Is the Saga a Tragedy?

But who is calling the saga a tragedy?
Are you referring to Lucas calling it the tragedy of Darth Vader?
He calls it the tragedy of Darth Vader because it is the tragedy of the of Darth Vader.
I'm not aware of Lucas ever saying the saga is a tragedy, but if you have such a quote then please show me.

Now if you'll permit me I'll explain why it is called the tragedy of Darth Vader:

Anakin Skywalker is the savior of the Star Wars people. He was given to them to help them understand what they needed to fix. Divinity cannot tell people what to fix because that would interfere with free will, but what divinity can do is guide them in the right direction by giving them signs. The people of the Star Wars galaxy failed to recognize the signs and that's why their savior turned into Darth Vader. Anakin Skywalker as Darth Vader is the embodiment of the people's evil ways. Darth Vader did nothing to the people that they didn't already do to themselves. Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader were never in charge of anything. It was the people that were in charge of their own destinies. It was the people that brought all the evil upon themselves by being apothetic and then even becoming the evil themselves, and then it is the people who had to rid themselves of their own dark side that had consumed them. All Darth Vader did was save his son, but it was the people who rid the galaxy of the evil.

It is the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader because he had to spend his entire life in bondage because of the people's corruption. Like other stories with spiritual messages the savior has to suffer for the sins of the people. Yes, Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader was free for the first time in his life after he saved his son but does that last 15 minutes of freedom really make his life any less of a tragedy?

 

It is the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader because he had to spend his entire life in bondage because of the people's corruption. Like other stories with spiritual messages the savior has to suffer for the sins of the people.

I don't see that Anakin is suffering for other people's sin. Anakin's suffering for his own mistakes. As Cyro pointed out, he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he choose that path regardless.

 

I know you don't think that, Stryphe, because we've gone around on this issue a time or two before. You see the saga as having just a single layer and I see the saga as having two layers. I see the story as you do. The story where it's all Anakin's fault and he should have just let Mace kill Palpatine. It's not that I don't see what Anakin did as wrong but it's that I see he couldn't stop himself because it the people around him that had become corrupt and it was them who had to redeem themselves. Darth Vader was just the personification of the people's evil ways. If Mace could have defeated Palpatine the Force still would have been left in the darkness. The Jedi would not have changed and people would not have changed. A great change was needed to help the people see the light. Now you may see what Anakin did to the little Jedi children as horrible but why the heck were children being trained to be warriors in the first place? The Jedi put those children in harm's way when they took them from their parents. And if you're going to judge Anakin for killing children then you have to judge the Jedi for enslaving cloned children. If you're going to judge Anakin for killing Tusken women and children then you have to blame his step father and the people of Tatooine for hating the Tuskens in the first place. If you're going to blame Anakin for cutting off Mace's hand then you have to blame Mace for giving into his "worst fears". Don't hate the player, hate the game. Anakin is not the same as the other people. Remember Anakin is a divine conception so if that's the case then his entire existance is the will of the Force and if that's truly the case then perhaps Darth Vader is the will of the Force. Remember Indiana Jones and Willow? George Lucas has a penchant for spiritual stories just like Stephen King. So think about one of mankind's little spiritual clichés: "The Lord works in mysterious ways."

 

I'll leave aside the moral issues for the morality thread (which we have here in Saga), and stick to the tragic angle (as per the threads topic). Had Anakin made the right decision in Palpatine's office, SW would not have been a tradegy. There's nothing to say that the people needed more of a lesson in order for peace and justice to return to the galaxy other than what was available to them in ROTS: to know who Palpatine really is. Anakin's choice allowed them to continue to be deceived and (thusly) make the wrong choices until the time of the Rebellion, but had the Jedi been able to expose him in ROTS then both the Jedi and the Senate could have learned from the lessons of the PT. Any mistakes the Jedi made they paid for when they were destroyed and any mistakes the Senate made they paid for in ANH (and in the OT in general). Likewise, Anakin pays for his own mistakes by becoming Vader and what all that means.

Just as Anakin redeems himself through a reversal of his previous big mistake (turning on Palpatine instead of helping him), others redeem themselves by correcting previous errors (Yoda and Ben giving Luke the training Anakin should have had, previous leaders in the Senate forming a rebellion, Han\Lando turning from a life of crime and making sacrifices for the greater good). While Anakin brings an end to the sith, everyone else needed to play their role to bring an end to the Empire (and associated crime organizations).

 

The moral issues are very much part of the tragedy of Darth Vader and the moral issues have to be discussed. Star Wars is a story about morality per George Lucas so the morality issues must and always have to be first and foremost in any discussion about Star Wars. Unless of course you believe what George Lucas says is bogus.

Why would that matter to the people? The people loved Palpatine. Did they not? The Jedi would have no proof whatsoever that Palpatine ever was a Sith Lord. Why would the people care what the Jedi had to say? All the people would know is that the Jedi have taken over their government via a military coup. Was Mace not going to Palpatine's office with the intention to arrest Palpatine and take control of the executive branch of the central government? Was Mace not thinking about taking control of the legislative branch of the government when he spoke of taking control of the Senate to Ki-Adi-Mundi and Yoda? Palpatine didn't take control of anything. He was given it all by the people. Palpatine was their leader not the Jedi Order.

Do you keep up with current event, Stryphe? Do you see what's going on in Pakistan right now? In 1999, President Pervez Musharraf was a military general who ousted elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif after a military coup. Now the truth is Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was about as corrupt as they come and Musharraf and his military ousted an elected official probably because they thought what they were doing was the right thing to do and the truth is history may show it was the right thing to do but again I ask the question: Do you keep up with current events, Stryphe? Do you see what's going on in Pakistan right now?

But that is just your point of view of what would have happened if the Jedi would have killed or arrested Palpatine. You don't know if that's what would have happened because George Lucas doesn't say that's what would have happened. Now if George Lucas says that the Jedi would have been welcomed with open arms as the new leaders of the Galactic Republic then please present such evidence and I'll be on my merry.

But the Jedi weren't destroyed until after Anakin became Darth Vader. The Senate didn't realize they had made egregious mistakes until "A New Hope" so I'm not really seeing your point? Darth Vader is not a wrath of god upon the people. In fact he is their gift because if Count Dooku or Maul would have kept on being the apprentice then there may have been no end to the Sith's reign.

Yes, and that's true if you only see the saga as having a single layer. But see it's actually Mace who was being tested not Anakin when Mace confronted Palpatine and it is actually Luke who is being tested not Vader when Luke confronted Palpatine. Anakin never had to be redeemed because he was simply following the will of the p

 

That's my candidate for Quote of the Year.

 

the_immolated_one, this is a thread investigating the accuracy of labelling the Saga a tragedy. Morality may come into play in this discussion, but it is not central to the topic and I, as the author of this thread, would like all who post here to remain on-track. If you wish to bring morality into the conversation, please be sure to explain its relevance to the 'tragedy' discussion. Similarly, a lecture on recent events in Pakistan with no ascription of relevance to the topic is off-track. Please refrain from posting such irrelevant material in the future.

 

it's a bit strange to discuss what-if thought because clearly anakin diodn't do anything other than what he did, so we aren't looking at the multiple choices he could have made but at the course his life took because of what happened.

or something like that

 

Anakin's moral behavior as it addresses the question of him being, or not being, a tragic character is relavant to this, but otherwise Vort99 is exactly right. I appreciate the role of morality is SW, and broader, deeper moral questions are perfectly legitimate Saga forum discussions, but just for different threads. Vort is right about the intent of this thread, and I apologize if I have steered us off track.

By the way...

I know you don't think that, Stryphe, because we've gone around on this issue a time or two before.

Yes, I know, and I respect your opinion, but since you brought it up, I figured you wouldn't mind another round Even mods get to join in on the fun... from time to time


Why would that matter to the people? The people loved Palpatine. Did they not?

Even Nixon was popular once. But at the time his crimes were not known to the public. In the PT nobody had any idea Palpatine was a Sith and a war criminal. While I cannot prove it concretely, I have to assume the fact he hid so much from the public and senate meant he knew that if this was exposed, the Republic would turn on him.


Do you keep up with current event, Stryphe? Do you see what's going on in Pakistan right now?

I'm not up on the Pakistan situation, no.


Yes, and that's true if you only see the saga as having a single layer. But see it's actually Mace who was being tested not Anakin when Mace confronted Palpatine and it is actually Luke who is being tested not Vader when Luke confronted Palpatine. Anakin never had to be redeemed because he was simply following the will of the people.

Ah, but see, GL said that Anakin was a character who found redemption.

Which also begs the question of how this effects SW as a tradegy (a question not necessary directed at immolated, but at anyone who wants to answer). If a character is redeemed, are they, in fact, tragic?

 

This seems to be the essential question for those of us, like myself, who put stock in the Aristotelean and Shakespearean models of tragedy. Other than this single point, Anakin's story is a play-by-play reenactment of Shakespeare's model. Does Vader's restoration as a hero and his acquisition of Force-granted immortality negate the 'tragic' element of his character? Can a man who ends as well as he does truly be said to be 'tragic'?

 

This seems to be the essential question for those of us, like myself, who put stock in the Aristotelean and Shakespearean models of tragedy. Other than this single point, Anakin's story is a play-by-play reenactment of Shakespeare's model.

But how does the Luke story fit into that model? Not to mention the screentime factor. The Shakespearean tragic characters are always the focus of the story, unless I am mistaken.

 

No, no, you're right! Richard III is the main character of his own play, as is Hamlet, just to name two examples out of many. Clearly the Star Wars Saga is not a tragedy if one attempts to label it so purely according to the Shakespearean model.

Yet the Saga has so many influences, and there are other forms of drama -- opera, for example -- which can be called 'tragic' even if they do not present a continuous narrative involving a single protagonist. One of these (or four of them, depending on your POV) is/are Wagner's The Ring of the Niebelung, which throughout four united operas describes the life of the father, who seems to be the protagonist/tragic hero, before going on to tell about the son.

My point is that SW is very much its own story, as another poster pointed out earlier, being inspired and influenced by other forms of drama and tales of legend and science fiction, but not strictly adhering to the 'rules' (if there are any) established by those predecessors.

 

Yes, true, there are tragic elements, I will not deny it.

 

I explained but are you willing to listen or am I not making my self clear enough?

Vort, what I find curious about you is how you don't believe Lucas when he speaks of the origins of Star Wars but you appear to hang on his every word when it comes to Star Wars' meaning.

I have to talk about things like Pakistan's military coup d'état because Stryphe doesn't seem to appreciate that the Senate may not have wanted the Jedi to overthrow the elected leader of their excutive branch of government and seize control of their legislative branch. See, that's almost exactly what happened in Pakistan in 1999 and now those people are currently under marshall law 8 years later from the same military that overthrew the elected leader of their excutive branch. Now Stryphe thinks that the Jedi would have just been accepted with open arms by the people even though the Jedi just threw democracy out the window and he can think that but there's no proof out there that I'm aware of that backs this claim up. Coups are never a good thing if the government is already a democracy.

Now in order for me to explain my point I must explain morality and the ramifications of a military coup d'état on a democracy.

So now I'll dissect your opening statements in earnest:

Yeah, you can think the Saga is not a tragedy all you want if you want to put words into Lucas' mouth but I would like you to show me where I can find this quote where Lucas claims that the Saga is a tragedy. I know he calls it the tragedy of Darth Vader because I heard him say that on the "ROTS" DVD commentary. But you are right the Saga is not a tragedy but the story of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader is a tragedy.

Nice plug.

Here's the thing: Anakin Skywalker died in "ROTS". Anakin did not become Darth Vader because of the things he did. He became Darth Vader because of the things that the people did. Now you can either believe that or not but it's right there on the screen. The people became the abomination and the murderers and Anakin was just doing what they were doing. Now you can judge Anakin and call him a abomination and a murderer but then why don't you judge all the other characters? Anakin didn't do anything but protect the people's government and

 

The people did turn on Palpatine. I just don't have the time to explain my position and I'm sorry about that, so I'll just do it real quick like:

If the Jedi would have been successful in their coup then they would be facing a public that would see them as criminals and they would truly be criminals. In a democracy a military entity like the Jedi just can't overthrow both the executive and legislative branchs of government because that's illegal. If the Jedi would have been successful then the Jedi would have destroyed democracy. Your comparision of Nixon to Palaptine is fine but the problem is Nixon was not overthrown. The legislative branch of the U.S. Federal Republic was gearing up to launch a formal investigation and Nixon resigned because he obviously knew he was guilty. The resignation of Nixon is a testament to democracy and a military coup is the exact opposite of democracy. Now maybe the Jedi should have just left the Republic in "Attack of the Clones". They had that option. Didn't they? Eventually the people saw through Palpatine just like the American people eventually saw through Nixon. Maybe the best thing for the Jedi to do was just walk away from it all.

"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting."

 

The_immolated_one, before excoriating my opening post, you would do well to read a little farther into the thread. After rebelscum77 posted the models of tragedy according to Aristotle and Shalespeare (see page 1), I offered a step-by-step analysis of the models in relation to Anakin's story arc (see page 3). Anakin fits the mold of tragic hero almost perfectly, with the sole exception being that at the moment he encounters the possibility of achieving something truly 'great' and heroic, rather than failing in that effort like Shakespeare's tragic heroes, Anakin seizes the opportunity and so restores himself to heroic status. Whether this single departure from the Shakespearean model renders Anakin's story arc non-tragical, I will leave up to the individual... but for the record, I am of the mind that it does not, since all the other elements of Shakespearean tragedy are still firmly in place.

Thus, you and I agree that the Saga is a tragedy -- or at least, Anakin's part in it.

 

Was Mace not going to Palpatine's office with the intention to arrest Palpatine and take control of the executive branch of the central government? Was Mace not thinking about taking control of the legislative branch of the government when he spoke of taking control of the Senate to Ki-Adi-Mundi and Yoda?


Yes, Mace and three other Jedi did arrive at Palpatine's office with the intention of arresting the Chancellor without the Senate's authority. Just as Yoda arrived at Palpatine's office with the intention of killing the Chancellor without the Senate's authority.


As for the comment that it was Mace who had first brought up the subject of taking control of the Senate . . . this is what really happened:

ANAKIN leaves the room. COMMANDER CODY's hologram disappears.
MACE WINDU: I sense a plot to destroy the Jedi. The dark side of the Force surrounds the Chancellor.
KI-ADI-MUNDI: If he does not give up his emergency powers after the destruction of Grievous, then he should be removed from
office.
MACE WINDU: That could be a dangerous move ... the Jedi Council would have to take control of the Senate in order to secure a peaceful transition . . .
KI-ADI-MUNDI: . . . and replace the Congress with Senators who are not filled with greed and corruption.
YODA: To a dark place this line of thought will carry us. Hmmmmm. . . . great care we must take.


Ki-Adi was the first to suggest that the Jedi remove Palpatine from office, if the latter refuses to surrender his emergency powers following Grievous' death.

Mace declared that would be dangerous move - one that would require the Jedi to take control of the Senate in order to secure a peaceful transition.

Then Ki-Adi suggested that the Jedi replace the Senators they could trust.

Yoda declared that these suggestions would take the Jedi to a dark place. Then . . . he adds that the Jedi would have to take great care in their actions.

 

immolated, I agree with some, but not all, if what you said. However, to debate that element I think would deviate this thread away from its topic, so perhaps we can discuss this in a different thread. Having said that, I have to ask...

KI-ADI-MUNDI: . . . and replace the Congress with Senators who are not filled with greed and corruption.

Did he really say that? I don't remember that line, I do remember the rest of the scene as quoted, but that line seems out of place (in my memory).

 

No, Ki-Adi-Mundi didn't say that in the movie. That's from the script.

 

OK, thanks. I wonder if GL cut it because he realized that would push the Jedi too far. I hope that was his motivation. But in any event...

 

Done.

Now this thread is no longer necessary.

 

Obi Wan, alive to tell the tale, to feel the regret, to remember his own words at failing Anakin. Padme dead - Anakin (he thinks) dead. The entire Jedi Order with the exception of himself and Yoda - gone. He and Yoda have to live out their separate lives as hermits with no contact with each other and extremely limited contact with anyone else. Obi Wan on Tatooine watching over the son of his "brother" while those who are serving as surrogate parents avoid him. Waiting..for decades.

Sounds pretty tragic to me...

 

That's just half the story. By the end the Order is resurgent, the Republic will be reborn, Obi-Wan is reunited with his old friend and his masters, and Anakin has finally truly acted as the Chosen One and understands just how hollow the Dark Side is. It sounds like a fairly happy ending to me.

 

i'll prolly repeat myself but i just found this neat and kicking:

anakin's story is a tragedy, that doesn't necessitate for the whole thing to be a tragedy.

 

Actually, the whole thing is a tragedy in the sense that noone from the prequals gets to live past the end of ROTJ to see the Sith destroyed, the Empire disbanded, and the galaxy free from tyranny, oppression, persecution, and annihilation.