From: nnhill@david.wheaton.edu (Nathan N Hill)
Subject: Re: Vader's weakened character
Organization: Wheaton College, IL
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:30:46 GMT

In article <Bw1Cry.MD1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter) writes:
>ST201714@brownvm.brown.edu writes:
>
>>All of this debate concerning Vader's death and how it was linked to the death
>>of the Emperor and his power of the Dark Side of teh Force, intrigued something
>> I've always wanted to discuss with people:  DOes anyone else notice how
>> Vader's character "weakens" as the movies progress?  I mean, in SW...he was
>>presented as being VERY powerful, and undefeatable, to a point.  Then in TESB,
>>we are introduced to the EMperor, and suddenly we see Vader as weak, and
>>submissive, and he is even wounded in a duel with Luke.  Then in ROTJ, Vader is
>> totally restricted.  Everything done, is carried out on the Emperor's orders,
>>and Vader, to me, comes off as a lackey (sp.?).  Here Luke defeats him, and he
>>dies. It was just disappointing to watch probably the best villain created
>>weaken and die.  It wasn't even an admirable death...the Emperor would have
>>died in the explosion of the DS (Luke would have lasted long enough to divert
>>the Emperor's concentration).  Any comments?
>
>Vader's character certainly changes over the course of the films; whether
>it "weakens" or not is up to the individual.  Personally, I saw Vader as
>being at his most evil in ESB, simply because he opposes the heroes 
>(particularly Luke) in a more personal way.  In ANH, he mostly hangs
>around the Death Star and gives orders and blows up planets--menacing,
>but also distant.  He doesn't appear to view Han and the rest as anything
>more than anonymous and irritating Rebel pests.
>
>But then, in ESB, Vader gets personal--and a lot more scary.  He's got
>an entire fleet (and several bounty hunters) looking exculsively for
>Luke and his pals.  He's not interested in merely killing Luke and Han--
>he wants to corrupt Luke to the Dark Side and deliver Han to Jabba...
>fates worse than death.  And lest it appear that Vader comes across as
>submissive to the Emperor, we learn from his dialogue with Luke that he
>hopes one day to overthrow his former master and sieze the Empire for
>himself (and his beloved son, natch).  The revelation that Vader is
>Luke's dad is just the icing on the cake.  The ESB Vader isn't just
>Rebel-hunting this time; he's trying to ruin the heroes' lives but good.
>It's in-your-face villainy, and IMHO it's Vader at his best.
>
>In ROTJ, Vader as the villain softens a bit and reveals some chinks in
>his psychological armor; this is necessary so that his change in
>allegiance makes sense.  Moreover, the occasional revalation of conflict
>in Vader's mind through his dialogue lets the reader know that there *is*
>some chance that he can be swayed from the Dark Side, and that Luke isn't
>just wasting his time trying to get his father to turn.
>
>I liked the bad-guy Vader a lot (who didn't?), but I liked him even more
>after he redeemed himself.  Vader made a great villain, but having him
>stay that way up to the very end would have gotten dull, IMHO.  Without
>his weakness for his son and his internal conflict, we'd have been missing
>that insight into Vader's inner workings that kept him from being just a
>stereotypical (though menacing and well-played) villain.  Vader's change
>in allegiance may have meant that he weakened as a bad guy, but I feel
>that at the same time it strengthened him as a character in general.
>
>
>                              --Steve Stelter
>                                sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

	I agree almost totally. Once upon a time I thought that Vader's 
character had been cheapened by turning good, perhaps even by being Luke's
father. But then I read "Splinter of the Mind's Eye".
	"Splinter" was a novel that Lucas permitted Alan Dean Foster to write
after Star Wars but before Empire. It was a good view of what Vader could have
been, had his character not developed. Believe me, Vader would have gotten
pretty dull if ESB hadn't added new information. It was fun to see the old
Vader for a few chapters of a book, but wouldn't have made two more good
movies.
	Looking back on how Vader changed, it might seem that Lucas reinvented
him after SW in kind of an ad hoc way. The SW novel (actually written by
Foster, at least in part) shows him as power-hungry, with a silent grip on the
imperial government. He even seems to make light of the Emperor's authority:
he says "as the Emperor wills it, so will it be done" after the governors 
decide for themselves what to do. His remark is taken as sarcastic, but it
need not be. He may have been taking appropriate liscence in representing the
Emperor. Also, one of the Imperial honchos complains about Vader's involvement
with the Death Star being urged on them by the Emperor.
	It seems to me that Lucas had to make it look like the war was pretty
much over in SW, but left room to expand his story. Thus if there hadn't been
any sequels, we'd just figure the Emperor was a puppet; but since the full
story was used, we saw him as a powerful sorcerer. It could be that that the
image of a weak and controlled despot seen in SW was an image he allowed to
continue, preferring to let Vader run the show and to subtly control his
officers with the Force. Then in the later movies we see what's really going
on behind the scenes. 
	As for Vader, he was clearly loyal to the Emperor throughout, but
secretly wanted to replace him; Luke provided him with a possible means.
I don't think Vader was really a lackey in RotJ. If you read the novel you
won't get this impression at all. Vader was very powerful, but still had
difficulty challenging the Emperor when he was right there. I think Zahn went
too far when he suggested ol' Palpatine knew about Vader's offer to Luke on
Bespin. In short, Vader had the will but not the means to oppose the Emperor.
	Regarding his death: do we know for a fact that all Jedi disappear?
Vader seemed surprised to see Obi-Wan do this. Yoda was just about the best
Jedi ever. . . maybe a last-minute convert "goes to heaven" (or, more in the
movies' mindset, Valhalla) but doesn't disappear. Truth is, if Anakin hadn't
appeared at the end, we'd never have known if his conversion was sincere . . .
an interesting idea, but Lucas needed to get the whole thing over with. I
think it's really better that he didn't vanish, but Luke had to burn his
corpse (kind of symbolic) in traditional Jedi manner.
	One last note: one article I read suggested that Anakin had killed
the real Darth Vader and taken on his identity. This idea seems better to me
than him making up a name and appearing out of nowhere. It explains how Luke's
father could be a famous Jedi, yet only a few people know he became Darth. It
would also let the original Vader appear in SW I-III. . . If Anakin (already
evil) dueled the old Darth, maybe most people think Darth won. Then Anakin
took on the old Vader's role . . .or maybe not.  Opinions? Anyone?

        
____________________________________________________________________________
	
  "I don't serve evil. . . I AM evil!" -- Armus, the Tarbaby from Hell

                   Nathan Hill (nnhill@david.wheaton.edu)