Re: Salinger turns to the Dark Side

Jim Rovira (jrovira@juno.com)
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:28:46 -0400 

On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:33:02 -0400 (EDT) jason varsoke
<jjv@caesun.msd.ray.com> writes:
>Jim Wrote:
>> We do have to be careful when we're talking about the beliefs of 
>others
>> :)  I think that's one point that we both need to learn...
>> 
>> If you define "gods" as "one possessing supernatural powers" then I
>> suppose you could say that.  But the Christian church rejected 
>dualism a
>                                   ^^^
>   Which Christian church are we talking about?  Is there only one 
>again?
>I think the protestant movement would fully support Thor's view if he 
>can
>ground it in the text.  I don't think anything but a subset of
>Christianity has rejected anything.  May of my Christian friends 
>interpret
>the bible to read that the Devil is not a being.  He is a metaphor.  
>Just
>different readings of the same text, happens all the time, especially 
>on
>this list.   Keep learning.
>

"Which Christian Church?" is pretty irrelevant to this particular issue. 
Your Christian Friends that believe the devil is a metaphor, not a being,
are really the subset if you bother to read the latest Catechism of the
Catholic Church, Luther, Calvin, or, for that matter, the creeds of
American Evangelicals, Charismatics,  Pentecostals, Methodists...if you
go overseas, then there's Anglicans . . .and the list goes on.  If we
want to discuss the orthodoxy of a particular faith, now, that's a
separate issue from the interpretation of Biblical texts.  But in the
tradition of all the movements I've described, the devil is a real being,
a fallen angel, created by God, originally good, but now serving himself.
 It's pretty basic.  Liberal theology in America (held to by a minority
of Protestants and Catholics, esp. if you include the Charismatics and
Pentecostals under "Protestantism") would probably hold to a metaphorical
devil.  But, again, those are the minority and actually work outside the
mainstream of their own traditions.

>The 
>last
>movie is about Darthvader and his redeption, among other things.  This
>kind of redemption is completely foreign to Yoda and Obi-wan.  They 
>even
>state it point blank when Luke says he think he can turn his father.  
>The
>short guy says, "nope, ain't gonna happen kid."  But that's just what
>Lucas shows us.  He shows us Darth Vader unmasked.  He shows us Evil
>unmasked, and underneath is a loving father who still gave his life 
>for
>his son.

Ok, all this is pretty good, but the idea of "redemption" is only
meaningful within the context of a black and white distinction between
good and evil.  To my knowledge, you don't really have redemption
described in, say, the Upanishads.  Just enlightenment.  Luke has to
undergo this enlightenment himself, and that much seems consistent.  In
the first movie he learns to believe in The Force and realize that all
nature is One.  But the redemption facets of the film seem alien to this.
  It's really more sensible to me to interpret the films' redemption
symbolism within the context of Christianity than something like The
Force.  I would see Luke's "black clothing" and the fact that he started
becoming "mechanical" as symbols of taking on his father's evil to redeem
him.  

The mere fact that you have to turn from one side to the other side of
the force indicates that it's not the same thing on both sides.  When
Thor was saying that the difference between good and evil is essentially
non-existent, that's consistent with my understanding of the Vedas too. 
But there's no acknowledgment of this in the film.  Lucas seems to blend
Christian ideas of good and evil and redemption with an essentially
Eastern ontology.  It works in the film, but as an intellectual edifice
in its own right it's shallow and stupid, and demeaning to both Vedic
theology and Christianity.

But whaddya expect from Hollywood? :)

Jim     

  As if this weren't proof enough, the last scene (before the
>fireworks) shows the spirits of Yoda, Obi-wan and Anakin standing in 
>their
>Jedi atire.  Redemption, duelism, a coin, the Force.
>   As if that weren't enough, what color does Luke wear throughout the
>entire last film?  Black.  The Jedi uniform seems more tan and brown
>(great camo in the desert where he plans to do battle).  However, 
>Lucas
>wants to give the hint that Luke has it in him to become Evil.  He is 
>a
>product of his father.  He is like his father.  Luke, supposid symbol 
>of
>purity and goodness also has a mechanical hand.  His RIGHT hand in 
>fact.
>The hand of goodness is in a black glove and is mechanical, like his 
>evil
>father.  Lucas is certainly blending good and evil.  He knows Luke can 
>go
>either way.  He's showing us he could.  He's showing us that there 
>isn't a
>whole lot seperating Luke and Vader.  He's intimating that it's 
>illusion
>that there is any difference at all.
>   Sure on the surface this looks like a classic story of Good v. 
>Evil.
>And it is, on the surface.  There is a lot going on that takes a 6 
>year
>old mind over 20 years to distill.  But there is a hell of a lot 
>there.
>   And yes, he may still present the Way of the Force v. the Darkside, 
>but
>then again it's a dark "side."  Which is certainly more in line with
>Thor's interrpretation of a coin.
>
>   As far as who presents a more cohesive view, Vedas or Lucas, well I
>don't know.  I'm ignorant of Vedas and have never heard that Lucas was
>trying to put Vedas on the screen.  Even if he had, i'd give him the
>artistic license to fudge with it.
>
>   Okay, I have more where this came from, but I'll take a breath 
>here.
>
>
>-jvarsoke
>

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.