Tragedy in the EU

Tragedy is arguably the most popular literary device there is in history. Consider what are arguably the most successful plays, books, and movies. Hamlet, The Lord of the Rings, and Titanic. In Hamlet, everyone dies. It?s the archetypical tragic fantasy story, and along with the Lord of the Rings it?s one of the most recognizable fantasy stories ever told. In the Lord of the Rings, Sauron is defeated, but the elves leave Middle-Earth, and Frodo and Bilbo go with them. Frodo has saved the world, but not for himself. And in Titanic, Jack dies (OK, it?s arguable whether the death of a character played by Leonardo DiCaprio is really a tragedy, strictly speaking, but you see what I mean).

In Star Wars itself, there have been tragedies. The fall and death of Anakin Skywalker, the deaths of Ton Phannon, Crix Madine, Chewbacca, Anakin Solo, and others. My question then is, have the tragedies in Star Wars (and the EU in particular) been successful? Tragedy played a large part in what made the three examples above great. Does it do the same for the EU? Does the passing of characters make what we have left more important and the stories richer, or is it just pointless death and suffering? And what have been the hits and misses?

 

I think that to a certain extent, deaths of important characteres are good and important to show that nobody is invincible (except the big 3 of course ) But, when done to the extent that the NJO has done, it just becomes to much.

When Chewbacca died, I thought to myself, woah!!!!!!!!!!! Nobody is safe if they can kill off Chewbacca.

Tradgedies keep the story fresh and and keeps the readers on his or her toes. You never know who is going to die, and under what circumstances. (except for the big 3 of course ) But besides the big 3, nobody is safe in the NJO it is very refreshing for me to know that somebody on the good side could die at any moment.

 

I think only three or four main characters have died in the NJO, which covers five years of war. That's not too much I don't think.

As for how Titanic can be called a masterpiece... I was hoping the reason the movie was a financial success was because it was a real tragedy. Maybe that's true, but I sure don't know. All I know is the actual books written on the disaster did not have the staying power of LOTR.

The use of tragedy as a literary device is only useful and successful if it's done right. You get all these two-bit authors that just decide to kill a main character off, and it doesn't serve the story. It doesn't mean anything to the other main characters. As long as it means something, affects them in a personal way, it's useful.

For incidental characters, killing them off should have a purpose in either the main story arc or to show the reader how ruthless the murderer (be it man, nature, or machine) is.

The last thing I want to see on bookshelves is Freddy Kruger: The Novel

Chris

 

Actually there's been THREE of those that I know of: A three-in-one adaptation of "Nightmare on Elm Street" parts 1, 2 and 3; A two-in-one "Nightmare" parts 4 and 5; and finally "Wes Craven's New Nightmare."

 

Well, a lot of the tragedy of the Fall of Anakin Skywalker has yet to be told, so untill that is complete, a lot remains to be seen. I do think the tragedy Luke faced, of having to face his own father in battle, was up there, however, on a sentimental level.

 

ARGGGG!!! i was reading LOTR for the first time and you spoiled it for me arrgggg!




lol on the subject i like when every one dies in the book or movie and its a bad end for the good guy!

 

Tragedies are generally powerful stories. I enjoy them, and thing they are an important part of SW.

 

Personally, I don't think any of the so-called tragedies of the post-ROTJ continuity can really be named such. They lack the flaw/destiny/fall dynamic that most true tragedies have. However, I still count the one true, literary tragedy of the EU, the fall of Ulic Qel-Droma, as one of my favorite tales in the pre-ANH EU.

 

I agree. I am a big TALES OF THE JEDI fan, and I still hold out hope and prayers that after the Prequel trilogy is complete, that the TOTJ saga will be made into a Television series.

 

My question then is, have the tragedies in Star Wars (and the EU in particular) been successful? Tragedy played a large part in what made the three examples above great. Does it do the same for the EU? Does the passing of characters make what we have left more important and the stories richer, or is it just pointless death and suffering? And what have been the hits and misses?

Tragedy DOES take form, not only in the EU, but in the "absolute canon" of the films as well.

Alderaan.
Anakin Skywalker.
The Lars (both generations).

The films set the tone of the tragedy -- they were epic in scale and showed some of what the stakes were, but they were presented in a (relatively) bloodless manner. The EU continued this trend with...

Ton Phannan.
Ulic Qel-Droma.
Jesmin Ackbar.
Crix Madine.
Chewbacca.

Even some characters were peripherally tied into the tragedies of the film with Tycho coming from Alderaan and Nejaa Halcyon's Camaasi friend retiring TO Alderaan.

These deaths were good and left us richer for their passing as they were done well and done according to the movie scale of character death.

Where the NJO doesn't succeed is in its portrayal of death and violence at unprecedented levels for Star Wars. Deaths should be emotional in that it resonates with you, not emotional in that you're shocked and outraged at how it was described. The characters who die in Star Wars (the movies) fall into two primary categories -- mentors or villains. The main characters have script immunity -- it's pulp fiction at its finest. One wouldn't read Flash Gordon serials expecting Flash Gordon to die. Where the NJO started was good -- it killed Chewbacca -- which was an emotionally charged death (GOOD) and not beyond the level of the films (GOOD). Chewbacca died fulfilling the entirety of his life's purpose -- the Life Debt to Han Solo and his family. Much as Obi-Wan died fulfilling his goal (putting Luke on the proper path) and Yoda died fulfilled (having trained Luke as much as possible), Chewbacca's death had meaning.

Even Borsk Fey'yla and Elegos Aka'la's deaths had SOME meaning. They both died doing what they felt was their duty to the Republic -- Borsk defending the legacy of his term in office and the Bothan people and Elegos using Camaasi pacifistic sensibilities to try and come to an understanding with the Yuuzhan Vong. Where the line gets drawn is HOW they died. Borsk's wasn't necessarily bad -- but Elegos? Skinned, picked apart, gold-plaited and encrusted with gems? I'm sorry, but no. Pontless death and suffering.

Tahiri's torture on Yavin (while generally unhappy because of her relative age) was done as well as possible with 99.44% of the actual torture done off-screen (even if the Shapers DISCUSSED it onscreen). Contrast that with the voxyn and the Jedi strike force mission in SBS. Torture of young teenagers onscreen, grievous wounds (enough to have one teenager's arms completely inside of another teenager's body), etc. And don't get me started on Traitor.

Contrary to what people think, I started off the NJO with hope. Yes, Vector Prime was above the level of violence and gore than Star Wars had preiously allowed. But it was at a MANAGEABLE level. Delving only occasionally into PG-13 levels.

Death in Star Wars, when done right, is good tragedy. But Star Wars is different than Lord of the Rings or Hamlet or Titanic. It is neither epic classical fantasy, nor a dramatic play nor a historical document. It is SPACE FANTASY -- a setting designed around Good vs. Evil in its entirety; a setting designed to have the good guys take on incredible odds and succeed DESPITE the incredible odds. Good guys are not supposed to die from reckless mistakes in space fantasy -- sure, they may take their LUMPS from being reckless, but they learn from the mistakes and win out in the end.

 

i think people might be confusing the literary sense of tragedy with drama...

a character's death might add drama, but might not be a tragedy.

The story of Ulic Qel Droma was a tragedy.

Chewbacca's death was tragic, and heightened the drama, but overall, was the life and death of Chewbacca a tragedy? He died, but he died a hero, and mourned for his good qualities... he wasn't ruined...

 

The best done deaths as of yet in the NJO have been Anakin Solo followed closely by Chewbacca.

Right after Anakin died and Leia was feeling his death through the Force, that sent chills up my spine because it was described so vividly. Truly one of the best deaths I have ever read.

The Death of Anakin served its purpose very well as a tradgedy due to the fact that Anakin was what? Only 17? The bravery he showed on that strike mission was astounding. The way he carried on without complaining about his injury was bravery at its finest.

 

I think people might be confusing the literary sense of tragedy with drama...

a character's death might add drama, but might not be a tragedy.

The story of Ulic Qel Droma was a tragedy.

True. Anakin is another tragedy, Anakin Skywalker that is

 

agreed.

 

>>Tahiri's torture on Yavin (while generally unhappy because of her relative age) was done as well as possible with 99.44% of the actual torture done off-screen (even if the Shapers DISCUSSED it onscreen). Contrast that with the voxyn and the Jedi strike force mission in SBS. Torture of young teenagers onscreen, grievous wounds (enough to have one teenager's arms completely inside of another teenager's body), etc.<<

I agree it was rather gruesome and unnecessary to have the passage where Tekli's arms are inside Anakin's body. (Using the Force could she not simply have done the smae manipulations outside of his body? Or is her 'range' of projection in the Force that limited?)
Though could it not be so that the gruesome depiction of the injuries sustained at the hands of the voxyn is meant to shock the reader and make them think about the sheer attrocity of the conflict with the Yuuzhan Vong and the horrible consequences of being wounded and participating in that war? Because it is a fact such type of wounds would be gruesome. (As much as injuries sustained by modern day weapons in our own society.)

Perhaps this way the writer tried to depict the horrifying tragedy of conflict, the atrocity of physical and emotional injury which besides being visually gruesome is also impacting on the victim's -and others- psyche?
(Or maybe they even wondered how in this day and age they could shock the reader enough to have the focus and think about how terrible and tragic the war with the Yuuzhan Vong and the suffering of the Jedi and other people involved in it really is, and their method was describing gruesome injuries?)

 

NIGHTOWL... I actually HAVE the Nightmare on Elm Street book (1, 2, 3)... got it from my cousin about a dozen years ago!

 

The only real tradgedies post ROTJ have been in NJO, with the exception of the Ulic story (I haven't read it, but what I know of it is good enough). I mean, who really cares about Callista or Cray, or whoever they are?
Chewbacca's death stands head and shoulders above Anakin Solo's because he was the first and only hero from the movie to die. He had over thirty years to gain popularity, on top of the fact that the Wookie who was always saving someone else died saving the son of his best friend, even though the brat got himself into that mess in the first place (PLEASE don't begin to argue here, it's just my opinion).
That being said, Anakin's death was also tragic, from a dramatic point of view. SBS was his chance to shine after the bad BP and EOV characterization, again in my opinion, and the fact that he died after becoming so likable a character was sad. Dramatically, his death showed that the supposed next generation of heroes was just as vulnerable as the old guard, that the rising stars could fall just as quickly as the old ones. As a hero of the NR, it brought the reality and despair of the Vong war that much closer to home.

 

I think Anakin Solo's death can easily be construed as a tragedy in the formal sense. He was a hero who performed incredible tasks in the name of good, but ultimately he possessed a fatal flaw that did him in: his recklessness.

JMA

 

I agree!