Moorcock blasts Tolkien

dcas · Sep 25, 2006

Storm Raven said:
The Jedi don't say that they hold this view, but their actions demonstrate that they do. And the society they are part of does too. For example, when the army of the Republic is formed, do the Jedi take positions within the ranks as soldiers serving under commanders who are not Jedi? No, they immediately become an elite officer corps placed in charge of the war. They are granted this position as a result of their superman like abilities. They act without consulting the senate, and seem to act without accountability. While the Sith say they are destined to rule, the Jedi act like they are entitled to rule. At least the Sith get points for being honest about their views.

Let us say that the Jedi do hold this view. The Jedi are all but destroyed and one can postulate (indeed, it is my view) that they are destroyed because they are doing things they shouldn't be doing (among them, being the supercops of the galaxy). So my point is that even if the Jedi believe that they are elites and this entitles them to rule the galaxy, the movies don't support this view because those who hold this view are ultimately destroyed.

Storm Raven · Sep 25, 2006

dcas said:
Let us say that the Jedi do hold this view. The Jedi are all but destroyed and one can postulate (indeed, it is my view) that they are destroyed because they are doing things they shouldn't be doing (among them, being the supercops of the galaxy). So my point is that even if the Jedi believe that they are elites and this entitles them to rule the galaxy, the movies don't support this view because those who hold this view are ultimately destroyed.

Except that to succeed, the Rebellion, somehow, needs Luke. In other words, you have to have your own superman to counter the superman of the opposition. You still need the supermen, who are somehow "better" than everyone else and necessary for victory (no matter how silly and inconsequential their powers appear to be in an evironment involving a giant space battle). And Luke is stepped in the Jedi philosophy and training, which means that the Jedi side didn't "lose" after all. They overcame their Sith foes, and will continue.

The galaxy, in effect, seems to have the choice between lining up with Annakin, or his son. There is not really an option that is neither Annakin or Luke, just one or the other. Choose which superman will lead you.

dcas · Sep 25, 2006

Storm Raven said:
Except that to succeed, the Rebellion, somehow, needs Luke.

Yes, but this still doesn't support the idea that elites rule the galaxy, since there is no sign from the movies that Luke intends to rule the galaxy. In fact Luke rejects ruling the galaxy at the end of Empire.

Storm Raven · Sep 25, 2006

dcas said:
Yes, but this still doesn't support the idea that elites rule the galaxy, since there is no sign from the movies that Luke intends to rule the galaxy. In fact Luke rejects ruling the galaxy at the end of Empire.

He rejects ruling the Empire alongside Vader as father and son. That is different from rejecting ruling the Empire. Based on the information given in the movies (leaving aside the numerous books written by people other than Lucas), we don't know what Luke does after the Rebellion succeeds (assuming that he and the rest of the Rebellion don't die as the debris from the destroyed Death Star makes the forest moon of Endor into a hellish radioactive wasteland). We do know that he is apparently to be guided by the ghosts of Annakin, Yoda, and Obi Wan Kenobi, and they seemed to think that the rightful place of those trained as Jedi was to be in control and manipulate others (right down to Yoda and Obi Wan's deception of Luke himself). I don't think it is too unexpected to see this as a message that the essential elite necessary to win will likely resume the role of the Jedi in the Republic of controlling things.

dcas · Sep 25, 2006

Storm Raven said:
I don't think it is too unexpected to see this as a message that the essential elite necessary to win will likely resume the role of the Jedi in the Republic of controlling things.

Why, if that was part of the reason that the Jedi were virtually destroyed in the first place?

As wrongheaded and naive as it might be, the movies clearly favor modern-day democracy over any other political system.

Storm Raven · Sep 25, 2006

dcas said:
Why, if that was part of the reason that the Jedi were virtually destroyed in the first place?

Because Obi Wan and Yoda, through their actions in the "second" trilogy (actually the first, the original ones) demonstrate that they still seem to adhere to the "old" way of thinking by manipulating people and exerting the same sort of control over everyone around them that the knights in the Republic period did.

As wrongheaded and naive as it might be, the movies clearly favor modern-day democracy over any other political system.

Not really. At best, one can say that they favor an aristocratically guided democracy. At worst one can say they favor a false democratic front used to hide a ruling oligarchy.

Gentlegamer · Sep 25, 2006

I think the "Jedi as Tyrants" discussion would make a better separate thread . . .

dcas · Sep 25, 2006

Storm Raven said:
Because Obi Wan and Yoda, through their actions in the "second" trilogy (actually the first, the original ones) demonstrate that they still seem to adhere to the "old" way of thinking by manipulating people and exerting the same sort of control over everyone around them that the knights in the Republic period did.

Even assuming that this is true, Luke goes against their wishes (they wish for him to stay on Dagobah to complete his Jedi training), and the movie portrays this as an act of virtue. So Luke rejects this manipulation.

Not really. At best, one can say that they favor an aristocratically guided democracy. At worst one can say they favor a false democratic front used to hide a ruling oligarchy.

I don't think so -- for the sole reason that the Jedi leading armies into battle is not portrayed as a good thing.

Vigilance · Sep 25, 2006

dcas said:
Why, if that was part of the reason that the Jedi were virtually destroyed in the first place?

I dont think the Jedi are a dictatorial power in Lucas' eyes. They're the knights of the round table more than they are the samurai (though they are very eastern in many other respects- samurai were military dictators and the Jedi are not).

I think the Jedi had become too calcified, too bound by tradition rather than something natural.

In Episode I we see Yoda living in a palace, surrounded by opulence, being carted around on hoverpads. The down to earth Jedi, Qui Gon, is not a leader of the Jedi because he speaks his mind too much.

Obi Wan's frustrated "but you'd be on the council already if only..." lets us know that politics has come to play a larger role in who leads the Jedi that knowledge of the force and wisdom. There's a worm in the apple and that worm is one of the reasons why they don't see the dangers right in front of their eyes, both Anakin and Palpatine.

Compare that to the rustic life he and Obi Wan are living in Episode IV- they are much simpler, much more down to earth. They are living like monks not kings.

Remember that to the Jedi, Anakin bringing "balance" to the force was seen as a GOOD prophecy. They clearly speak of it that way throughout the films.

They don't realize that it IS a good thing but the balancing entails losing all the trappings of opulence. No thousands of super-men at the Jedi Council's beck and call.

The field has been burned so a new crop, planted by Luke can be planted.

Storm Raven · Sep 25, 2006

dcas said:
Even assuming that this is true, Luke goes against their wishes (they wish for him to stay on Dagobah to complete his Jedi training), and the movie portrays this as an act of virtue. So Luke rejects this manipulation.[/i]

And yet, still turns to them for advice and counsel, appearing to assume that their opinions matter. And, more disturbingly, when Luke rejects this manipulation, it is portrayed that this is because of, effectively, childish desires (his refusal to listen to Yoda concerning weapons in the tree, his disasterous attempt to confront Vader while unready, and so on). This portrays Luke as a headstrong, willful agent, not subject to good advice, or even guidance. How else would you describe the prototype of a tyrant?

I think the facts that these are protrayed as "good things" demonstrate Lucas' blind spot as to what his movies actually seem to promote. By harkening back to the myths and legends of epic heroes, Lucas tapped into a type of thinking that extolss those born to rule, and he plugged it into the story, not really considering the implications of what he was doing.

I don't think so -- for the sole reason that the Jedi leading armies into battle is not portrayed as a good thing.

And yet, the only alternative presented is the Sith. The denizens of the galaxy must line up with the Jedi or the Sith, deciding who gets to be the aristocratic elite.