[xenduck]

soooo.... i havent been to this thread in awhile. im kinda runnin outta ideas here. and ive been stuck on one idea in particular. an idea that was brought up some time ago by reindeer, it went a little bit like this:

Ever been in a situation where something seems wrong, but you just can't put your finger on it? ESPECIALLY when you can identify to at least a degree the part that is wrong?

I've been thinking about why there is such a mismatch between the OT and the PT.

At first, I thought it was simply the evolution of a basic sci-fi story into a superhuman space opera. What I mean by this is whatever one might say about the OT, especially ANH and ESB, they were still basically science-fiction action stories. With the exception of Vader's force choke, there was no real overt supernatual abilities in the first film, and while they did become more prevalent in ESB, they were kind of a logical extention of what had been established in ANH. Starting with ROTJ, the characters started to exhibit some superhuman abilities, but overall, nothing that was that far out of line with what had already been established. Compare this to the PT, where the characters are suddenly able to do rediculous feats, such as fall hundreds of feet without a scratch.

But no, that wasn't it... not entirely anyway.

Neither are the plot holes, the wooden acting, or the evolution towards CGI graphis... those flaws are just too easy to point out, and don't really address the real problems witht he films.

It finally occured to me where the real problem lies... the PT is really an attempt at a gothic horror/romance story wrapped in a futuristic setting.

Anakin represents the classic Byronic hero, which is prevalent in all gothic novels.  What is that one might ask? Here is a partial entry out of Wikipedia, and as one reads it, they should see that this fits the role of Anakin perfectly.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Byronic_hero

A theme that pervades much of Byron's work is that of the Byronic hero, an idealised but flawed character whose attributes include:

being a rebel
having a distaste for social institutions
being an exile
expressing a lack of respect for rank and privilege
having great talent
hiding an unsavoury past
being highly passionate
ultimately, being self-destructive

Luke Skywalker on the other hand represents something closer to the classic Greek hero, specifically Perseus.

What are some other elements of the gothic horror tradition?

Death and decay... in this case, the fall of the republic.
Encroachment of a new dark age.
A haunted setting. In this case, Palpatine's chambers and the senate. While tecnically not haunted, it does become the locus of evil for the films.
Cruelty and persecution

The epitome of the gothic romance was in the final scenes where Vader is rebuilt, and very closely mirrors the Frankenstein myth.

On the other hand, it is no mystery that Lucas borrowed heavily from Akira Kurosawa for the OT. It is of my opinion that it is the mixing of these very different genres is the reason for the mismatch between the trilogies, and doubtless why many fans of the OT are so disappointed with the PT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

to which i replied:

the more i think about it the more brilliant it seems. i dont mean to inssist lucas is brilliant, rather, his work, as a conglomeration of intellects, is brilliant. picture it, anakin is a byronic hero, his story is faustian, and vader is frankenstien. and dare i throw milton's lucifer into the mix?

reindeer, i realize you meant your remarks as a criticism, but i am enamored with the concpet of anakin as a byronic hero [as byron has always been my favorite poet and star wars has always been my favorite movie(s)]. just this week, in fact, i finished re-reading a 600 page anthology of byron's work; so i am kicking myself for not making the connection on my own. i would very much like to write an essay, following-up on this idea, for my thread 'AOTR'. i would, of course, give credit where credit is due.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so here i sit, eager to explore this concept, but apprehensive. *insert sympathetic sigh from the audience(if there is one)* apprehensive becuase, for better or worse, njamilla has made me self-conscience of making connections between lucas and literature without any real evidence that the connections were intentional. now, you'll notice that most references in movies and such are understated and virtually impossible to spot unless you are familiar with the material being referenced. and even if you do notice, it is equally difficult to prove the reference was intentional.
for example, i am currently (as i type this) watching the pilote episode of 'lucy, the daughter of the devil' on adult swim; cartoon network. (anyone know what im talking about?) anyway, an evil dog just convinced lucy's date to kill himself by jumping out the window. just before he leapt, he said, "lucy, its all for you." that immediatly makes me think of that old horror flick, 'the omen', when damien's nurse kills herself. the reference seems obvious and logical, but if anyone disagrees with me, how can i prove the allusion was intentional. well, i cant. thus, i am aprehensive to invest time and energy into writing an essay if someone is just going to say, "prove it." or worse yet, no one even cares or bothers to read said essay.
all i can do is point out what i see as a potential intentional reference, and ask each one of you to decide for yourself. but im not affraid of nor discouraging discussion or criticism, any response is better than no response.
but what i need most is some to show interest in my writing this essay; and a willingness towards gving the benefit of a doubt.

then again, you could just read this essay. its probably better than anything i can produce, but it also in no way proves that lucas was trying to portray anakin as byronic.

http://www.sagajourn....html#anchor_20

[DarthTherion]

Xenduck,

From one literary critic to another, the intention of an author is not only almost impossible to prove, it is usually fruitless to attempt to discern it. There are exceptions, of course, and it is often useful and enlightening to learn an artist's intention -- but not as a final word on a work of art, only as a springboard to your own discoveries.

The question for me is not whether an artist intends an allusion but whether an allusion is *present* in the text. If it is, it is perfectly valid to explore the insights that arise from its presence. After this, there are secondary questions: could the artist have potentially been exposed to the original source at some time? Why would the artist choose to use this allusion? If he was unaware of it, why did it occur unconsciously?

There's alot that goes into a work of art, including all of an artist's experiences and influences, even if he's not aware of it. I can't tell you how many times I've found things in my own writings that I did not intend. There is no way to fight being influenced by all that you have read and seen...and this is especially true for cultural/mythological images that have been with us for so many thousands of years.

There is also another view of criticism -- that criticism is its own art, and that the function of a critic, interpretation, necessarily involves recoding metaphors in different metaphors. Hence, the critic is himself an artist.

Here's the bottom line: write an essay on a subject you feel passionate about. Write it for *yourself* and not for anyone else's approval. If you have fun doing it and feel satisfied with yourself after writing it, your essay will certainly be a document that the right audience will find interesting.

Note I said "right audience." The quest for the right audience makes Ancient Mariners out of all of us writers. I doubt you'll find too many people receptive to the literary intertextuality of Star Wars here -- maybe not even one of three. The folks here are too busy mocking the surface of SW to pay attention to the symbolic value. So ignore them -- write because you enjoy it. Shit, if you read 600 pages of Byron in one weekend, I'd say you *need* to express yourself on some level.

And hey, I'll be happy to read whatever you produce.

Good luck!

[KurganX]

Good points all around with regards to criticism.

As for authorial intent, at least Lucas is still alive and still talking about his work so we can get some level of certainty on what he really meant. Unlike a lot of other works, we also have many of his early drafts and early production sketches. You can buy the annotated screenplays and dozens of "making of" type things all over the place. Even the out of print ones are traded among collectors. Most of the people who worked on it with him are still alive (if getting on in years). So the resources are there.

The trouble of course is that he has the habit of telling people they've misread his comments over the years (and we have the comments to re-read or re-view and we can see that he's either changed his mind or been deliberately misleading in the past). Lucas's own view of his work seems to have changed over the years. That's not completely unfathomable, but it does affect how we see his work through his eyes.

I agree, it's much harder to do with works where the author has passed on. So it's not an exact science by any means... interpretation of art.

This post has been edited by KurganX: 11 November 2005 - 12:21 AM

[Zatoichi]

Xenduck, I have come to the conclusion that you really don't have to prove any connections to anyone, only convince them. I have learned in one of my classes the many time literary critics and anaylsts really fucking stretch it. This one buy could help relate a ton of works by one poet to Dante. There was one poem that I would accept this for, but the rest were ridiculous. The poet was Robert Frost btw.

[xenduck]

If you’re like me, then you hate preambles, so feel no obligation to read this post and ill keep it brief. After a long hiatus of doing much of nothing, I, like Luke, have decided to come back here and continue what I began. I don’t mean to take all this too seriously but I’d like to submit for your approval or disdain an essay created for my own satisfaction.

But let’s get a few things straight. Zatoich, KurganX and DarthTherion, your comments are valid and heartening to read, thus this essay is (for what its worth) dedicated to you; with a special thanks to Reindeer for bringing to my attention the connection between my two favorite writers: Byron and Lucas. I don’t in any way mean to suggest Lucas was trying to present Anakin Skywalker as a Byronic hero, I am only saying the character could accurately be referred to as such. I'm simply going to quote some lines from Byron’s work and you can glean on your own the worthiness of a comparison.

There is little doubt all of you are highly familiar with Star Wars, but let’s all review the less ubiquitous works of Lord Byron. Go ahead… got it? Great! Let’s begin!

This post has been edited by xenduck: 11 July 2007 - 05:54 PM

[xenduck]

Darth Vader: The Ironic, Byronic, Bionic Man

If we take the entire Star Wars saga as a whole- as the story of Anakin Skywalker, it is a rare case indeed that the hero and villain should be the same person. Not that there is only one hero and one villain, but the arch of the story is such that Anakin, a.k.a. Darth Vader, emerges as the primary protagonist in the beginning, and then the antagonist until his redemption at the very end. The case being rare, it is by no means unique. There is a word for tragic characters that are of a dark, antiheroic nature: Byronic. Byronic is defined as, possessing the characteristics of Byron or his poetry, esp. romanticism, melancholy, and melodramatic energy. Niether Byron nor Lucas was the first to invent such a character, but Byron, shall I say, characterizes the character; not only in his writing, but in his life.
Famously described by one of his lovers as "mad, bad, and dangerous to know", Lord Byron resembles Anakin in the aspect of his rise in social status, wit, good looks, early talent and notorious ennui. All of this comes through in his writing.

For starters, compare these lines from “The Giaour” with the image of young, unrequited Anakin, and also with his reaction to the death of his mother.

“Though young and pale, that sallow front/ is scathed by fiery Passion’s brunt.”

Admittedly, the situations are quite different, but the general description of the type of character is incipiently, remarkably, similar.

And for further development, when Padme begins to accept Anakin’s affection in EPII; especially when they are discussing their political views and the irony contained therein. Also, the offer he makes Padme near the end of EPIII springs to mind:

“And stern to the haughty, but humble to thee,/ This soul, in its bitterest blackness, shall be:/And our days seem as swift, and our moments more sweet,/ With thee by my side, than with worlds at our feet.”

Returning to “The Giaour” we can see an image of Anakin turning his back on his childhood admiration of the jedi and their ways of passiveness and reflection. As Palpatine says, Anakin has been searching for a life above that of an ordinary jedi. A life of significance. he is a cherubic child turned angst-ridden teenager, exhalting in his abilities and fulminating his teacher's pacing. then going so far as to commit autrocities to acheive his goals.

“My days, though few, have passed below/ in much of Joy, but more of Woe;/ Now leagued with friends, now girt by foes,/ I loathed the languor of repose…/ I’d rather be the thing that crawls/ most noxious o’er a dungeon’s walls,/ than pass my dull, unvarying days,/ condemned to meditate and gaze…/ and I shall sleep without a dream, of what I was, and would be still,/ dark as to thee my deeds may seem.”

A bit further in the poem are words thats summarize the climax of EPIII: “The maid I love, the man I hate-/ and I will hunt the steps of fate,/ to save or slay, as these require,/ through rending steel, and rolling fire.”

Again, the setting and circumstances are different, but a portrait of the Byronic character emerges.

Its in the drama, Manfred, that the true Byronic character has its origin. Manfred is a man haunted by guilt. The cause of the guilt is never explicitly revealed, but it has to do with his great love, Astarte, who it is implied he murdered; or otherwise caused the death of. Much like Anakin who is told, in his anger, killed Padme. Toward the end, when Manfred is confronted by spirits seeking to take him to his ultimate fate, he is defiant of all attempts at condemnation or redemption until he finally gives up willingly. Compare these lines to the newly christened Darth Vader on the cusp of a lava river, cut to pieces, cursing his mentor.

“I do defy ye,- though I feel my soul is ebbing from me, yet I do defy ye;/ nor will I hence, while I have earthly breath/ to breathe my scorn upon ye- earthly strength/ to wrestle, though with spirits; what ye take/ shall be taken limb by limb.”

To me, these few lines are enough to demonstrate the qualities of a Byronic character. But I don’t believe the subject is nearly exhausted. So once again I direct you to reindeer’s post above and the link to the essay, Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know: The Case for Anakin Skywalker as a Byronic Hero.

So here, let me leave you with the final lines of “The Giaour” which could easily be the end lines of ROTJ: “Save what the Father must not say/ who shrived him on his dying day:/ This broken tale was all we knew/ of her he loved, or him he slew.

[ElaynaTang]

Nice job Xenduck! I love the comparison of the Star Wars Saga to the Giaour! Beautifully woven together and I definitely see the connections!

[Bond]

It only goes to show that George Lucas, while not a very good director, is a literary genius.