Alas, George Lucas only ever destroyed Star Wars. But while Daniel Larison says all that needs to be said about Michael Lind's misapprehensions about the "Middle Ages" and weird affection for centralized bureaucracy, he says not nearly enough about Lind's lousy reading of the classic Stars of science fiction and fantasy:
If there was a moment when the culture of enlightened modernity in the United States gave way to the sickly culture of romantic primitivism, it was when the movie “Star Wars” premiered in 1977. A child of the 1960s, I had grown up with the optimistic vision symbolized by “Star Trek,” according to which planets, as they developed technologically and politically, graduated to membership in the United Federation of Planets, a sort of galactic League of Nations or UN. When I first watched “Star Wars,” I was deeply shocked. The representatives of the advanced, scientific, galaxy-spanning organization were now the bad guys, and the heroes were positively medieval — hereditary princes and princesses, wizards and ape-men. Aristocracy and tribalism were superior to bureaucracy. Technology was bad. Magic was goodI understand that Gene Roddenberry's retromod vision of the future had Kirk kissing Nichelle Nichols, but even before the stylish sixties gave way to the weird, hierarchical, technocratic dictatorship of The Next Generation, the United Federation of Planets played barely the part of a supernumerary. The governing organization always seemed to be Starfleet, whose motto . . . to boldly go . . . and shoot with lasers . . . Their missions of exploration always seemed to lead to armed conflict, and the bold, interracial, transspecies future had as a model of its money-free, egalitarian, merit-based society something more or less directly descended from the British Admiralty, circa Trafalgar.
Meanwhile, if we must read Star Wars as something other than someone talking that old hack and fraud Joe Campbell a leeeetle bit too seriously, then let me just remind you that the "advanced, scientific, galaxy-spanning organization" was an evil empire run by a cyborg monster and an evil wizard, and that in almost every visual detail its model was not the New goddamn Deal, but the Third fucking Reich.
39 comments:
Lasers?!?! In Star Trek!?!? Bitch please.
For me, TOS is mostly about the subjugation of women, while TNG is about the completely kool-aid drinking military front line of a totalitarian empire.
say what you like about the tenets of galactic imperialism...
To be fair, the New goddamn Dealers wished they could have had the visuals of the Third fucking Reich.
Episode 3 review is up at Red Letter Media.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine an oddly overacted Captain violating the Prime Directive - forever.
Anon. 12:14 -- that is just excellent!
Fuck Star Wars. Starship Troopers, now that's the shit.
Imperial reactionaries will always be imperial reactionaries, whether their empire of choice is Galactic, British, or American.
You're only a deemed a rebel if your revolution is successful. The Rebel Alliance overthrew its Imperial overlords, the Continental Army overthrew its British overlords.
Otherwise, you're an insurgent.
IOZ---
You're forgetting the noble humility underpinning the Prime Directive*.
*as informed by Terran Exceptionalism, to wit Kirk's irresistible fists and sex appeal.
So: IOZ sometimes does literary book reviews here. I'd be curious to get some recommendations on post-1990 science-fiction novels, or anthologies, that's not solely gadget-fetishism.
James N.
Have you read Gene Wolfe's tetralogy The Book of the New Sun? I recommend highly with the caveat that I'm an enormous fan of all of Wolfe's work (and found out just recently that he and I share the same birthday).
Yeah, "New Sun" is good stuff, despite (or rather because of) all its lifting from Borges. But that was published in the early 80's, wasn't it? But still: good taste.
the idea that we will flit from planet to planet in some future is baloney. will never happen. you don't get it, star wars was fantasy and star trek was science fiction, they ain't the same,doh!
I second James N.'s request. If you're gonna be a nerd, IOZ, go all out.
If you want sci-fi recs, go ask Jack Crow.
He recommended Ian McDonald (specifically River of Gods) last year in a thread somewhere in this alley of the blogosphere.
I'm about half-way through River of Gods and am enjoying it tremendously. It is set in 2047 though so maybe not set far enough in the future for some.
James N.: Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy?
If you like dolled up High Church fuckwaddery, go with Wolfe. No personal offense to those who've recommended him, but Wolfe hates his readers and their pedestrian, unCatholic desires; and not in a good way. Long Sun blows.
As for imperial postures in filmed space opera, Whedon gets the note right in depicting the Alliance as commercial, banal and ordinary. "Miranda" is a logical outcome of normal Alliance operation. It's not a ridiculous grand gesture, like blowing up a planet after a monologue. It's just what Big Money uses its governments to do.
Humbled, anon @ 2:14. But, I knows nuthin.
New York Times is the best if you like to read fiction.
Sci fi? I'd be surprised if IOZ readers weren't up on their Iain M. Banks. Use of Weapons is far and away my favourite SF book. Anarchist utopias, space mercenaries and a truly ghastly ending. Most of the Culture novels are well worth reading, although some of the later ones have suffered from bloat and meandering plotlines. Against a Dark Background is decent, too - set on a sort of stagnant ultracapitalist star system in the middle of galactic nowhere smothered by its raft of bureaucracies, cults and megacorporations.
Kicks the shit out of your Space Trek and Wars, that's for damn sure.
Jack Crow
No offense taken. Yes, the Catholic stuff comes through in a lot (though I don't think all) of Wolfe's work, and in some places his religious symbolism is even more embarrasingly obvious than in C. S. Lewis. It doesn't really bother me, maybe because I don't find religion all that interesting.
And I just discovered that Brian Aldiss' Barefoot in the Head is back in print, unfortunately for a rather hefty price. That's my personal favorite for an amusing apocalyptic novel.
"When I first watched “Star Wars,” I was deeply shocked."
Who in the fuck would be deeply shocked at the societal ramifications of the politics in Star Wars in 1977? It was a popcorn movie throwback to old serials and last I checked, the good guys used technology too. Which means Lind's real objection is the disenfranchised rubes daring to challenge power. Why can't they just be ruled and like it?
I can't read fiction any more, I used to enjoy it but it's like, you aren't going to live forever so do really want to read a lot of made-up shit? Far and away one of the worst sci fi books I read was Dune, CORNY!"they tried to kill my son." LOL.
Peter Watts. Peter Watts. Peter Watts.
More specifically, the books Starfish (2000) and Maelstrom (2001), parts of a trilogy, for the bleakest, most convincing and probable vision of this catastrophic century in the making.
His short story "The Island" (2009), for its treatment of generational social struggle.
Also Blindsight (2006) for your dose of philosophical horror - in space. And the short story "The Things" (2010), done from the point of view of the the Thing(s) in the 1982 film.
Fact: the author is a convicted felon, for "obstructing a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer" at the US-Canada border.
@Anon, 5:20
I agree. I can't understand why Dune became so popular. I recently watched the film thinking I had somehow missed out on something by not watching it in the 80s. That's a couple hours of my life I'll never get back.
Peter Watts & Kim Stanley Robinson recommendations are solid.
Speaking of classic movies, the Metropolis restoration is spoken quite highly of in the relevant Wikipedia article.
Fritz Lang's, not Clark Kent's.
Tobarstep,
I saw the movie, I had the same reaction you did. If possible, it was worse than the book.
For good ol' British near future sci fi horror, I have to say "Market Forces" was interesting. Actually too bleak to even finish:
Wikipedia
Market Forces is a science fiction novel by Richard Morgan, first published in 2004.
Set in 2049 in the wake of a global economic downturn called the Domino Recessions, it follows up-and-coming executive Chris as he plunges into the profitable field of Conflict Investment.
Major corporations invest in rebel armies, totalitarian dictatorships, freedom fighters, and terrorists by selling weapons and services in exchange for a percentage of a state's GNP.
The potential for profit is immense, and competition is cut-throat. It's not enough to out-bid a competitor; rival executives joust for the privilege on public roadways via armoured cars or "battle-wagons". This fiercely competitive business model is bloody but effective: surviving executives are by natural selection more cunning and aggressive than their fallen competitors, and therefore best suited for the job. The practice was born by accident when Chris' boss inadvertently killed a coworker while both were racing to work out of fear that showing up late would result in unemployment.
I can see that you are putting a lot of time and effort into your blog and detailed articles! I am deeply in love with every single piece of information you post here. Will be back often to read more updates!
Thank you all for the recommendations.
I like how normally on the comments section, people are ready to slit each other's throat in a never-ending arms race of bile, but the minute somebody mentions Ursula K. LeGuin's Ekumen novels all is forgiven.
(As much as I loved The Dispossessed and Left Hand of Darkness, I thought The Telling was rather dull.)
Let everyone who... hates cars and trucks and planes and loves trains and trolleys... join the Regressive Party. Those of us who believe that the real, if exaggerated, dangers of technology, big government, big business and big labor are outweighed by their benefits can join the Modernist Party.
So, the regressive party believes in using a large, centralized bureaucracy to build and operate a high tech transportation system that is really mostly of use to large urban centers, while the progressive party believes that transportation is best left to individuals making use of small, old fashioned personal conveyances that are far more convenient for those people who live in small towns or rural areas.
It makes sense to me, but there's an even greater divide among people in this country, and I propose we name the new parties to reflect it.
Therefore, I propose we divide the country into a "smelly dirty stupid rube party" and a "totally awesome Starfleet party that loves everything I do party".
.. as, um, 1977 SF goes, how about Demon Seed? while movies about computers that get out of control are old hat, only this one features Julie Christie !
From what I've heard, Lucas was reacting against Nixon in his depiction of the Empire.
Given that much of the old Star Trek series seemed to involve Captain Kirk kicking the shit out of the locals and humping their girlfriends, I'd always thought it was a particularly prescient take on British holidaymakers in the Med. If Kirk and Spock had three-lion tattoos and drank eight pints of lager before beaming down to the planet's surface, it'd be perfect.
You know what always puzzled me about The Empire? What's their fucking problem with handrails? Ever wonder how many stormtroopers accidentally fell down precipices on the Death Star? Those guys need a better union...
They were Nazis, dude?
I'm more of a Robert Charles Wilson fan meself
"less new deal, more 3rd reich"
And beyond one regime's penchant for ZyklonB vs other's for napalm, the fuck's worth of difference between the two fascist regimes is?
Capt'n Obvious
Post a Comment