-up-sci-fi-firefly-with-whedon-1117857536/

Net targets futuristic skein for fall preem Locking in a key piece of its 2002-03 development picture, Fox Broadcasting Co. is finalizing a big-bucks deal with “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” creator Joss Whedon for a new sci-fi adventure drama. Network has made a 13-episode commitment to the project, likely end up paying a premium license fee of around $1.3 million per episode when a final deal is signed. Show is the first to be produced by Whedon’s Mutant Enemy Prods. and 20th Century Fox Television under terms of Whedon’s recently inked overall deal with Fox. Deal also reunites Whedon and Fox Entertainment prexy Gail Berman; latter is an original producer of “Buffy” and spinoff skein “Angel.” Tentatively titled “Firefly,” the new ensemble skein takes place 500 years in the future and revolves around the crew of a “small, incredibly mobile spaceship whose aft end lights up,” Whedon said — hence the name. He will write, exec produce and direct what’s expected to be a two-hour pilot for the series, which is being targeted for a fall premiere. It’s possible “Firefly” could end up having a dual window on a cable channel as well. Sci Fi Channel has indicated its interest in running same-week repeats of the show. Fox would need to get affils to sign up for such a plan. And while no decision has been made on whether Fox’s signature sci-fi skein “The X-Files” will return next fall, the Whedon commitment helps ensure Fox Broadcasting has another high-profile sci-fi tentpole ready should “X” not come back. “It’s wicked Joss-like,” Berman said of Whedon’s latest concept. “It’s not like any show set in space that I’ve ever seen. It’s wonderful to be reunited with him and to work with him on this.” Whedon said he’s been “kicking around the idea (of ‘Firefly’) for a couple of years,” and that the concept fully came together for him after reading an account of the Battle of Gettysburg and the Reconstruction era. He came up with a concept that’s part Western, part space drama. “I wanted to make something that’s about a guy who fought for the South, lost and doesn’t like anybody anymore,” Whedon said. “This show isn’t about the people who made history; it’s about the people history stepped on. It’s about their lives and their struggles to keep their ship alive — as well as the search for meaning in a very dark place.” Whedon said “Firefly” would in some ways be a sort of “anti-‘Star Trek’ ” with no regular aliens or other monstrous creatures. “There’ll be scary-ass humans,” he said. “I can make people that are scarier than anything you can put in latex.” Ultimately, Whedon said, the new show will have the same moral center as his other skeins: “Life is hard. People are good when they want to be. And the universe is a big, scary place just like high school.” Twentieth Century Fox TV prexy Dana Walden said she believes the new Whedon project has all the elements that made “Buffy” and “Angel” successes. “You hear him talk about this series and it’s impossible not to get excited about it,” Walden said. “It’s a science fiction show that’s done in a way that’s incredibly accessible and emotional.” In addition to creating “Buffy” and co-creating spinoff “Angel,” Whedon snagged an Oscar nom for best screenplay on “Toy Story.” He also worked on the screenplays for “Speed” and “Twister.” Deal was brokered by Whedon’s reps at UTA.

supplementary notes/commentary:

13 episode commitment but the later insistence on a new pilot ("the train job") and shifting the original pilot ("serenity" to last in the air order of must mean they came to a legal agreement for 14 episodes. based on other interviews, i suspect whedon (with two shows ala buffy and angel under his belt as showrunner, he likely expected the show to to be picked up for at least the back half of the season, and i believe he's quoted as having plans for a seasons-long series.

"firefly" still being tentative as the name intrigues me. i can't remember if whedon's mentioned why he went with that over 'serenity' - presumably because he wanted that for the pilot?

1.3 million per episode licensing fee seems like a LOT for the projected number in 2002, but i'd have to look more into it. whedon likely had some room for negotiation given the success of his past projects.

as much as do love this show, i remain uncomfortable with some elements of origins re: the inspiration from the confederacy, and it's notable that those were well-known as the show's conception in press even prior to the show's airing. i get that the rest of the concept sort of tries to turn that on its head... but with some of the other's shows issues, it is something i keep in mind.

i'm interested in whedon's threshold for sci fi or fantastical elements. he didn't want aliens for this show (which i personally love, because this is a show in some ways very much about humanity) but it is till sci fi with all that entails - spaceships, some futuristic medical elements. and river transcends even that slightly more grounded semi-realistic base sci fi state with her psychic abilities and precognition and i believe he's quoted as saying he wanted it to seem like river becoming the ship was possible in objects in space and that in the future he may have been willing to incorporate more fantastical elements.

[tamsiblings]

“That shot there I like very much. I had Jack [Green, director of photography] take the light off of Simon when he’s surrounded by everybody so we see this sort of dark figure and our family around him because he’s the one that’s brought them into danger and he’s not connected to them.“    — Joss Whedon, Serenity director’s commentary

[tamsiblings]

simon is a moral absolutist who uses his core singular, most devotional moral absolute (re: saving/protecting/helping river, who represents not just the sister he loves but the ability to heal innocence that was disenfranchised and exploited) to justify moral grey areas thank you and goodnight <3

[tamsiblings]

[tamsiblings]

ughhh even so much of the camera work for the tam siblings is brilliant. when kaylee's looking up because simon's there overlooking the hoop-ball game in bushwhacked we actually track to river watching with curiosity first and then show simon watching behind her with similar but more restrained curiosity/confusion and the way the camera moves it's like - oh river's there there, that's how we know simon is too.

[tamsiblings]

why couldn't i be a neurotic perfectionist about cleaning or organization or something, WHY is is it about a gifset realistically not that many people are gonna see

[tamsiblings]

Imagine rescuing your sister from an Alliance camp and accidentally discovering a polycule of theifs that adopts you and your sister against your will

[tamsiblings]

Firefly Textpost Meme 29

[tamsiblings]

“Simon’s love for Kaylee was hard to balance and as an actor, I didn’t want him to come across as pretentious, a jerk, or rude. It is just that I was on that ship to get a job done, no matter what the cost.”

— Sean Maher, Official Serenity Movie Magazine

[tamsiblings]

“Ideally, I went at Simon from a regal point of view. There was an air of upper class he carried so I worked a lot on his speech and certainly the medical stuff was hard. You know, all those ER moments. Then again, there was balancing the dynamics with the crew and his sister. He really wanted to be there to keep her safe and I don’t think Simon wanted to enjoy the crew in any way, shape, or form. He has certainly gone through an overall transformation since the beginning of the series.”

— Sean Maher, Official Serenity Movie Magazine

[tamsiblings]

okay want to talk for a minute about the mal-simon conflict in the film:

the thing is, i actually fundamentally understand where both of them are coming from, and i've seen a lot of reactions where people tend to act like one or the other is being super unreasonable (often simon, but not always) but the thing is... i think they both have a good point, AND they're both being a little terrible lol. but i've always said that one of the reasons the mal-simon dynamic is enjoyable is because it's very easy to see where both of them are coming from.

*note: i probably seem like a lean about simon-agreeing in this commentary lmaooo but like once again i do genuinely understand where mal's coming from. i just Understand simon, i feel djshshs.

like: the central conflict is essentially keeping serenity afloat vs. keeping river safe. from mal's perspective, they're barely staying afloat, this job is maybe one of their last chances, having the tams on board has caused them to have less opportunities, and river's abilities ARE extremely useful, which helps the whole ship if she goes on the job, including simon and river (who are also part of the crew that needs to stay afloat.) i don't begrudge mal for feeling like it was necessary.

but from simon's perspective: the whole point of keeping river aboard serenity is keep her out of danger and away from the alliance. from his perspective, he has done (for the most part, to the best of ability) the things mal expected when they first made their 'deal' as mall called it. he's acted as the medic for the ship - the only time he hasn't fulfilled that duty was when he was literally kidnapped and unable to do so. he takes care of and watches river and while he hasn't always been able to contain her unpredictability, he genuinely does his best and makes proactive steps when something goes wrong (like in ariel.) he sometimes questions mal's rule/order, fights him on certain things, but at the end of the day, he usually does what's asked for him. mal is implicitly changing the terms of their deal by demanding that river start going on jobs, without having talked it over. and i can't remember currently how clear this is in the film itself but the script makes it clear it's an alliance run trading/bank station they're robbing. simon, who has been pretty clear on his whole river-protecting MO since the beginning, was quite obviously not going to react well to that. and -

one thing i do get (mildly) frustrated w/ mal about is the fact that it's clear simon didn't know about river going with them until the moment he confronts him and it doesn't seem like he was planning to tell simon. simon must have found out from someone else (bc he didn't find out from mal, or river - i think likely kaylee but maybe zoe) which seems like it implies mal was going to leave with river either without simon knowing or with him finding out last minute so that it was too late to say anything about it. (which is kind a what happens anyway. i mean simon DOES say something about it, but he can't Really do anything about it.) which i do think is shitty. and again: i get it. the ship is struggling, the crew is struggling, and mal has this tendency to avoid things he really doesn't want to deal with (like with the ship parts kaylee tells him they NEED replaced) because they don't have a lot of options. but he obviously knows that simon isn't going to react well, and simon, again, is not just acting as river's older brother - he is essentially her guardian and caretaker. mal was never going to 'ask permission' but i think in an ideal captain sense, he, at the very least should have told simon himself and reassured him (dropping the sarcasm a bit; look i love and appreciate the sarcasm but he Knows his crew he knows what simon's like) that he would look after river.

also - mal is full of shit lmao. he contradicts himself and he knows it and simon knows it and he KNOWS simon knows it lmao. he says it's just one job and river will be fine, but he also makes a point of the usefulness of her abilities. it will Not just be one job; this is setting a precedent.

now, again, i understand where both of them are coming from, but to be perfectly fair and balanced - simon's not being great either. he comes into this conversation on the offense, because he's learned that's what he Has To Do to be listened to on this ship, but ofc mal's not going to react well to being ordered around or yelled at by anyone on his c rew. and when they do get back from the reaver chase, simon lets the anger get the better of him and punches mal so hard he falls to the ground shhshs. this is a fun parallel to the pilot where mal did the same to him (twice!) and is generally iconic, but is not actually indicative of good conflict resolution skills.

however, okay one other thing mal says in their exchange does REALLY great at me a bit a bit lmao. i know a lot of people have an issue with mal calling them 'guests' on his boat when before he made it clear they were crew; i get why, but i don't mind as much. i think it's actually pretty consistent with mal's characterization - he treats the crew like family, but he'd never be inclined to say it, and when he feels rebelled against or attacked in some way, he often distances himself (like when inara says in the pilot she's leaving too if he kicks the tams out and he acts like he doesn't care/wants her to.) it's a pretty clear defense mechanism lol. what bothers me more is his saying "and that's a fact us here on this boat have been kind enough to keep to ourselves" and simon questions whether he's threatening to turn them in. now, i KNOW mal is full of shit, the rest of the film makes that clear. and i think his point is more "be fucking grateful" than a serious threat lmao. but mal's not dumb, he knows what it sounds like, he knows how simon's gonna hear it, he's needling him on purpose. and if the ideal if is conflict resolution between him and a crewmember, then this is Not Great. i think mal is a pretty good captain in general, and i get that it's hard to want to try to appease simon when he's coming in on the offensive shshhs. but this is one of things mal does struggle with (which zoe is better at doing for him) dslshhs - mediating the crew when they have concerns. simon's not being entirely fair either, but i think ideally a leader should try to meet their crew where they're at and address their concerns without making threats, no matter how seriously meant.

now, they're both clearly struggling a lot and the friction comes from that, so i'm willing to cut them both a fair amount of slack dshshs but they're objectively not being great to each other. which makes sense: both because they're never been bestest friends, but also bc, in spite of their many obvious differences, there are some key ways they're actually pretty similar (tunnel vision, scrappy/punchy under pressure, protective, etc) and those tend to be what cause the friction moreso than their differences.

[tamsiblings]

[tamsiblings]

showed my mom the gifset i am making and she said “oh we love the doctor boy huh” SKJSHSHJSJ

[tamsiblings]

Firefly Textpost Meme 28

[tamsiblings]

river + textposts