SW: allegorical or applicable?

do you guys think that the main themes of star wars have allegory or applicability

by this i mean, do you think there can be one on one translations in the form of "the death star = the A-bomb", and "the emporer = hitler"

or do you think that the themes are generic and can be put in many different situations and have a different meaning for everyone.

 

It sounds like you're referring to Tolkien's distinction of allegory from applicability.

I do not think that the Star Wars movies are allegorical in the strict sense in which Tolkien used the word. That is, they are not "really about" some specific real-world thing; they are not just a sort of sophisticated code for Lucas's "message".

On the other hand, I do not think that they are purely "heroic" (i.e. concerned entirely with the story in itself) either.

I would, then, vote for a third option: I'd say that they are mythological or archetypal. That is, on one level they do exist for the sake of the story itself, but on another, the themes inherent in them are consciously meant to represent the corresponding theme in real life.

Perhaps I'm not making much sense. What I mean is that the themes found in the movies are not just accidentally applicable, but are archetypally so. For Tolkien, the One Ring does not represent atomic power, nor does it represent power itself. Rather, it is an example of power (and we may compare, for example, the Ring with nuclear power only as we might compare two real-world examples of the same thing). But I think that in Star Wars, for example, Vader's redemption really can be thought of as representing redemption (not representing some specific instance of redemption, but rather redemption itself).

Maybe I'm wrong, and Star Wars really isn't any different in that regard from Tolkien's works.

 

There are thousands of things that go into everything in Star Wars.

You cannot simplify it at all.

Palpatine = Hiter
but he also equals, Julius Caesar, Napoleon I, Bismark, and thousands of other leaders.

You can't simlify these things.

The Galactic Empire= Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Germany, Russia under the Tsar, and thousands of other governments.

You cannot simplify Star Wars into
this = this

It is far too complex for that.

-Seldon

 

The reader can gauge for him/herself what the allegories (if any) in any story symbolize. We only compare Palpatine to Hitler now because Hitler is more in our range of understanding; we have a more immediate social and historical connection to Hitler than, say, Napoleon. If SW had been published during the Napoleonic Wars, Palpatine would have surely been compared to Napoleon.

 

I think the representations in SW are multi-level.

Death Star = Atomic Bomb, The Maze, Corruption of technology in general. In ANH it is also a dragon slain by Luke, but I don't know if GL had that in mind.

 

because Star Wars is so symbolical in nature it can tell much more stories than just one, based on how you wish to interpret everthing... but most of all it tells the story of us individually... well not so much a story but more of a guidance...

 

I don't believe that it was George's intent to have SW be an allegory, though there is certainly evidence of allegorical themes. Nature v. Mechanical in the Battle of Endor for instance. While those themes exist in SW, they're not what SW is about.

As for "applicable," as others have stated, there are connection to human history all throughout SW, but again, I don't think that's what SW is about.

In the end I would say it's more theological than allegorical or applicable. When EP III is complete, the big picture is one of human capacity to rise to greatness, to fall to darkness, and to be redeemed.

 

ive always thought that the use of old ww2 footage ment more than just prevision for the battles.

ithink that the prequel era is about the spoiling and curruption of germany, in the early thirties, with the empire being the nazis.

the allied side is greatly dramatized by being a small band of heroes that are hopelessly outnumbered, but their greatest weapon is their free will.

another historial part is hoth. the same basic thing happened with france in 1940. they fought to save their country, but were outnumbered, and retreated to england (solice) only to strike back years later.

 

I wish I could Tolkien on what he thought of allegory - but it slips me.

Myth is applicable to many and all cultures and civilizations. Allegory is only applicable to the direct relation.

Star Wars is intended as myth and therefore should be applicable to many different situations.

 

Tolkien didn't like allegory. I don't know much of the specifics or his reasoning, I just know he didn't like it and insists LOTR is not allegorical.

 

Yeah - I know. He had a great quote though about it, something to the effect of allegory is weak and places the focus on the author versus allowing the reader to fill in their own meaning. His was much better.

 

I can find the following quotes from Tolkien on allegory:

"I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And of course the more `life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.)"
Letter 131

"There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory in my story. Allegory of the sort 'five wizards = five senses' is wholly foreign to my way of thinking. There were five wizards and that is just a unique part of history. To ask if the Orcs 'are' Communists is to me as sensible as asking if Communists are Orcs."
Letter 203

"Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth. So that the only perfectly consistent allegory is real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human 'literature', that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily it can be read 'just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. But the two start from opposite ends. You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power. But that is only because all power magical or mechanical does always so work. You cannot right a story about an apparently simple magic ring without that bursting in, if you really take the ring seriously, and make things happen that would happen, if such a thing existed."
Letter 109

"Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes of views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.

I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous."
Foreward to the 2nd edition of LotR

Were any of these what you had in mind?

At any rate, they do give an idea of what is meant by "applicability".

 

i like the one about communists

 

QUOTE:....
But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.

I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.....


That was the specific one, yes. Perfect. The one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other the purposed domination of the author. TYVM


Good... good... let the hate flow through you...