Shady Thoughts: A Theory to Explain the Universe (According to George Lucas)
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Shady Thoughts: A Theory to Explain the Universe (According to George Lucas) |
| Creator: | Mary Jean Holmes |
| Date(s): | Summer 1984 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Star Wars |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Shady Thoughts: A Theory to Explain the Universe (According to George Lucas) is a 1984 essay by Mary Jean Holmes .
It was printed in Shadowstar #15 and is part of the Shady Thoughts essay series.
The topics were authorial intent, fanon, head canons (though that phrase is not specifically used), fan controversy regarding plot points and characterization in Star Wars and its fanfiction, and "chemical disintegration."
From the Essay
There have been times, of late, when I've felt that, from an editor's point of view, dealing with original fiction is much easier than dealing with fan fiction. Even though the worlds of the science fiction and fantasy writer are frequently of his or her own creation, the children of the individual's imagination, the "parents" of such work are often far less touchy than those of fan fiction, who can and do take umbrage when their pet theories and beliefs are opposed and/or contradicted by others.
As an editor, caught in the eye of the public-opinion hurricane, I've had my ear bent by all the adherents of theoretical beliefs concerning George Lucas' galaxy far, far away. The fans of Luke Skywalker, some of whom wish to raise him on a pedestal of perfection. The followers of Han Solo, a few of whom have tried to nominate him either for Godhood or the Galaxy's Greatest Lover. The disciples of the Dark Side, who would prefer to perpetuate the existence of the Emperor and Vader over the victory of the Rebellion. The supporters of Princess Leia, who want to make of her a Jedi symbol for women's liberation, or deny her relationship to Luke. Those with a fondness for Anakin Skywalker, who think that, since he saved his own son, Luke and Leia will now love him forever, and the Alliance should nominate him for sainthood. A certain young Wookiee who has something of a blind spot when it comes to Chewbacca's representation in literature. Jedi Elitists, Imperial sympathizers — I think by now, I must have heard them all. Some are well-thought-out and well—expressed; some are more passion than reason. Whatever the case may be, there are as many theories flying about as there are flies about a dead horse.
Actually, I think that, in ways, all the fannish controversy is just that: a dead horse. Whatever complicated notions are expounded, whatever strong support a specific point of view may bring forth to lend credence to itself — this may all be rendered null and void, should Lucas choose to express a different set of facts concerning his mythos. So why am I writing this?
That's a very good question. Perhaps I'm putting it on paper because I'm tired of listening and want to do a little talking of my own. Heaven knows, I'm the first person in line who believes that George has the artistic right to do whatever he wishes with his own creation. .And everyone who knows me also knows that I'm right at the head of the line when I put forth my belief that, though I have no quarrel with the events set forth in chapters five and six, I have a lot of argument with the way it was written and presented. Still, none of that changes this, my personal theory of continuity throughout the Saga.
To start off, I must make it clear that I harbor no resentment, anger, or irritation toward anyone who has related contradictory opinions to me. An opinion is just that, after all: an opinion, a personal belief. What one chooses to believe as a matter of personal preference is his or her affair, and, as I said earlier, this may all be rendered pointless when and if Mr. Lucas chooses to let the rest of us in on his story. In the meantime, I offer this line of thought for your cogitation.
This theory is not designed to offer support for any particular character; as I have said so often before, I am fond of them all, and firmly believe they are all at their best when working together. Okay, okay, so I've got a soft spot for Han and Obi-wan Kenobi. That doesn't change my attitude. This hypothesis, in fact, encompasses them all. They are all intrinsic to it.
Let us view the universe as a great laboratory, in which new experiments are tried, some succeeding, some failing. Stars are born, stars die, creatures evolve and achieve extinction, spatial phenomena and civilizations come and go, rise and fall. In this laboratory, somewhere in the past, a great experiment is made. At first, it is successful, producing a stable, fruitful condition. But then, after a long period of positive reaction, a flaw appears. The experiment begins to fail, decaying from within. If the flaw remains uncorrected, the experiment will soon destroy itself completely.
Into this picture enter two chemists, one good, one evil. The good wants to preserve the experiment and correct the flaw; the evil wants to enhance it, so that, when utter failure is achieved, he alone will control the laboratory. So he does away with all his opponent's assistants and co-workers, enticing some to his side, killing others. Meanwhile, the good chemist introduces a new reagent into the formula, in an attempt to seek out his enemy's weaknesses and find a way of correcting the flaw. The evil chemist adds ananticatalyst, in hopes that it will speed up the degeneration; the good chemist retaliates by adding a stabilizer, to slow the potential decay.
Unfortunately, the combination of the new reagent and the anticatalyst proves negative; the degeneration process accelerates, the stabilizer weakens. When it becomes apparent that this combination will not succeed, the chemicals are changed. The old reagent and stabilizer are removed and new ones introduced. The anticatalyst is still strong, but, rather than chance failure, the evil chemist attempts to increase its strength by adding to it. The new catalyst, however, is untried and unpredictable, and, in the end, the combination cancels out the evil chemist's attempts, allowing his opponent's experiment to succeed. The degeneration is slowed, if not arrested. The chemists themselves are taken out of the picture, and the results of their actions left to run their course.
Over the course of the Adventures of Luke Skywalker, substitutions are made, characters removed. First, the weakened stabilizer is replaced with fresh, strong, vital youth; Leia. The reagent, having come to the end of his potency in the chemical mix, passes on his position to another, who, though again not the intentional cause of events, is nonetheless a mirror of them, at their heart: Han. And lastly (but not leastly) we have the new catalyst, the addition of whom Palpatine feels certain will assure his victory but — though he could turn either negative or positive — eventually hastens his doom: Luke. we see or hear of all their induction rituals: Leia is sent by her father; "an is selected by Kenobi out of a roomful of pilots; Luke is offered a place at his father's side. All three are part of the chemical process; with any one missing, the process is weakened, the result an inferior product. Both chemists are removed in the same film, even though the reaction has yet to run its rull course — the Alliance, obviously, still has work to do — and only tne future will tell if the experiment is ultimately successful.
Well, that's about the way I see things. Perhaps I'm a few parsecs off the bean, but as a whole, the theory iaakes sense to me. There are many implications that I will not go into here (the specific nature of a catalyst, for instance, or the reagent's capacity for measuring others), for the sake of length, although I hope I've provided some solid food for thought. This hypothesis glorifies or belittles none; all our prime characters have a place and a purpose (yes. Lumpy, even Ghewbacca; how could Han have survived all those years without him? And remember, chemicals work better once they've undergone a purification process); it more or less provides a thread to connect all nine parts, who'll be the chemists and the chemicals of the future? I suppose it's all up to the biggest chemist of all — and we all know George isn't talking.