There is No Fandom for El Cid
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | There is No Fandom for El Cid |
| Creator: | Sandra Necchi |
| Date(s): | early 1984 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Star Wars |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
There is No Fandom for El Cid is a 1984 essay by Sandra H. Necchi.
It was printed in Scoundrel #3.
The topic is Star Wars.
Some Topics Discussed
- Star Wars as myth
- Star Wars: A New Hope as intended fluff for young audiences, The Empire Strikes Back was an improvement as "serious" storytelling, and Return of the Jedi was back to being disappointing
- characterizations of Han Solo, The Luke and Han Wars
- George Lucas as a manipulator, as dishonest, as uncaring of his own creation
- character growth as a good thing
- fan fiction makes simple things complex, as does fannish discussion about the second film, but this does not match George Lucas' thoughts as he "does not ponder very deeply on his own creation"
- fandom in-fighting will make George Lucas angry and make fans look bad
- "Irving Kershner took Lucas' limited vision of his own universe and made it into something "real." Then, "Lucas, annoyed with what Kershner did, put the reins on again and tried to bring the story back into the fairy tale-myth fold."
- "The moment fans decided they wanted to write about the SW universe, they instantly changed it. Lucas' own vision is stagnant. Fans have expanded it, and they can do nothing else if they are to continue writing, discussing and reading about it."
- "If that is, indeed, what these fans want—a myth or fairy tale and nothing more—then their vision of the Star Wars universe is as limited as Lucas'. They ignore—or just don't see—the development and nature of the very group (fandom) and story they have seen grow and, ironically, contributed to."
Excerpts
There is a fundamental contradiction in Star Wars fandom that no one (to my knowledge) has expressed in any straightforward or lucid manner. The heated debates sparked by Return of the Jedi all point to this contradiction, and it is no accident that they comprise the fiercest arguments in SW fandom to date. They are a direct result of this contradiction, for nowhere is it so obvious than in this third Star Wars film:
You can't flesh out a fairy tale.
And when you do, it is no longer a fairy tale.
I was 17 when Star Wars was first released, a four-year veteran of Star Trek and SF fandoms. I'd been waiting for it for four years, desperate for any new science fiction film, which Hollywood at the time was simply not producing. But I was anxiously hoping for a film that broke out of the cliche-ridden product Hollywood had given us in the past.
I finally saw it, and was rather disappointed because (as usual) it stressed special effects over people. But once I realized it was not a science fiction film, I altered my preconceptions. Once I knew what George Lucas meant the film to be—a celebration of fairy tales, myths, old films and serials—I enjoyed it on its own level. But I was disappointed that it was nothing more than that.
When I saw an actual Star Wars fandom developing, I was more than a little puzzled, and somewhat annoyed. I saw the film as nothing more than a light diversion with some nice music. I appreciated its heart, its childlike joy, but I could not understand how it could engender fan fiction. I began thinking of analogous situations like a Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs fandom, or stories exploring the "three dimensions" of Beowulf (the character). A New Hope was full of symbolic caricature (and a strong middle-class conservative Libertarian ideology)
To write serious fan fiction would transform it from a mythic saga to something else entirely, that is, a serious, complex, three-dimensional story. I realized boredom with Star Trek fandom had a great deal to do with the flood of SW fan fiction, but I could not understand how anyone could take the film so seriously. Lucas repeatedly explained his view of the SW universe in interviews. He saw it as just fun entertainment, a couple of hours to leave your brain at home. But any viable fandom, if it wanted to live and grow, could not possibly leave it at that.
I began to see that a fandom with such a deep contradiction at its base would not only generate several arguments, misunderstandings and misinterpretations among its members, but it might probably create a troubled relationship with George Lucas and Lucasfilm who would look at fandom with condescension only, a far cry from the relationship between Gene Roddenberry and ST fandom (because Star Trek was meant to be taken seriously). It is clear that Lucas does not ponder very deeply on his own creation, and so does not notice (or try to) whatever plot and character contradictions there may be in it. Fandom does not see SW in this way at all, and Return of the Jedi is the epitome of this contradiction.
When I heard of a sequel to A New Hope, I made the same analysis. If Lucas meant this to be a fairy tale or a mythic saga only, then the sequel would probably be just a rehash of the symbology present in the first film (which would be fine, but uninspiring). However, The Empire Strikes Back turned out to be something quite different (and it was this film that suckered me into SW fandom). The myth was brought "down to earth". Suddenly the characters were real people to me, and I even developed an attachment to BOTH Luke and Han. I like the Han/Leia romance (but am I the only fan who wants Leia to have both of them?). I also liked Lando immediately, and supported him in his actions. He was the first character not based on any mythic symbology. The only vestige of that in Empire was the Luke/Vader father/son storyline which was ambiguous enough to make it multi-layered, with several possibilities for speculation. It was a powerful subplot and my heart jumps every time I see (or imagine) Luke calling "Father" aboard the Falcon after his duel with Vader. No mere fairy tale can generate that kind of commitment of feeling. Irving Kershner took Lucas' limited vision of his own universe and made it into something "real". He broke the confining walls that Lucas had erected (and was determined to keep) around the story, and let it breathe, run wild and grow. And because of that, it made us expect more. This was no longer just a galactic version of El Cid.
Now we have Jedi. Here, Lucas, annoyed with what Kershner did, put the reins on again and tried to bring the story back into the fairy tale-myth fold. It is impossible to fully express into words the folly of this decision. A character (and a whole universe!), once given his or her own reality, cannot be boxed in again. He or she has grown, matured, and the readers or viewers cannot be satisfied with anything less than a continuation of that process. In Jedi, Han Solo is practically a hanger-on, a fifth wheel, and a good little soldier who volunteers for missions. All's right with the Alliance and Solo, even though his involvement with them got him into carbon freeze, Jabba's clutches (or whatever that blob has) and close to an agonizing death in the Sarlacc's pit. Gone is his crucial role (and Lando's as well) as an ambiguous sympathizer, an independent rebel, an individual. Instead, he's little more than a buffoon. Gone is Leia's role as a leader of the rebellion. She is little more than an object to ogle, or to be held. She is no longer an entity unto herself, but an appendage. Her so-called "bitchiness" is gone; in other words, her fire and edge are gone. (The same can be said for Han Solo, but no one's ever complained about his arrogance and "bitchiness".)
Both these characters should have maintained that edge. Lucas has downgraded them in an effort to patch things up neatly for his under-12 audience. He has boxed them into oversimplified squares, causing them to do things that simply make no sense.
Some of the criticisms heaped upon Luke by the "Church of Ford" people are extremely picayune (not to mention just plain overreactions), but there are some valid points to be made about Luke's behavior, especially on Tatooine with Jabba. But, unlike these "Hanatics" who grab at anything to make Luke look like a villain, I view these illogical character presentations practically. I simply see them as carelessness on Lucas' part, and ignore them. Some of these people have pointed out that criticism of a character is healthy—why don't they attack Han just as viciously? Some of them have suggested that Lucas did it all on purpose to make Luke look bad. Why don't they carry their analysis further and claim Lucas' treatment of Han in Jedi is deliberate to say that Han is actually a clown?
But all this arguing is futile, because Jedi is simply not an honest movie. No matter what Lucas (and several fans) say, Jedi is not a fairy tale because of what has gone before in Empire. It is an attempt at the purity and innocence of A New Hope, but flawed because of the serious growth we've seen in Empire. This attempt at "going back" simply makes for poor storytelling, a weird, distorted mishmash of confusing character behaviors and storylines. You can't box "real", complex characters into simplistic "fairy tale" roles. And, neither does Jedi have the sincerity, nor the childlike warmth that A New Hope had. Lucas' condescension toward his audience and his characters is quite evident throughout Jedi, not to mention his obvious desire to reap merchandising profits. The moment I saw Wicket and the Ewoks, I said to myself, "George has gone into the Teddy Bear business now". Perhaps the best illustration of Lucas1 contempt for his audience is his admonition to the Ewok designers in the early stages of their work that "They don't look cute enough. We have to make the audiences love these furry Teddy Bears who are being killed by the bad ol1 Empire."
A New Hope was made for children of all ages. Jedi was made strictly for the under-12 population
who don't notice the illogical characterizations (if you can call them that) and plotting. Then, too, there was the farce of Jabba's palace, an attempt at recreating the cantina sequence in the first film. The difference in the presentation of all those aliens in these two scenes is striking. The cantina sequence was fun, nonchalant, even natural. The scenes in Jedi were suffused with manufactured, slick, ludicrous aliens, designed consciously to appeal to the younger set, whereas A New Hope was filled with a genuine, innocent "sense of wonder"....
Those of us who dislike Jedi recognize that we have moved forward while Lucas is where he has always been from the beginning. This in itself is fine, but it's not particularly imaginative. Lucas has never considered his universe seriously, as we have. To Lucas, Han, Luke, Leia and the others are not three-dimensional people. (And in Jedi, they are a distraction to what he considers the important stuff—the effects, the battles, the "look-what-we-can do" aliens.) This is why the entire storyline that deals with the characters is so haphazardly, and quickly dispensed of. He pays little attention to the integrity and logic/illogic of their behavior. This is why (for you Hanatics) Luke does all those "terrible" things some fans say he does in Jedi—because Lucas hasn't bothered to care. And this is why I cannot place Jedi in "my" Star Wars universe, that is, my perception of it (which differs from person-to-person). It has no internal coherence or integrity, nor within the entire series itself. I can accept the basic facts that Lucas has given us in it—Leia being "the other" (an eminently more rational choice than Han), Luke and Leia being brother and sister (even though I don't like it. I don't believe the "real" Luke is over Leia.), Vader and Luke really being father and son, and Ben not truly lying to Luke (at least to his mind)." But that is all. I have to ignore all the other nonsense. I have to overlook Luke's errors on Tatooine, as well as Han's buffoonery', even though Lucas doesn't want us to think that. He believes Ben's explanation is enough of a palliative for his nonthinking audience. I cannot take Jedi seriously because Lucas doesn't take it seriously. His contempt permeates the entire film and I can only hope (futilely) that any future Star Wars films will be made without his direct control, as Empire was, in the hands of someone who has a much greater vision of the groundwork he and Kershner laid.
When a fan writer writes a story in the SW universe, he or she takes that universe and the people in it seriously; he or she explores their minds, hearts, the many possible events, ideas, aliens and cultures within that universe. The writer elevates it from a myth or saga, which is not meant to be a complicated presentation of three-dimensional people, to something more tangible, more developed, and much more interesting. And therin lies the dichotomy, because many fans constantly press this "fairy tale" point ad nauseum, not realizing that for fandom to exist, SW has to be transformed into something more. I don't dislike fairy tales—on the contrary—but you simply don't explore the psyche of Little Red Riding Hood. You can, but then you've changed her symbolic purpose and made her into a real human being. She is no longer a caricature. People in myths and fairy tales are symbols, representations of an idea, or a legend. The moment fans decided they wanted to write about the SW universe, they instantly changed it. Lucas' own vision is stagnant. Fans have expanded it, and they can do nothing else if they are to continue writing, discussing and reading about it.
Those fans who hold fast to the "fairy tale" stance ignore this basic contradiction. They may consider SW to be primarily a "fairy tale" or "myth", but when they sit down to write or read SW fan fiction, they are no longer dealing with one. SW is not a saga, myth or fairy tale in fandom. The mythic elements are still there and they can be pointed to and analyzed, but in fandom, they are not the important components of the story. On screen, in George Lucas' mind (excluding Empire) it is merely a saga, but not to the fans who saw what could be developed in Empire and in fan fiction. The story cannot be a saga in fandom. We require more than idealized symbols in our fiction. El Cid is a great epic, but if I start writing about the main character's internal problems, his relationships with his family, his king, his lady, speculating and exploring about 11th Century Spain, I change the entire character of the original epic.
If that is, indeed, what these fans want—a myth or fairy tale and nothing more—then their vision of the Star Wars universe is as limited as Lucas'. They ignore—or just don't see—the development and nature of the very group (fandom) and story they have seen grow and, ironically, contributed to. The rest of us will just have to keep tolerating their naivete.