[Star Wars] Salon.com Article: "Galactic gasbag"

[Wolfspider]

I'm glad to hear you like Star Wars I guess it was just hard to figure out because typically you always seem to be this negative voice that keeps creeping up whenever the subject is raised.

Naw. I'm just afraid that Episode II will be as big a disappointment to me as Episode I was. I just hate to see such an interesting setting wasted.

By the way, anyone else eagerly awaiting Star Wars Galaxies as much as I am?

 

[Wild Karrde]

By the way, anyone else eagerly awaiting Star Wars Galaxies as much as I am?

Can't freaking wait

 

[Oni]

While I thought the article was a little acrid, I agree with quite a bit of it. The need to elevate things above what they are just to justify enjoying them has always been a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Wolfspider]

When? When will it be out?!?

 

[Wild Karrde]

When? When will it be out?!?

Not soon enough. I've been waiting forever. It's almost as bad as the wait for HERO Fifth to get made (at least that's over).

 

[mmadsen]

I think it's hard to deny the central thesis of the article:

...the real roots of "Star Wars" are obvious to anyone not blinded by snobbery or the need for self-inflation. They lie not in "The Odyssey" or the "Upanishads," but 20th century science-fiction magazines such as Astounding, Amazing Stories and Galaxy. The "true theology" of "Star Wars" was written not by Virgil or Homer, but Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Frank Herbert, E.E. "Doc" Smith and a host of other S.F. writers.

It's not a "Star Wars sucks!" piece, but an "Emperor's New Clothes" piece. An enjoyable -- even, extremely enjoyable -- space opera doesn't need a deep philosophical underpinning to be fun -- and you're acting like a pompous "galactic gasbag" if that's why you say you like it. That's his point, I think.

 

[King_Stannis]

This is a pretty geeky nitpick, yeah he got that wrong. So what? That does not immediatly invalidate everything else, and once again you use this frustrated writer argument which you seem to apply to everything without any evidence of it's existance.

Besides when all is said and done Salon publishes "This Modern World" sure it's not KoDT but it's good enough for me

i guess we can just go ahead an use holograms for the ghosts of christmas past, present and future in dickens' christmas carol, too. besides, to me it shows a shocking lack of knowledge for a subject that he is blasting. is it geeky to realize that someone is dead? or what a spirit is? if you're gonna blast material, as this guy did, you should at least know it.

as for your earlier comment, you ask what is wrong when i say that the writer is frustrated. he called the writing awful. you said it was "pulpy". does "pulpy" = awful to you? apparently to you and him it does. this writer IS a frustrated hack who thought he'd generate a little buzz on the internet by people talking about his half-baked article. hooray for him. in other news, george lucas yawns and makes another $1 million.

as for salon.com, if you like your news....shall we say, slanted, then they're perfect. personally, i think they suck.

so do plenty of others.

 

[King_Stannis]

This is a pretty geeky nitpick, yeah he got that wrong. So what? That does not immediatly invalidate everything else, and once again you use this frustrated writer argument which you seem to apply to everything without any evidence of it's existance.

Besides when all is said and done Salon publishes "This Modern World" sure it's not KoDT but it's good enough for me

i also saw that you left out my original excerpt where the author all but accuses george lucas of stealing the screenplay for "empire". with absolutely no proof, i might add.

by your omission of that excerpt and the inclusion of the others, you must find that position indefensible. so would i.

 

[Ristamar]

This is a pretty geeky nitpick, yeah he got that wrong. So what? That does not immediatly invalidate everything else...

I wouldn't call it a 'geeky nitpick.' While it might be a stretch to call it common knowledge, it certainly doesn't qualify as obscure trivia.

Regardless, if one is going to dissect and lambast Star Wars, its orgins, and its influences, it would be wise to at least get the simple facts WITHIN the movies correct. The error does not immediately invalidate the arguments presented, but it doesn't lend to his credence either. Admittedly, he raises some good points, but it's hard not to be a bit suspicous of the author's intentions after such a sloppy oversight.

And yes, some people do take Star Wars way too seriously. Hell, I know I have my moments. I think Mr. Hart might be taking it a bit too seriously, too.

 

[mmadsen]

Overshadowing all of them in terms of influence on "Star Wars," however, is E.E. "Doc" Smith, whose mastery of galaxy-spanning space operas made him one of the most popular writers of pre-World War II science fiction. Starting in the 1930s, Smith began writing a series of space adventures set against the backdrop of an eons-long war between a race of benevolent aliens called the Arisians and their enemies, the evil Eddorians. During this proxy war, in which civilizations and races are pawns in an infinitely long chess game, the Arisians use Earth and other planets to breed a race of super police, the "Lensmen."

Out of curiosity, who here has read Smith's Lensmen stories? EOL and Wolfspider? Anyone else?

I have, and I suspect your take on the article hinges more than a bit on whether you've read them or not. Star Wars is extremely derivative -- particularly the psychic good guys and the moon-sized Deathstar (that's small compared to the sequel's even bigger Deathstar) -- and it's extremely derivative of Smith's very "pulpy" fiction.