Current Events > Why is the empire so evil in Star Wars?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Doe posted...

That's not what's being asked. What's being asked is what do we, as a viewer, learn from a scene. When an audience sits down in a theater, what the author intended means nothing, all that matters is what the audience actually learns from what the scenes actually show.

"What are the themes conveyed by A New Hope" and "What themes did George Lucas intend to convey in A New Hope" are wholly different questions, and the first one is what actually matters to what the film told audiences.

And thus we're back to my first post:
s0nicfan posted...

Death of the author isn't an axiom. Some people may choose to ignore the author flat out saying what the meaning of their work is, but that doesn't mean that it's an incorrect interpretation. It means that you're just choosing to explicitly ignore the stated meaning from the creator because you want to have a different interpretation of your own.

Doe posted...

Star Wars really isn't a morality tale though. The good guys don't do a ton of independent good deeds, they're just constantly trying to defend their lives from the crazy evil empire.

There's a literal light side and dark side lol

The movies are simple morality tales and stuff released later expand it a bit though.

Punished_Blinx posted...

There's a literal light side and dark side lol

"there is good guy and bad guy" is not the definition of a morality tale...

s0nicfan posted...

And thus we're back to my first post:

Enlighten me on how what I wrote contradicted what you said?

Doe posted...

Enlighten me on how what I wrote contradicted what you said?

Sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

"The Death of the Author" (French: La mort de l'auteur) is a 1967 essay by the Frenchliterary critic and theoristRoland Barthes (19151980). Barthes's essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of relying on the intentions and biography of an author to definitively explain the "ultimate meaning" of a text. Instead, the essay emphasizes the primacy of each individual reader's interpretation of the work over any "definitive" meaning intended by the author, a process in which subtle or unnoticed characteristics may be drawn out for new insight.

Now, let's see if you're arguing that the ultimate meaning is completely divorced from the actual stated intent of the author:
Doe posted...

Well to start with, we don't ask the author what their work was supposed to mean, we conclude the resultant meaning of the work from the textual evidence. George Lucas is kinda infamous for his extravagant claims about meaning.

Doe posted...

When an audience sits down in a theater, what the author intended means nothing, all that matters is what the audience actually learns from what the scenes actually show.

Doe posted...

It's not that you should ignore what the author says for the sake of excluding the author from conversations. It's that you should not use the author's intent as evidence, and you should not use the author as an appeal to authority.

Yep, that's literally "death of the author." This has been my TED talk.

EDIT: and as a reminder, this whole thing started because someone called Star Wars a morality tale, you disagreed, and then they said that the author has flat out stated that it was a morality tale. So if you're going to continue to argue that no, the author is wrong in the literal intent of his works, then we don't have to entertain your opinion on what you feel it may be because the author told us. Your perspective is only up for consideration if the author is dead (thus we can't confirm), or if you explicitly prescribe to the Death of the Author form of literary criticism. Which is one means of reading a work, but not axiomatic.

Doe posted...

"there is good guy and bad guy" is not the definition of a morality tale...

What is then?

The post that triggered this argument sounds correct;
Pogo_Marimo posted...

Because it's a morality story about good and evil. Not every piece of fiction needs to represent the complex moral ambiguity of social organizations populated by individuals with their own unique values, motivations, and vehaviors.

Sometimes fiction can just have a Council of Evil that does evil stuff.

Now there was media released later that fleshes things out but talking about the original intention (which was when this universe was created) it's overall very morally simple. It's about a group of heroes that step up against evil. Which is why we aren't supposed to think about how many people died on the Death Star. It's why the bad guys literally look and talk like bad guys.

s0nicfan posted...

Sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

Now, let's see if you're arguing that the ultimate meaning is completely divorced from the actual stated intent of the author:

Yep, that's literally "death of the author." This has been my TED talk.

My post doesn't state that "death of the author" is an "axiom". An axiom is something you assume to be true without being able to prove it as the basis to be able to conclude other things. It is just a fact that George Lucas' intentions do not influence what viewers take away from Star Wars because physically they are not engaging with George Lucas' intentions, they are engaging with the movie.

From my pov you are acting like, because the facts I'm pointing out have been put under an umbrella and labeled 'death of the author', that choosing to accept those facts is just a philosophical opinion, similar to how people try to make evolution or intelligent design equal choices.

The Empire is evil because they're modeled after Republicans.

Punished_Blinx posted...

What is then?

If "good guy and bad guy" is a morality tale then basically every story is a morality tale. A morality tale illustrates a moral through its story. Eg Hansel and Gretel illustrates the moral of caution around strangers. The kids first meet the witch at which point following her seems consequentially insignificant or even positive as she promises treats, but then they learn that such offers from people they don't know may come with ulterior motives.

When a story at its outset labels one party as good and the other as bad and then they fight (such as the opening crawl of every Star Wars movie), then the story is not illustrating a moral. Like, Star Wars is just not about why the Empire is bad or why the Jedi are good. We already know blowing up Alderaan is bad and that stopping that behavior is good.

Doe posted...

If "good guy and bad guy" is a morality tale then basically every story is a morality tale. A morality tale illustrates a moral through its story. Eg Hansel and Gretel illustrates the moral of caution around strangers. The kids first meet the witch at which point following her seems consequentially insignificant or even positive as she promises treats, but then they learn that such offers from people they don't know may come with ulterior motives.

When a story at its outset labels one party as good and the other as bad and then they fight (such as the opening crawl of every Star Wars movie), then the story is not illustrating a moral. Like, Star Wars is just not about why the Empire is bad or why the Jedi are good. We already know blowing up Alderaan is bad and that stopping that behavior is good.

I think you're just overthinking and being pedantic about what people are saying. We're not meaning a "story that teaches you a moral" we're meaning "this is a story about two opposing sides of simplistic good and evil moralities" in a topic asking why the Empire is evil.

fair enough

Doe posted...

"What are the themes conveyed by A New Hope"

Robots and spaceships and shit.

"What themes did George Lucas intend to convey in A New Hope"
Combining knockoffs of Flash Gordon with knockoffs of Kurosawa