From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Star Wars is NOT literature
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:29:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.202457.42700@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pml3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Paul Michael Lewis) writes:
>I have no objection to people enjoying Star Wars.  That's fine.  I grew up
>with the movies, too, but I know where to draw the line.
>The problem arises when people overanalyze the movies.  They are NOT
>literature.  IMO, they aren't even well written.  When interpolating what
>Lucas 'might have meant' or 'implied', that's where the pitfall arises.
>Hollywood doesn't intend to produce well-written or meaningful entertainment.
>Star Wars was not produced to induce thought or empathy.  Star Wars was simply
>eye candy.  A lot of neat space ships, cool costumes, and a couple good actors.
>Over analyzing something that was intended for good-natured entertainment is
>like getting blood from a stone.
>This is not a flame or even a criticism.  The movies were good, but I think
>they have to be put into perspective.
>+-| Paul Lewis |--| Jonestown: WLVR 91.3fm  Monday 11pm-1am |-+-------------+

	This is total bullshit. LLiterature which is not amusing or
entertaining is merely a shoddy excuse for wasting one's life.
	There may be some very deep message. Star Wars in its
simplicity mimics in many ways life.  The scenario could almost
be transplanted to modern day Earth, repllacing political wars or
scenarios on Earth with galactic scenarios.  The sf aspect is like
the medium of the true artist; it is used to heighten the overall
effect, not diminish or replace.  Thus we can analyze the plot and
the behavior and try to glean something.  After having read some
Dickens you might wonder about the exploitation of children, the
nature of a society which would allow it.  Dickens was basically
recording his perceptions or ideas about things. He did not create
the essence of the scenarios in his head. He created the particular
surroundings, the details; he was using his created characters and
scenes as a medium for the deeper idea which he perceived. Thus he
was an artist.
	Lucas was also an artist; the simplicity and ease with which we
can understand the situation of the characters in the Star Wars
movies is proof that the ideas, themes and topics are common among
our people and can thus be seen to have a theme transcendent from
merely the mind of the creating artist into the hearts of the
population at large.  His exploration into the development of these
themes, like the exploration by Dickens into the perceptions of
the Victorian world, provided an insight of value to apparently 
shitloads of paying customers.  But-was it merely in the interest
of a gasp in awe at the technical wizardry that people paid?
	The Japanese word for amusing is (roughly romanized),
omosiroii.  This means not only entertaining, but also interesting.
This double meaning could be applicable to our Caucasian world as well.
Who among us has not bought a 'wild-looking' game, played it for
a few days and mastered it, and then never played it again?  After
winning an adventure game, one generallly discards it. It has been
raped of its value; fully exploited. The common text adventure game
is of this class. It comes out, enjoys a llarge following, and then
is forgotten.  Computers become obsolete and llose their novelty
after a few years, relying fully on their functionality as a 
object of value.
	Classics, however, can be read a thousand times and each
time a new insight is gleaned, a new idea is dragged forth.  Some
people consider great books and literature to form a 'language
of ideas' with which people can communicate emotion and transcendent
thought.  Thus English teachers make us read them.  But, among
the great books, I have yet to come across one which does not record
reality, or some coloration of reality. Why? Because if the composition
was only a function of the author's creation, then by understanding
the intent of the author and by thus deciphering the meaning of the
literature, the message, one could compress that message into a
simple code, keep the code or idea, and toss the book. It would
lose the value of its mystery and promise for new ideas. Such
'non-great-books' might be propaganda booklets with a simple
idea, science textbooks, etc.  But, when an artist communicates
an idea which can be entertaining to us, then it is an idea which
has so far been of mystery to us and thus any new data is vallued.
What greater mystery lies before mankind than the workings of
nature, of God, of reality?  Dickens communicated a picture
of reality to us. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky communicated pictures of
reality to us.  Kafka, well, Kafka communicated warped yet nonetheless
decipherable pictures of reality to us.  These books are still
studied today as mankind has yet to master reality and thus is
ever in pursuit.
	What about Star Wars? Well, as mentioned earlier, the Star Wars
movies are a transplantation of an easily identifiable plot onto
the artist Lucas's medium.  The ideas communicated, the scenarios,
can be readily empathized with. The projeection of the scenario,
and the fact that it can be studied and referred to classify it
with the 'language of ideas.' Poetry could be written using it.
For example,
		Even with the affectionate gaze of Luke
		Do I behold you, my Leia.
		(Pardon the bad poetry)
	The idea communicated is one that might arouse from a female 
boss trying to seduce a male co-worker. The male co-worker, not wanting
to anger her yet nonetheless repel her putrid advances, might send
her this poem indicating brotherly love.  The poetry may be bad, the
idea remains.
	So, in that Star Wars is anallyzed by an ardent body of people
well into a decade after its release indicates that there must have
been far more than 'eye candy' involved.  Indeed, I would say that
Star Wars is more a part of our language now than any existential
spouting by Sartre. Thus, it is a classic due to its timelessness.
                            
			John

P.S. To you out there who thinks Wagner is the spiritual daddy
of Jonathan Willliams' music I say no dice.  Wagner is concerned
with fatalism and the absolut, twilight of the gods type stuff,
crazy death-ignoring type stuff. Williams is more of a 'spice
in life' type crazy adventurous music. Look, Wagner was never known
to have smiled and he made his wife make love to him fully clothed
while reading Plato. I should know. I read it on a T-shirt in a
highbrow bookstore.