Does Palpy/Sidious believe he is doing what is good and right or does he know what he does is evil?

Were you born an idiot or did you have to try?

 

to which i have to say the following:
The destruction of Alderaan is often cited as ipso facto proof of the Empire's "evilness" because it seems like mass murder--planeticide, even. As Tarkin prepares to fire the Death Star, Princess Leia implores him to spare the planet, saying, "Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons." Her plea is important, if true.

But the audience has no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. In Episode IV, every bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. In the opening, she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.

Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.

Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.

found here.

 

*lol* ... leave her be, cryo - I agree with you on the part of "having to think yourself". I just wished that George for once would start commenting on the deeper and more subtle meanings of his work and would stop sticking to the "keep it simple and stupid" mode for the sake of those who find it .... strenuous to think

 

Yes.

That article appears to have inspired this one -- which is an even better article and an funnier read:

http://armor.typepad.com/bastardsword/2005/05/we_are_sith_par_1.html

http://armor.typepad.com/bastardsword/2005/05/we_are_sith_par.html

Aww... I like picking off the dumb people.

Anyway, yes, I do also wish Lucas would dig a little deeper and enlighten the rest of us. There are some people who are trying to regard the saga as more than cheap thrills. But Lucas works against the subtle grain of his own work by coming out with such simplifications, and in some cases, as with the quotation you referenced, contradictions. McDiarmid has a better grasp of the character than Lucas -- in public. But Lucas clearly has as great a grasp if one studies Palpatine's behaviour and speech within the films themselves. This is precisely what is so frustrating.

 

Yes, it's frustrating - *sigh* - knowing that these meanings are there and watching people discarding his work as "simple stories about good and evil" and "popcorn movies". I know he doesn't like having to explain himself in public but still I don't understand why he seems to almost desperately avoid these themes

 

I have little to add to palps being evil or not in his own mind except to say, even hitler didn't think he was evil, so why would the emporer think he was evil?

maybe lucas, who i have accused of being a liar on many occassions, and i can prove some of those lies beyond doubt, is not trying so much to deceive as he is trying to avoid contraversy.

It is an interesting thing the last couple of pages made me think maybe lucas says whatever he says in any interview simply to try to avoid upsetting anyone, and that's why he blatantly talks out of both sides of his mouth.

It would make sense becasue in interviews he often comes off more like a politician, telling people what they want to hear not the truth, than he does a director.

 

Check this out:

This is the kind of writing that bugs me.

Now, while the author has some valid points, in my opinion, I think they overstate their case: how superior is Lord of the Rings? I would definitely argue that the books are more refined than Star Wars, and certainly built out of more stable "intellectual" ground, as it were -- but is the "mythopeia" of Lord of the Rings and Jackson's film adaptations "superior", and are they both superior "without question"? Well, that last one is rhetorical: I'm refuting it by merely posing the question! The author doesn't really qualify those statements properly (attempts are made, especially with respect to noting Tolkien's scholarly background and scholarly research, but very little from his work itself is offered up for analysis). There is also no "peeling back the orange skin" of Star Wars itself to qualify the claim that it is subordinate to Lord of the Rings. My advice to the author: Please -- look! And please -- explain!

Of course, there is also something of a Christian bias there (written for a Catholic publication, presumably by a Catholic). It's quite telling when this person says: "How many wars in the real world are as black-and-white as Lucas?s heroic Rebel Alliance versus the evil Empire? At least one: the war of heaven and hell. And the war of heaven and hell does break out from time to time, with reasonable clarity, in earthly conflicts of one sort or another." This, of course, is where their own faith appears to have absorbed another mythological framework and regarded it as fact -- which is ironic, as they're using it to qualify a similar "black and white" division of Lucas' own invention. This same author goes on to lament the generalised nature of the spirituality in Star Wars; put another way, that there isn't enough Christianity in there. The resurrection of Gandalf, with clear allusions to the resurrection of Jesus, naturally strikes more of a chord with this person than the transcendence of Obi Wan. But they seem to also think, almost certainly because of this chord-striking, that Gandalf's resurrection is more meaningful, both artistically and spiritually, than Obi Wan's transcendence. I'm not sure I entirely buy that. It's all about perspectives. This might be my long-winded way of asking what yours is...

 

will check those out,

 

Just to go off topic for a moment, Cryo, don't do that again. Let's al be nice in here. There are no dumb people on the boards. Just those who don't agree.

 

Acknowledged. Though that person was being a bit testy with me: sarcasm and a rolling eye emoticon. Quite the little humdinger, wouldn't you say, shinger-linger-linger?

 

"I was thinking of the quote from Benedict XVI that's getting more attention now that he's the big guy at the Home Office.
'We are entering a dictatorhip of moral relativism, where nothing can be know for certain, and has as it's highest goal the satisfaction of one's own ego and desires.' Since Paply's highest goal is the satisfation of his desire - to put the Sith back in power - he can fit the moral relativist mold. It also seems to me that accomplishing his highest goal satisfies his ego, even if he'd deny having any such thing." [/quote]

Palpatine/Sidious uses a moral agenda to seduce the public and Senate ("I love democracy"), a moral relativist one to seduce Anakin ("Good is a point of view") all to fulfill his amoral desires ("Once more the Sith shall rule the galaxy") which is dealing in an absolute, amoral conclusion.

Of course, to quote the former member of the Hitler Youth, Sidious' seductions are all "filth", because he is, behind the mask, but a simple, humble worker in the vineyard of the Dark Side.

 

that is fabulous ranting, my dear

 

This is too funny - thanks for these links!