StarDestroyer.Net BBS

From a philosophy board I frequent, discussing the humanist dimensions of Star Wars:

Darx wrote:Jakob,

Lucas’ Star Wars may be humanistic in a petty, populist sense of “we like, uh, freedom and stuff,” but, it is parsecs away from cognitive humanism, much less classical humanism. Star Wars was a major force in driving the population away from discovering classical humanist heritage and into the media machine’s matrix. It may be detournable--I hope it is, and welcome all efforts to aid in this—but, we cannot accept it as it stands as anything more than fascist propaganda.

Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings is a better example, because it is partaking of a particular Christian geometry that is eminently detournable, so, in this case, we may have been given a gift, but, even then, it continues to serve the machine, for, without fulgent outside critical light, audiences will merely continue to interpret it as another noble puppetry.

“What we do here, echoes through eternity!”

Indeed. The counterculture presents us with a vast dump, not to be burnt, but to be mined. It contains incredible linguistic wealth, psychic exposures, histories of trends, and prophecies, if only it can be used.

Darx

Dionysus wrote:Quasi-socialist propaganda. Star Wars is nothing more than a retelling of the Western monomyth; one might just as well call The Communist Manifesto "fascist" insofar as it relies on the same basic themes as the Western myth (The historical dialectic/the Revelation of St. John the Divine/the historical movement from capitalism into socialism/the end of the old heaven and Earth). It's trendy, yes, to detest Lucas; that doesn't make it intellectually impressive.

Darx wrote:Ignoring the cognitive dimension necessary to absolutely all human progress isn't very intellectually impressive either.

Lord of the Rings is superior because it is prophecy grounded in history and a profound understanding of language, a very educated Catholic perspective, whereas Star Wars is not, a creation of pure semieducated passion, the very definition of "pop". The two are at perpendiculars.

Dionysus wrote:Elitist imbecility. There is no distinction between 'low' and 'high' art.

Lord of the Rings is the same as Star Wars. Nearly identical characters, nearly identical plotlines, and so forth. Pretending that one has some profound, mystic insight into the inner workings of existence while the other is somehow a symptom of 'cultural degeneracy' is absurd. Of the two I quite prefer Star Wars simply because it is free of all this reactionary wanting-to-be-in-a-medieval-setting cultural regressionism, although there is no real distinction between the two.

An "educated Catholic perspective"? Religion is shallow: it doesn't require a Joseph Campbell to divine the inner mythological workings of archetypal symbolism. Every day those of us who write creatively draw on these mythological archetypes in a state of semi-consciousness. One could make a convincing case against the concept of the archetype as flawed on philosophical grounds (Sauron/Vader as the literal embodiment of evil, belying a basically religious, morally absolutist view of things), but that's quite beside the point, I think.


I genuinely fail to see how Star Wars could be interpreted as remotely fascist, when the core theme of the series is one of rebellion against monolithic figures of a patriarchal disposition. Again, it's common for those coming out of a college setting to dislike Star Wars for some perceived fascist tendency - that doesn't make it a legitimate grievance.

Drax wrote:In your catastrophic smugness you aren't acquainted with classical art, then. Which means, all art is equal, which means all art is equally useless. As McLuhan put it, "advertising advertises advertising" which is, more or less, what countercultural art is doing. An endless circle jerk of "archetypal" whateverness.

What better method to acclimatise a people to creeping fascism, then to present endless "good versus evil" passion plays that teach nothing of value on how to actually combat fascism (or even recognise it!), whilst addicting them to thrills and chills and tv-news-style happy endings?

Until you understand why I would write the above, you cannot understand the basis for my discrimination between Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Which, will make further discussion between us unedifying.

Darx

Dionysus wrote:And I'll dismiss you yet again with two words: dogmatic mysticism. Lord of the Rings is, once again, a "good versus evil" passion play of the sort you pretend to stick your nose up at. There are no deeper meanings than this; it is intended to convey the monomyth in almost precisely the same fashion as Star Wars, and does so admirably - the only difference between the two is one of setting. The very sort of quasi-Marxism you adhere to is no different than the Revelation to John on Patmos; both rely on a dualistic conception of things that are fundamentally erroneous, but no less enjoyable to consider. And it is precisely the same with Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings.

Take your nose out of the sola scriptura and look about you: there are far more important things to be done than feigning a 'deep textual reading' of a science-fiction film. It's precisely this wanting to kill off passion that makes all collegiate-level philosophers virtually unbearable, including (to return to the topic at hand) those who want to 'de-Wagnerize' Nietzsche. Deleuze is excellent on this point; you, I'm afraid, are not. The world is only as real as our passion for it, after all.

If you want a "zomg fascist sci-fi!!11!" series, go look up Warhammer 40,000 on Wikipedia. That's much closer to 'fascism' than anything you've managed to come up with to condemn Star Wars - and it's still fun as hell to play. Especially while blaring Iron Maiden or Judas Priest or Mystic Prophecy or Richard Wagner. \m/

The one who calls himself "Drax" fails to justify any of his opinions with anything resembling a detailed argument, at least not in the excerpts you provide. He lavishes high-minded compliments about Lord of the Rings and insults upon Star Wars without providing so much as a single justification for them, or supporting example. He accuses Star Wars of fascism despite the fact that it depicts the overthrow of an Emperor by a multi-cultural alliance, while pretending that Lord of the Rings is superior in this regard despite the fact that it literally ends with the crowning of a King. And it's really quite curious that he chooses to claim that Lord of the Rings is not a simplistic "good vs evil" morality play, when I consider it almost impossible to view it as anything else.

Perhaps "Drax" is simply a Christian supremacist. The biggest difference between Star Wars and Lord of the Rings is that Lord of the Rings has a very western religious mindset, complete with almost comically obvious stand-in for Satan, while Star Wars has a very eastern religious mindset (the Force: an impersonal spiritual ether with an equal dark side and light side, much like the Yin/Yang balance of "Chi"). Although he doesn't come out and say it, I suspect that his wildly off-base accusations are based upon his personal distaste for eastern religious thinking, particularly given that brain-damaged "educated Catholic perspective" nonsense he spouted.

PS. I just noticed your sig. Cool; you don't see that many Queensryche fans running around.

Drax wrote: What better method to acclimatise a people to creeping fascism, then to present endless "good versus evil" passion plays that teach nothing of value on how to actually combat fascism (or even recognise it!), whilst addicting them to thrills and chills and tv-news-style happy endings?

Underline mine. Are we to take it he's not seen Revenge of the Sith? I think that has rather a lot to say about fascism, in the form of Palpatine's ways and deeds.

It's not 'teaching' in any significant sense, but frankly, that's not what it's meant to do, and any moronic philosopher who thinks that's the show's purpouse (or indeed, that of Lord of the Rings) is a moron. It's meant to be a Flash Gordon style space seriel with firm jawed heroes and villainous bad guys who dress in black and call themselves dark lords and such. It has some vaguely 'tragic character arc of Anakin Skywalker' and heroic archetypes, too, but frankly, it's meant to entertain. Nothing more.

Darx wrote:Jakob,

Lucas’ Star Wars may be humanistic in a petty, populist sense of “we like, uh, freedom and stuff,” but, it is parsecs away from cognitive humanism, much less classical humanism. Star Wars was a major force in driving the population away from discovering classical humanist heritage and into the media machine’s matrix. It may be detournable--I hope it is, and welcome all efforts to aid in this—but, we cannot accept it as it stands as anything more than fascist propaganda.

I wonder what the hell is Darx's definition of humanism. 'Star Wars' is about rebellion-- there are few things more human than wanting to rebel when you're a teen. Is Darx saying we must all quote bullshit from some long-dead European philosopher to be humane? (I get enough bullshit from Chinese philosophers, thank you very much.)

And fascism... What, did he not realize the Rebels are the heroes of the story?

One wonders how he can think it has nothing relevant to say about the dangers of fascism when it's revealed, as we get more films, that the 'one dimensional satan character' of the original trilogy is in fact a blend of Hitler and Evil Lincoln. How's that not informative about fascism (admittedly, there's tons of better ways to learn, but hey... I'm sure he's not bothered by that).

This reminds me a bit of an argument was in on another board where someone basically insisted that Star Wars was automatically "deeper" and "more complex" than LOTR simply because one character (Vader) went from good to evil back to good again.






Anyway, we all know that Harry Potter is far superior to any of this tripe!

Kurgan wrote:This reminds me a bit of an argument was in on another board where someone basically insisted that Star Wars was automatically "deeper" and "more complex" than LOTR simply because one character (Vader) went from good to evil back to good again.

To be fair, it doesn't take much to produce a moral message that's "deeper and more complex" than LOTR. Plenty of childrens' fairy tales and movies accomplish that task quite easily, since LOTR has the moral depth of spam.

Shining white angels and beautiful warriors from the Lovely Forest against ugly monsters and Sata- er, Sauron from the fiery sulphur-choked depths of He- I mean Mordor!!!!

I like how he says that they are "parsecs" apart.

Darth Wong wrote:

Kurgan wrote:This reminds me a bit of an argument was in on another board where someone basically insisted that Star Wars was automatically "deeper" and "more complex" than LOTR simply because one character (Vader) went from good to evil back to good again.

To be fair, it doesn't take much to produce a moral message that's "deeper and more complex" than LOTR. Plenty of childrens' fairy tales and movies accomplish that task quite easily, since LOTR has the moral depth of spam.

Shining white angels and beautiful warriors from the Lovely Forest against ugly monsters and Sata- er, Sauron from the fiery sulphur-choked depths of He- I mean Mordor!!!!

Actually, there is a tiny bit more depth to it than that. The real hero was not a shining knight but a homely, little (literally), middling class sort of fellow, who did what was right not to seek glory or because it was his heritage, but because he wanted to save his home. His fight against evil wasn't fought against an army of ugly demons, but within his own mind. In fact what I've always found so interesting in the story was the contrast between the classical sort of Great Man and the more modern hero with humble origins and selfish motivations, who wins the day not by fighting off hordes from hell but by holding his resolve and staying true to his goal; his strength wasn't physical but psychological. Of course, he still had to be saved by God.

Granted, it's not a refined philosophical essay, and we can certainly find the last bit disgusting, but it is deeper than angels versus devils.

Ugh. More.

morthaur wrote:You start with a genetically-superior caste who are sensitive to the Force. With the Force as accessed solely by the presence of midi-chlorians in the cells of only certain beings, it is necessarily élitist. The genetic aspect comes through most clearly in the overturning of the previous system of celibacy: Anakin's son has the natural strength to go up against Vader, but no-one else? Why not surround him with fifty guys and all start shooting?!

Dionysus wrote:This has never been the core theme of the franchise. The original Star Wars was made before any familial relations in the story line were decided on. Furthermore, had a 'race of genetically-superior supermen' been on Lucas' mind, he'd probably have made the Skywalker clan a, you know, race. It might very well be an 'elitist' myth, but it's messianic and not fascist. Think of King Arthur and Mordred rather than some absurd conception of a super race (the Jedi aren't a race; they're the interstellar equivalent of the Knights of the Round Table). I again direct you to Warhammer 40,000 for an example of a 'racially-based' franchise; and I find it absurd to regard even that as an example of 'fascist propaganda'. Both series hearken back to the ancient romance, not to the 'Myth of the Twentieth Century'.

morthaur wrote:Worse, their super-man powers lead then to think they can override any sense of democracy or morality in the service of their peculiar ideology of universal oneness. The Jedi are, by definition, an entirely unaccountable force in the Star Wars galaxy, wielding awesome powers in the service of a mysticism that only they understand (and that, apparently, not all together accurately). We just have to 'trust' them to do what's right...

Dionysus wrote:And, of course, you're entirely right about the Jedi - which is one of the main points of the Prequel Trilogy. They had grown stagnant. They had become complacent. They were too involved in Republican politics. They were so terrified of disorder that they had let their guard down.

And it's not as if philosophers are any less cloistered, for that matter. The few who aren't (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) are almost universally misunderstood.

morthaur wrote:Then there is the fact that billions of deaths are ultimately irrelevant in the face of a single act of love for one's biological progeny! The forgiveness of Vader for so little is a slap in the face to the survivors of two decades of brutality, and again places the Jedi on a higher moral plane than the rest of galaxy's mere mortals.

Dionysus wrote:Nietzsche would call that ressentiment. Why shouldn't an individual be forgiven if he's genuinely repentant?

morthaur wrote:Why is it that the plucky band of freedom fighters can't defeat the monolithic and patriarchal forces of evil in twenty years? Because they don't have their own super-man warrior! The Jedi are no less fascistic than the Sith, in their insistence on being in the right, knowing what's best, arguing that their powers give them special rights & responsibilities, etc. At best you can call them benevolent oligarchs, but there's just nothing of the genuinely democratic in Lucas's vision.

Dionysus wrote:I refer you again to the Knights of the Round Table. It's not as if Lucas endorsed any political viewpoint in the series. It was never intended to be anything more than a romance-fantasy in space. You have to remember to keep it on that level for it to work.

David Brin - the author responsible for The Postman - once wrote an essay espousing this same point of view you do. And he failed to remember that Star Wars is a fantasy in every sense of the word - it has knights, it has dragons, it has wizards and princesses being held captive in a tower. This isn't fascist; it's romantic, it's provincial, and it's almost unfortunate that we today can't tell the difference between the two. If there are indeed any sinister patriarchal themes in the series, it's simply because that's the nature of the romantic beast, and these themes are just as present in The Lord of the Rings. I'm reminded very much of Star Trek fans who laud their own series for 'gritty realism!' and 'philosophical acumen!' while forgetting just how absolutely boring Star Trek really is.

And by the way, Darx? LaRouche is a fucking kneejerk anti-Semitic populist conspiracy theoriest rehashing old Aristotelian ideas. Nothing new to see there.

Why is this guy constantly attacking Star Wars? Is the other guy not taking any return shots at LOTR?

PS. Sorry Johonebesus, but the fact that Frodo is a hobbit doesn't really change much. He would have died if not for our shining White heroes, and hobbits aren't actually ugly; they're just cute little people. In LOTR, beauty = virtue and ugliness = evil. If that isn't a medieval mindset, what is?

Darth Wong wrote:Why is this guy constantly attacking Star Wars? Is the other guy not taking any return shots at LOTR?

It's a different guy, to boot. I'm not entirely sure. It must be a fad or something.

ArcturusMengsk wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Why is this guy constantly attacking Star Wars? Is the other guy not taking any return shots at LOTR?

It's a different guy, to boot. I'm not entirely sure. It must be a fad or something.

It's not surprising. A lot of literary people are downright pissed off that there are people who think Star Wars should be taken as seriously as the "great works of literature" like Lord of the Rings. To them, it is a violation of their exclusivity. After all, these are serious literary people, and Star Wars is a mere fairy tale in space, meant for the consumption of children and the unwashed masses! How dare these Philistines intrude upon their sacred domain?

In reality, many of the great works of literature were intended for consumption by the masses. Shakespeare was dismissed as entertainment for commoners in his day. The Iliad, considered to be the very first work of western literature, was cobbled together from stories handed down from generation to generation, told by village elders to ancient children. The instinctive, reflexive, reactionary snobbery of "literary scholars" to a film's intrusion upon their domain is nothing more than territorialism with a shiny veneer of pseudo-intellectualism.

In reality, many of the great works of literature were intended for consumption by the masses. Shakespeare was dismissed as entertainment for commoners in his day. The Iliad, considered to be the very first work of western literature, was cobbled together from stories handed down from generation to generation, told by village elders to ancient children. The instinctive, reflexive, reactionary snobbery of "literary scholars" to a film's intrusion upon their domain is nothing more than territorialism with a shiny veneer of pseudo-intellectualism.

I just had the rather amusing mental image that in a few centuries we're going to have elitist snobs espousing the superiority of Star Wars over some new brand of "popular" entertainment that has recently come out.

Peptuck wrote:I just had the rather amusing mental image that in a few centuries we're going to have elitist snobs espousing the superiority of Star Wars over some new brand of "popular" entertainment that has recently come out.

Reminds me of an saying I heard: attack the Establishment long enough and they make you a part of it. I've no doubt in years to come there'll be literary snobs lauding Star Wars.

Man, I just read through some of the bile "morthaur" is spewing.

You start with a genetically-superior caste who are sensitive to the Force.

lol wut

Jedi are dependent entirely on their midichlorian count, and this is a cross-species trait universal to nearly any creature in the galaxy. That is as far from "genetic" as possible.

With the Force as accessed solely by the presence of midi-chlorians in the cells of only certain beings, it is necessarily élitist.

Why? Is it elitist for tall people to be better at playing basketball?

The genetic aspect comes through most clearly in the overturning of the previous system of celibacy: Anakin's son has the natural strength to go up against Vader, but no-one else? Why not surround him with fifty guys and all start shooting?!

Holy crap, is this guy a complete idiot? Luke didn't take on Vader because he was the "only" person who could kill him, he went up against him because he was trying to redeem Vader! Hell, we have numerous instances in the series where the "superior" Jedi were taken down by "mere mortals"; most obviously being CIS droid armies, Jango Fett or the clone troopers based on him; hell, Luke would have been completely owned by Boba Fett were it not for Han's inspired bit of klutziness in ROTJ.

Worse, their super-man powers lead then to think they can override any sense of democracy or morality in the service of their peculiar ideology of universal oneness. The Jedi are, by definition, an entirely unaccountable force in the Star Wars galaxy, wielding awesome powers in the service of a mysticism that only they understand (and that, apparently, not all together accurately). We just have to 'trust' them to do what's right...

Which is why they run completely unchecked within the galaxy and rule the Republic like....oh, wait. The Jedi worked with the Republic but they did not control it. The only instance where a Force user took over the government was in the case of the obvious bad guy.

Then there is the fact that billions of deaths are ultimately irrelevant in the face of a single act of love for one's biological progeny!

Wait, so Tarkin got a chance to redeem himself during the course of the films?

Because, you know, he was the one who fired the Death Star, not Vader.

Regardless, this is irrelevant; the only person who showed any remorse at Vader's death was Luke; no one else seemed to be forgiving him or caring that he had died.

The forgiveness of Vader for so little is a slap in the face to the survivors of two decades of brutality, and again places the Jedi on a higher moral plane than the rest of galaxy's mere mortals.

Except no one but Luke seemed to forgive Vader, you dumb shit.

Why is it that the plucky band of freedom fighters can't defeat the monolithic and patriarchal forces of evil in twenty years?

Guerilla warfare, you idiot. Have you never heard of it?

Because they don't have their own super-man warrior!

Yoda and Obi-Wan disagree with your assessment.

The Jedi are no less fascistic than the Sith, in their insistence on being in the right, knowing what's best, arguing that their powers give them special rights & responsibilities, etc. At best you can call them benevolent oligarchs, but there's just nothing of the genuinely democratic in Lucas's vision.

The Jedi are police who enforce the Republic's laws, not their own. They are not rulers but peacekeepers and mediators.

What, did this idiot rip everything from David Brin's waste of internet space?

Darth Wong wrote:Sorry Johonebesus, but the fact that Frodo is a hobbit doesn't really change much. He would have died if not for our shining White heroes, and hobbits aren't actually ugly; they're just cute little people. In LOTR, beauty = virtue and ugliness = evil. If that isn't a medieval mindset, what is?

Well that's kind of the point. LOTR is supposed to be a mythological tale. Not a modern mythology in the way Star Wars is, but rather classical mythology. Giving it a modern mind-set would defeat the purpose.

Adrian Laguna wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Sorry Johonebesus, but the fact that Frodo is a hobbit doesn't really change much. He would have died if not for our shining White heroes, and hobbits aren't actually ugly; they're just cute little people. In LOTR, beauty = virtue and ugliness = evil. If that isn't a medieval mindset, what is?

Well that's kind of the point. LOTR is supposed to be a mythological tale. Not a modern mythology in the way Star Wars is, but rather classical mythology. Giving it a modern mind-set would defeat the purpose.

And for some reason, if a flaw is intentional, this makes it immune to criticism?

That's great! I guess Michael Bay can now redeem Pearl Harbour by saying that he chose to make a shitty movie. And Triumph of the Will is OK because the creators wanted to make Nazi propaganda, right?

Saying that you are deliberately echoing a medieval mindset does not get you off the hook for ... echoing a medieval mindset.

Darth Wong wrote:PS. Sorry Johonebesus, but the fact that Frodo is a hobbit doesn't really change much. He would have died if not for our shining White heroes, and hobbits aren't actually ugly; they're just cute little people. In LOTR, beauty = virtue and ugliness = evil. If that isn't a medieval mindset, what is?

Frodo's life was saved after he had already saved the world. Even after that his life was rather hollow. The fact that someone else preserved his life doesn't change the fact that he was the hero, not the knights and wizards and elves. They wouldn't have had the chance to keep him alive if he hadn't saved them all.

Homely doesn't necessarily mean ugly, just less than beautiful. Yes, Tolkien usually equates ugliness with evil, but hobbits were described as being rather plain looking, not beautiful like elves. It is a good reflection of the British self-perception going back to the eighteenth century. Political cartoons and the like often showed English folks as being much more homely and vulgar looking than the French. One of my favorite shows Napoleon's bloody head being held aloft by several Englishmen. The head looks very noble, with fine, classical features, while the victors look downright ugly. For many generations the British took pride in being "just plain English". Like I said, The Lord of the Rings presents an interesting contrast between the classical Great Man and a more humble type of hero. You have to stretch it pretty far to cast Frodo, either in his actions or personality, as being of the same mold as Aragorn or Gandalf or Galadriel.

Anyway, the point wasn't that Tolkien's values were admirable, only that his work had a bit more depth than just angelic heroes versus hellish demons.

Darth Wong wrote: That's great! I guess Michael Bay can now redeem Pearl Harbour by saying that he chose to make a shitty movie. And Triumph of the Will is OK because the creators wanted to make Nazi propaganda, right?

Comparing Michael Bay to Leni Reifenstahl is totally unfair.....to Leni Riefensthal.


More on topic though, my off the cuff opinion is that the LOTR posters seem to equate popularity with tripe.
While all too often it is true, each work being compared has to stand on its own merits, not merely on whether or not it's a 'popular' work.

Or in other words, Lucas ripped off some timeless concepts from other works when he created Star Wars and it stands nicely on its own when compared to Lord Of The Rings.

Frankly while I liked 'The Hobbit', I couldn't even finish reading the first book of the LOTR trilogy.
If LOTR is good literature, then give me Star Wars any day of the week.

Darth Wong wrote:And for some reason, if a flaw is intentional, this makes it immune to criticism?

That's great! I guess Michael Bay can now redeem Pearl Harbour by saying that he chose to make a shitty movie. And Triumph of the Will is OK because the creators wanted to make Nazi propaganda, right?

That depends on how you are criticizing it, which could render it immune to certain types of criticism. There is criticizing the work on how it succeeds at what it sets to accomplish, and then there is criticizing what it sets to accomplish. Saying that Triumph of Will fails, as a Nazi propaganda film, because it offers a warped view of reality would be nonsense. Saying that it is bad because it offers a warped view of reality is a quite valid. I am, of course, aware that your criticisms are of the second kind.

Saying that you are deliberately echoing a medieval mindset does not get you off the hook for ... echoing a medieval mindset.

I was merely pointing out the facts, that LotR's style is not an accident. In retrospect the tone of my post fails to convey this. I really should get into the habit of waiting 5 minutes or so before posting anything, I might start sounding less stupid.

Teleros wrote:

Peptuck wrote:I just had the rather amusing mental image that in a few centuries we're going to have elitist snobs espousing the superiority of Star Wars over some new brand of "popular" entertainment that has recently come out.

Reminds me of an saying I heard: attack the Establishment long enough and they make you a part of it. I've no doubt in years to come there'll be literary snobs lauding Star Wars.

Didn't that already happen when SW fans ripped into Titanic?

PainRack wrote:Didn't that already happen when SW fans ripped into Titanic?

No idea, I never gave Titanic much of my time at all TBH.

I couldn't even finish reading the first book of the LOTR trilogy.

LotR is slow to begin, but the rest of it isn't bad. Mind you I've read the Silmarillion and found it interesting, so I may not be the best opinion to go by ...

Johonebesus - my copy of Lord of the Rings actually has a letter written by Tolkein describing how with "The Hobbit" he wanted in part to create an English myth. In his view King Arthur etc weren't it, so up popped the Shire & the hobbits. Now it's not quite the same in LotR, but reading it I still get the impression that the hobbits came from a romanticised England.

I like Lord of the Rings. A lot. I count eight Tolkien books on my desk at the minute, and while it’s not entirely as bad as it’s sometimes made out, it is racist, and sexist – as is just about everything written in the 1930s and 40s to some degree. It has medievalist ranting about bloodlines and so forth, and (with some notable exceptions) essentially conservative roles for female characters.

Amusingly, Peter Jackson’s modern interpretation manages to be have even more of a fascist gloss than the original. What with making almost every elf character into a blonde haired blue eyed nazi ideal of ubermensch, when in the novels it’s so rare for them to be blonde that most of those who are (Galadriel and Glorfindel) have names referring directly to their unusual hair colour. Typical elven features in Tolkien’s writing tend to be ‘tall, dark haired and grey eyed’ (the last feature apparently coming from his wife). Even Legolas’ hair is only ever described in the novel as ‘dark.’ For that matter, Jackson managed the impressive task of cramming Minas Tirith with more honkies than it needed to have; the books mention ‘swart’ (ick) as many times about the denizens of Gondor (even Bree!) as they do about various Southrons. Even the trivial non-Western elements disappeared; Gondor was in the novel, partly Egyptian themed, its kings' crowns resembling those of Upper Egypt, with pearly stylised seabird wings on them, for example, while the film uses one more familiar to western audiences.

Sauron is evil looking and such (though, to fit with the Satan theme, he was once the most beautiful being ever seen) and the only major villain who isn’t evil looking in some way is Saruman. (On a related point of trivia, the only villain character Tolkien never had anything good to say about, is Grima Wormtongue, who just seems to be a conniving little snake, even Sauron and Saruman have ‘noble’ motives, at least when they start out) Regardless, it’s a very conservative book, and while what it explicitly says about racism (Legolas and Gimli overcoming their predjudice) and sexism (Éowen accomplishing far more than any other mortal in single combat) is good, it does have unfortunate terminology and outlook; partly because reconciling progressive attitudes with conservatism of that type is always difficult, and partly because it was written during fucking World War Two when the goddamn Nazis were a world power, and Britain was ruled by a man who once tried to gas the Kurds, and later sent troops around the world to fight independence movements with summary executions, which of course results in some reflection of prevailing attitudes of the time.

Star Wars, however, is free of much of this, and is by any reasonable standard, a much less racist/fascist/sexist (well, possibly not that last one, almost all of Tolkien's major female characters are stong in some way, from Éowyn to Galadriel, who 'off-screen' manages to blow up a large fortress) to various others in other books.) product. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously acting on some personal bias. While I like Lord of the Rings for many reasons, it’s not perfect, and to ignore its flaws, like the knee-jerk conservatism of its author and highly Catholic theology (though actually I think this works quite well, if only because Tolkien’s version of god curiously enough doesn’t actually have worship – there’s only one place of worship devoted to ‘God’ or the Valar in the entire world, and that’s basically a cenotaph used once per year by one specific people – worship is supposedly the work of Morgoth and his minions, ironically, Sauron’s temples are closer to actual Catholicism than the actual god stand-in. I’m sure Tolkien wouldn’t be impressed with that point… I always thought one of the many fundamental flaws of Judeo-Christianity was the idea that a perfect god would need such endless flattery and fellation). Star Wars isn’t perfect, either, but it has less conservative attitudes.

Even though it has queens, kings, princesses and such, Star Wars is considerably more modern in its outlook (though it’s interesting to note that like Lord of the Rings, every technical advancement seems to be some new kind of super weapon) and Star Wars’ gaping flaws (its treatment of AIs for example) are less relevant to the topic of fascism. Palpatinism is actually fascism. Right down to the government canoodling with major corporations, as depicted in the EU, (Just replace Kaut with Krupp) it has everything you could possibly want to justify calling it a fascist regime. Even the cult of personality.

The ‘message’ of Star Wars is that this is evil. How anyone can conclude that it makes the series ‘fascist’ I don’t know. If Star Wars is fascist, so are all war films which have nazis in evil roles. Schinder’s List, for example.


Also…

The genetic aspect comes through most clearly in the overturning of the previous system of celibacy: Anakin's son has the natural strength to go up against Vader, but no-one else? Why not surround him with fifty guys and all start shooting?!

Because Lord Vader’s the guy with the giant army? Or did they miss that bit?

Why is it that the plucky band of freedom fighters can't defeat the monolithic and patriarchal forces of evil in twenty years?

…

The mind boggles.

Tell him to shove his 'midichlorians are the cause' bullshit, all signs point to them simply being an indicator, since there are silicon-based sentient crystals who can use the force.