[civilian_number_two]

Hey All,

I thought you might find this interesting:

http://www.unomaha.e...enStWars.htm#17

Here's a guy doing what a lot of us are doing; that is, giving Lucas far too much credit for forethought. I honestly beloeve The George was more excited about making the big hole in the desert belch after swallowing Boba Fett than he was about any religious analogy. The parallels are just there because they are an easy, incredibly pretentious way of pretending that you had some deep meaning behind your work. That, and borrowing from earth history (I love that Queens of Naboo are elected and serve a maximum of two four-year terms!) are sadly too common, and it's because they are too easy to pull off.

In high school, my class was asked to read LORD OF THE FLIES. I don't know abiout you, but I thought it was a load of crap. As a creative writing assignment, I wrote a thirteenth chapter to the novel. It took place in the various cabins on the ship that rescued the children from the island, and the bulk of the story was the overloaded dreams of the survivors. I filled everyone's dreams with symboilic colours and images from the novel itself, actually at random. To keep myself honest, I made a list of elements I planned to include, and actually rolled dice while writing the damn thing, then checking off the elements as I used them up. Naturally, it was hogwash, and predictably, everyone loved it. It was nonsense, and probably everyone knew it, but because it *seemed* like it might mean something, they were willing to meet me halfway. Granted, most of the people I showed it to were children my own age, but God damn it, my teacher should have seen through it.

I apologize for this self-serving analogy, and ask you to indulge it since it's my birthday. But in a small way, and without the cheekiness that I obviously displayed, I think that Lucas did with STAR WARS what I did back then (in, my God, 1986) with LORD OF THE FLIES. He threw a bunch of shit against the wall and hoped it would stick. And lucky for him, people really liked the special effects, and they really liked Han Solo, and so he had a success. His weakness is that he thinks we cared about the shit, so he gives us Midi-what-the-fucks and the Virgin Mary, and claims (see the TIME article of 1999) that he'd envisioned a religious myth all along. (I cry Bullshit!)

Mike (this post brings me one step closer to henchman).

[njamilla]

Thirteenth Chapter – ROFLOL. Absolutely brilliant!

  my teacher should have seen through it 

Being a teacher, I’m under no illusion that I see through the cleverness of my children. In fact, my greatest hope is that they exceed my ability ten fold.

  Naturally, it was hogwash, and predictably, everyone loved it. 

Speaking of hogwash. My dad paid for a high school trip to Europe on the condition I read Rand’s The Fountainhead. I never did read the book until years later. When I started the first chapter, I realized that I should just rip out the last two chapters where she would reveal her thesis. I pulled out those ragged pages out of my pocket in a NYC subway cafe, read it, and then promptly tossed it in the trash (where it belonged) as I left. He thought I would latch on to her philosophy, but in retrospect I give my dad due credit in challenging me to question the philosophical or political authority of established writers and philosophers.

[Chefelf]

I'm willing to believe that the Beatles' songs were symbolic of their political beliefs at the time. A lot of John Lennon's later song lyrics were quite clever in how subtly they criticized certain ideas/people. Maybe not so much with songs like "Revolution" but I always though that "Sexy Sadie" was an incredibly subtle and clever song.

George Lucas, on the other hand, I don't think is making some great political or religious statement. He just made some movies. People feel the need to read too much into a movie after it makes more than $200 million at the box office.

Joseph Campbell needs to relax.

[njamilla]

Agreed!

I haven't yet seen a credible essay linking Joseph Campbell with Lucas’s SW trilogies. The Smithsonian’s SW: The Magic of Myth and Moyer’s Myth and Magic aren’t very convincing.

The basic thesis of the Smithsonian’s book is not tight academically. I don’t buy the premise that finding mythic elements in SW makes it a “modern” myth. I haven’t read Bill Moyer’s book in probably a decade, but it’s not specifically about SW, though it’s clear Moyers is enraptured with the whole neo-myth movement popular in the media. (He’s partly responsible for it.)

In my book, I argue that SW is, if anything, an epic and not a myth. And what the hell is a "modern myth" anyway?

Interesting how much later Revolution was written in Lennon's life, and how that tames a lot of a person’s early spirit.

[civilian_number_two]

In my book, I argue that SW is, if anything, an epic and not a myth. And what the hell is a "modern myth" anyway?

I don't think you'll find anybody arguing against you. As for "modern myth," I'd say the Civil War and the gunfighter eras have produced a few. True stories blown up to the level of allegory, often bearing the weight of religion and national identity. That makes them a lot more than simple history.

Mike (out on a limb here)

PS: Share your feelings about Ayn Rand. I especially never understood in THE FOUNTAINHEAD why she thinks we'll accept that Ms Francon *needs* Roark to break into her home and to rape her. What is up with these people? Does Ayn Rand actually believe that there are tortured idealists out there, unable to separate their physical and emotional selves, whose only sexual release must by definition be an act of conquest or submission? Well, of course she doesn't think that; she's dead, thank God. But obviously she *did* think that, as much as she romanticized the act of smoking as being akin to early man's conquest of fire. She couldn't even enjoy a fucking cigarette without trying to idealize it all out of proportion. It's hard to imagine a guy like Howard Roark ever taking a crap or eating a bag of chips. I mean, I guess he *could* do those things, but there would be some superior, never-fail method of getting all the salt and vinegar off his fingers without leaving a stain, or of wiping his ass cleanly and efficiently without the faintest threat of skid mark.

I worked in a bookstore for a while, and we were encouraged to make displays of books that the store had in good supply, and to post reviews with them, to hype the material. Like "Mike recommends..." followed by some puffy blurb. People got a real kick out of doing it, but I thought the business was a little silly, like those "staff picks" shelves in the video store. Nobody cares what Mike reads or watches; we all just want to know what the cute chick with the eyebrow ring likes.

Anyway, I was more or less forced to write one, so I picked ATLAS SHRUGGED. The blurb I wrote, and which stayed beside the book for two weeks, I swear to God, read (and I paraphrase from memory): "More soft-core erotica than a novel, ATLAS SHRUGGED is a thousand-page lap dance whose "money shot" is an inexplicable, momentum-grinding, sixty-page philosophical rant. If you idealize self-centred acquisition and if you hate women as much as Ms Rand does, you'll want to plow through this sci-fi oddity as soon as possible!"

Several employees commented on it, obviously, but it really made my day when a complete stranger came up and asked "Are you the Mike that wrote that? That's great!"

PPS: I am not convinced that my effort sold a single book.

[njamilla]

  thousand page lap dance 

Riot! Riot!

Mike,

Drop me an e-mail. njamilla@shimmeringsword.com I might have an outlet for your hysterical tirades.

Nick

[njamilla]

I just read Lyden's "The Apocalyptic Cosmology of Star Wars" article that Mike posted above. It's pretty good.

He says Campbell's interpretation of SW is inadequate (duh!) and that SW essentially espouses simple virtues that we can all relate to (again, duh!). He actually parallels my thoughts on Arjuna and Christian bent of SW towards self-sacrifice.

SW is certainly no allegory, much less a coherent philosophical statement.