Kevin Ahearn writes about...

Star Wars

BWS:

Star Wars, the greatest single achievement in the history of SF & F has come to an end, but not without the critics attacking George Lucas for his weaknesses and shortcomings. Gee, by the same measure, if Toni Morrison, the Nobel laureate, and not Mary Shelley, that English teenager, had written Frankenstein, the classic sf novel would have so much better. And if John Steinbeck had done the writing and Berne Hogarth (Tarzan) the artwork instead of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, those upstart New York high school kids, Superman would have been really good. Robert Louis Stevenson wrote Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde in less than three weeks. Imagine, if he had put some serious time into his novelette, how much better it would have been.

Lucas wrote six episodes of Star Wars. Try reading six novels by H. G. Wells or Jules Vernes without wincing at some of the awkward prose. Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury — read a half dozen novels by any of those “masters” and see how well they hold up under intense scrutiny. Ten hours of Star Wars — do you really want to compare them against ten hours of Star Trek or Twilight Zone, Matrix or Rings, Alien or Terminator? (“Your agonizer, please, Mister Kyle!”)

I refuse to be an apologist for George Lucas whose contribution to the genre is unrivaled by anyone. For those who believe that the core of SF & F is imagination, try imagining the state of SF & F had the creator of Star Wars never been born. That should give you plenty to whine about.

Kevin

Copyright © 2005 by Kevin Ahearn

Thanks for the enthusiastic support of science fiction, Kevin. Are literature and the world better off with or without Star Wars and all the other works and authors you mention? I think it goes without saying that we’re better off with them.

Is George Lucas’ contribution to the genre of fantasy and science fiction “unrivaled by anyone”? That’s a matter of opinion, and time will tell. One thing is sure, though: Lucas’ contribution to the visual art of the “big screen” has rightly dazzled movie fans with special effects. And those effects are exerting a powerful influence throughout the world of cinema and television: in watching reruns of some Star Wars episodes on television, I sometimes found it hard to tell where the commercials left off and the movie resumed. Imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery.

However, I will defend formal criticism in the worlds of cinema, art and literature. At its best, criticism can help us understand the significance of works in their historical contexts, even if the context is contemporary. Criticism can also give us insights into the form and content of the work. In technical terms, it can sometimes point out ways in which a work might have been done better.

My view, for what it’s worth, is that films written, directed and produced by the same person seldom qualify as masterpieces; in fact, they’re usually mediocre. The reason is simple: one person is stretched too thin. Writing, producing and directing are three different professions, let alone full-time jobs.

Lucas has succeeded masterfully as a producer. But is he “unrivaled” in his contribution to science fiction and fantasy in cinema as a writer and director? Compare the writing and acting of Star Wars to that of Star Trek: Next Generation and, especially, Deep Space 9. I rest my case.

I can be comfortable with Star Wars as a visual tour de force and as children’s literature, which, of course, has its place. Be that as it may, we have reason to hope that future writers, directors and producers will combine Lucas’ technical and visual achievements with the standards set in other areas of science fiction. The opportunities are indeed spectacular.

Don