Kevin's Watch

Simply put, there is an emphasis on consequences.
In his Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Stephen Donaldson empathizes consequences in everything that is done.
We see Covenant making deals, manipulating people, avoiding responsibility, and we see it all rebound on him and (unfortunately) on everyone around him. Trell, Atiaran, Lena, Triock, Elena, and the Land itself all pay for Covenants mechanizations. In the end, Covenant pays for his deeds with his life, for his actions lead to the breaking of the Staff of Law, which leads to the return of Foul.
In the case of Anakin Skywalker, we see him turn to the Dark Side, commit atrocities, and toss away all his former principles forever. At first, he seems to suffer no consequences. But then ... well, the entire last 20 minutes of the film is one long series of consequences for Anakin. Without saying anything that could be a spoiler, I would comment that the consequences are painful in the extreme, both psychologically and physically, and those consequences are permanent. They are forever.

I'm not saying Lucas is as good a storywriter as Stephen Donaldson.
What I am saying is that Lucas emphasizes consequences, in this one film of his, in a way that reminds me of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.
One cannot commit evil deeds and get a free ride afterwards. It just doesn't work that way, be it on Coruscant or in the Land.

Well, the title of this topic sure got my attention!

Good post, Edelaith! Have you read SRD's comments about Star Wars in his Gradual Interview? This was an amusing Q&A:

Allen Parmenter: I am fond of calling the Gap "Star Wars Goes to Hell". Nick Succorso's grin always reminds me of that inveterate sexual harrasser Han Solo's. Was this deliberate on your part or would you just be pleased or horrified to think that a reader noticed the co-incidence?
One last question - will there be wookies in the sequel? (nasty grin) Thank you for your consideration.

SRD: I like the idea of "Star Wars Goes to Hell." And I enjoyed the movies. But I didn't take them seriously enough to be influenced by them. Han Solo is certainly not the only character in film--or in literature--or in life--to use that "shit-eating" grin as a form of sexual predation. Indeed, one of my personal complaints about "Star Wars" is that (visuals aside) it is *entirely* derivative. There is (just an opinion, folks) less to Lucas' work than meets the eye.

As for "wookies in the sequel": gosh, is that a *dare*?

Yes, Star Wars is probably quite derivative--but that's kinda beside the point of it all, heh heh.

I gained alot of admiration for lucas when he stated outright he intended his films to represent pulp sci-fi; consequently, less concerned with criticisms of being derivative than with criticisms of not capturing the 30s to 50s story telling and ideas.

Skip over this post, all you who don't like fighting words, because I propose to deliver myself of a strong and perhaps controversial opinion, and I don't know how to mince words and still say what I mean to say.

Here goes:

Loremaster wrote:I gained alot of admiration for lucas when he stated outright he intended his films to represent pulp sci-fi; consequently, less concerned with criticisms of being derivative than with criticisms of not capturing the 30s to 50s story telling and ideas.

I've thought long and hard about such questions, and I have to disagree. Failure isn't redeemed by lack of effort. If you enter a marathon, run your very best and hardest, finish the race, but still lose, people will respect you for doing your best. But if you enter the marathon, quit running after the first mile, and pop into a pub for a couple of pints, you haven't earned anybody's respect; and solemnly explaining to people that you intended to drop out after one mile doesn't make them think better of you. It's an obvious copout, and a copout is not improved by being planned in advance.

If George Lucas never intended to do original work (and I have seen plenty of evidence that he did not), that doesn't excuse him for being derivative. It explains it, but an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse. I don't respect him for telling a mediocre story, just because it was his ambition to be mediocre. I reserve my respect for those who aim at greater things.

Now, I do respect Lucas for the skills he does have. As a special-effects designer, a creator of stunning visuals, he has few equals and no superiors. He is genuinely one of the greatest visual artists in the history of SF. And it's a damned shame, say I, that he was seduced by the cult of the auteur into filming his own dreadful scripts, instead of using his talents to bring other people's good stories to the screen. He came close when he hired Leigh Brackett to write The Empire Strikes Back. But if he really wanted to bring to the screen the storytelling and sensibility of classic pulp SF, how much better it would have been to adapt one of the genuinely classic pulp stories!

(By the way, I do not agree that he 'captured the 30s to 50s story telling and ideas'. He captured the atmosphere of Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, maybe; but that is never where the action was in SF. The dominating figure of science fiction in those days was John Campbell, who made his name by ripping SF free from the prison of all those early pulp clichés. When he talked about science fiction, he meant both words to apply. And the biggest SF films of that period were The Shape of Things to Come, written by H.G. Wells, and Destination Moon, written by Robert A. Heinlein: both serious attempts to show what the future could look like, based on the best scientific knowledge of the day. There is no science in Star Wars — not one bit of it — just a lot of technological imagery borrowed from the planet-busting space operas of Doc Smith and his imitators, combined with a lot of New Age hocus-pocus that would have made Doc Smith sick.)

This is why the films of The Lord of the Rings moved me so much more than any of the Star Wars series. They were based on a story that was itself one of the great masterpieces of world literature. George Lucas hasn't got a story of that quality in him, nor the skill to tell it if he had. Peter Jackson hasn't, either, but he used the great abilities that he does possess to bring Tolkien's wonderful tale to cinematic life.

I'm sure one of the reasons Revenge of the Sith packs so much more punch than its two predecessors is that Lucas was gobsmacked by the LOTR films, and furious at being so obviously outclassed. He isn't the champ of grand-guignol fantasy filmmaking anymore; he couldn't win back the title from Jackson; but he did get himself back in fighting trim, and the last Star Wars film is much the better for it.

I agree with many of your words, VF. I am one of the biggest critics of SW. I think it is derivative, childish, poorly directed (1-4), and poor acted. Additionally, the series contradicts itself.

When I meant the 30s to 50s I meant Gordon and Rogers, as your wrote. So no contention there.

Here is something else that is comparable between the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and what we see in the Star Wars Prequels (note that Donaldson's books came far earlier, timewise.)

We see that the Oath of Peace prevents the Lords from attaining mastery of Kevin's Lore. That is because the Lords and the Loresraat and the people of the Land have eschewed dark emotions.
Kevin's Lore requires that the learner embrace dark emotion - and all other emotions also - in order to master it.
So Lord Mhoram learned to his horror. And he knew he had the capacity for Desecration within his grasp. When push came to shove, however, Lord Mhoram used POSITIVE emotions - love, compassion, and affection for the Land and it's peoples - to become extremely powerful, and with this power he slew Samadhi Raver and saved Revelstone.
If Mhoram had not used emotion as the key to unlocking power, he would have been killed and Revelstone would have fallen.

Now consider the Star Wars analogy.

It seems the Jedi order stressed internal peace and tranquility. However, that came at the cost of detaching oneself from all things worldly, eschewing all relationships, friendships, and love, and otherwise becoming totally detached from the reality around oneself.
After that, loyalty and duty to the Jedi Order was the only relevant thing in the life of the Jedi Knight. And they all operated in this emotional void.
The Emperor, on the other hand, stressed emotions. He talked of how dark emotion could grant power. And he SHOWED (in his fight with Yoda, among other times) how his embracing of dark emotions granted power.
The Emperor stressed only dark emotions, such as hatred, anger, and revenge. He did not speak of the unlocking power of love, caring, and compassion. Yet, it is obvious that those emotions, also, would be the keys to unlocking power, no?

Armed with the power of emotion, the Emperor defeated and destroyed the Jedi Knights. And it became pretty obvious that emotion was what gave him the strength to win.
The Jedi Knights, bound within their sterile world (eschewing anything and everything that you love, care about, and the reality in general around you, to contemplate only duty, sounds sterile to me) could not even perceive the Emperor's evil, much less fight him and win.

Likewise, the Ravers tended to defeat those around them, using emotion as their weapon.
Their enemies were not emotionless, but eschewed dark emotions - and so eschewed strong good emotions as well by default - and they could not unlock the doors of power that they needed.
Until Lord Mhoram unlocked the secret, and used good emotions to kill Samadhi.

Now, in Episodes 4, 5, and 6 of Star Wars, we see Obi-Wan and Yoda teaching Luke as a Sith Might: they teach him to embrace emotion, embrace friends and allies, and embrace the world around him ... and to beware the dark emotions.
In other words, they teach him all the secrets of power, the ability to become either a Jedi Knight or a Sith Lord, and leave the choice of which path he will take, to him.

In the end, Lord Mhoram eschewed this approach - the approach of emotion and the dangers it leads to - and halted the teaching of Kevin's Lore. And that helped lead to the Sunbane emerging, as Stephen Donaldson pointed out in the Gradual Interview.
It seems that a well rounded approach to things was crucial, and the New Lords after Mhoram did not teach their people what they needed to know.

Very well said, Edelaith!