Some Final Thoughts on The Force Awakens

Five posts about a single recent movie was a bit more than originally planned. There were some unexpected directions that were worth the detour, though. It was a good way to look at the different ways one might apply generational theory to stories.

Time to wind it down, though. What has this exercise shown?

(And yes, spoilers coming below.)

First off, it's probably still difficult to follow along if you haven't paid attention to this generational stuff before. I'll start to include a pointer back to the introductory chapters:

Hey! If you haven't been here before, I strongly recommend you take a look at the Introduction to Generations, the Generational Attributes and the Four Stories in order to get up to speed on the how this works and the terms being used!

We probably aren't going to find a direct correlation between generational story attributes and box office success. The Hunger Games and Harry Potter are about Heroes growing up, and happen while Heroes are growing up in the real world, and they were successful both as books and films.  Star Wars seems to flip it around, though: The Force Awakens is a Prophet story released during a Crisis; the original Star Wars was a Heroic story during an Awakening. If there are correlations to be found, they will have to be more layered than "Heroes like Hero stories, et cetera."

Further, the breakouts used here aren't necessarily the last word in how it can or should be done. There are other aspects of the different periods - such as Awakening's focus on spirituality- that aren't included so far and probably should be. Teamwork seems an important aspect of Hero stories, one that needs additional clarification. Redemption comes in different forms - does Hamlet count? Does Gollum? There's also a need to look at tragedy and how it fits.  Some of this could change significantly before we're done.

It may be that the important part will be consistency. Good writers probably keep settings and characters consistent in this way without thinking of it much - unless it's because the do plenty of research to make it so.  That The Force Awakens' Prophet story is in an Awakening period with consistent generations may help people connect with it - it makes sense, it could happen this way, it just feels more real.

There's even an exception that proves the rule: Starkiller Base. From a generational view, a massive government-funded military base and super weapon, suddenly showing up 30 years after defeat in a total war, doesn't make a lot of sense. And all sorts of complaints about the movie involve Starkiller Base: It's too much like the Death Star, the attack is too much like A New Hope, destroying multiple planets instantaneously is over-powered even by space-fantasy standards - and hey, what about Skywalker, didn't the opening crawl say that finding him was the main goal here? Change the threat into something that could be built by a defeated and weak enemy, then it makes more sense that a rag-tag Resistance movement could succeed in a last-minute impulsive attack, and tying it more directly into the fate of Luke Skywalker would come more easily. Win-win-win.

(Although the defeat of the First Order's military - which can't all have evacuated - and the destruction of the primary Republic planets (and government) strongly implies that the real point was to kick over chairs, allowing really new directions for the story. Which would be worth seeing. If it happens.)

Finally, this analysis shows that this has not been simply a reboot of the series with new characters. The character arcs may be similar, but they go in different directions. The Force is a complete mystery to Luke, a legend to Rey and Finn. The attack on Starkiller Base is a side effect of the plot, while the Death Star attack is the core of A New Hope. Their are echoes, and similarities, and perhaps too much that is too alike, but it's a different sort of story unfolding here. And that's good.

The Force Awakens - Han

The previous posts have only been spoiler-filled if you wanted to see The Force Awakens fresh and without any exposure at all. They haven't really gone into detail about the movie or what happens in it. 

This one, though, is going to be primarily about a major event near the end of the film. It may be a shocker to those who haven't seen it. 

Also, the previous post about Kylo Ren was set up to introduce significant supporting details. Take a look there if you haven't. 

Here we go....

Nomad generations, like middle-aged Generation X, and Eisenhower's Lost Generation, and Samuel Clemens' Gilded, are supposed to be savvy, perceptive, practical. They make choices based on making money, staying alive, and enjoying their ill-gotten gains - in theory.   Even if they have been Redeemed, they aren't going to be someone you want to cross - they might give you a break, or might only ensure you get what's coming to you. 

If that's correct, why does smuggler and scoundrel Han Solo think he can talk Kylo Ren out of a career path with the First Order, based on familial obligations and Doing What's Right? How does he end up close enough to be skewered by a light saber, without holding any weapon more dangerous than his grin? 

Indeed, that's a fair query even outside of what generation he might belong to. Han is a shoot-first, ask-questions-later kind of guy. Greedo was a low-rent bounty hunter waving a blaster around in a crowded room, and Han made sure he had options for handling that situation. He came out shooting against a platoon of Stormtroopers, a magnetically sealed hatch, and Lord Vader, so what held him back against someone as dangerous as Kylo Ren? 

Certainly, Kylo Ren was his son. Then again, it's a son he literally compared to Darth Vader - Han knew what he was getting into. It's also true that his (ex-?) wife asked him to bring their son home, which meant shooting first wasn't really an option.  Leia had to have been expecting a better result, though. If she had been along at that moment, she might have made another suggestion herself.

Those aren't bad justifications. They work within the story. People still complain about this exact point, though.  Since pragmatism is a Nomad attribute in this generational theory, there should be a consistent explanation that will work with it.

Pragmatic means different things in different situations. Sometimes, compromise is worthwhile. Others, nuking the planet is the only way to be sure. In one draft of Pulp  Fiction, Jules considers an alternative to handing his money over to diner robbers Honey Bunny and Pumpkin: using his hidden 9mm to kill them both. That's an equally practical response, but one that he rejects because of his new outlook.  Jules' moment of redemption, of realizing he needed to get out of a life of killing other people, is similar to that of Saul of Tarsus - "God got involved." After his conversion, Saint Paul traveled the known world, eventually carrying the Christian faith to the center of the Roman Empire, to Rome itself. If the eventual outcome was his martyrdom, that doesn't change the fact of his success. 

We don't find out if Jules has similar success, although he likely comes out better than his partner. Vincent was in that same room, survived the same hail of bullets - gets the same call - rejects it for practical reasons, ridicules Jules for it ... And ends up dead, as a consequence of being practical, of continuing down the same path. It must have seemed like an acceptable risk to him. 

It is not unusual to see Nomads taking what they consider to be acceptable risks. If it works, great. Han took a risk in chasing stormtroopers through the Death Star, in working for the Rebellion when he had a price on his head, in firing a blaster at a sealed hatch and later at a Sith Lord. They worked out okay - well, except maybe for the part where he was frozen in carbonite.  He could have convinced himself that pulling Kylo Ren from the First Order would have been a coup for the Republic. One of the strongest Force users in the galaxy, working with the Light Side, repenting of his previous persecution of the Reborn Jedi Knights...it might be a mortal blow against the First Order, much better than killing him. It would be worth the risk, especially with Chewbacca right there in case the kid tried something anyway. Smugglers and scoundrels take risks. Sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don't. 

That's one way to consider it, anyway - that Han took a high-risk/high-reward gamble, as Nomads do. And this time, it didn't work out.

For an alternative, The Tragedy of Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark can be instructive. There are three generations represented in that play: 

• Prince Hamlet's generation: includes his friends and peers, such as Ophelia, Laertes, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
• King Hamlet's generation: definitely his brother Claudius, and his wife Gertrude, possibly others in the court
• Polonius: the only person consistently referred to as old, even though he is father to two children of Hamlet's age

If Prince Hamlet is an Artist and King Hamlet a Hero, it follows as the night the day that Polonius is a Nomad. Like Han Solo.

Although Hamlet and others refer to him as an old fool, Polonius has retained a position of power in the court.  Despite whatever intrigues were involved the succession after King Hamlet's death, he is still a trusted confident of Claudius. He makes some mistakes, of course - his insistence that Hamlet's actions are from brooding over his daughter, particularly - but the contrast between how he speaks in private and public suggests he knows what he's doing.  His doddering old man routine is at least partly an act. He puts some effort into keeping track of what his son is doing in Paris, with intrigues of his own to figure what the boy is really up to. It all seems to be working for him.

At least until he gets run through by an unhappy youngster with a sword.  

Polonius and Han are old Nomads with similar fates, then. Can we justify what happened to them based on what it means to be an old Nomad? 

Older Nomads have had to adapt a lot over the course of their lives. They were children during an Awakening, where established social order gets overturned. They have survived a Crisis where a new social order has been built, usually by means of total war.  Post-Crisis, the world has changed even more. Polonius' Denmark now includes part of Norway, Norway's prince is rabble-rousing, there are people building war machines 24-7, and the King is unexpectedly dead. Solo is dealing with a Republic unlike the one in his history books, and a First Order that isn't the monolithic Empire which succeeded it, and a war that isn't straight fighting. Neither quite gets the younger generation.  Situations that used to be manageable with a quick wit and faster reflexes are less so, and not only because of the slowness that comes with age. 

What neither Solo nor Polonius could do, was keep up with a world that had changed beyond them. They continued to act as if risky ventures always worked out, like being right in the past meant they would always be right in the future, that because the good guys had won the war, the good guys always win. 

The Nomad archetype is currently represented by Generation X, those of us born between 1961 and 1982. If this includes you, it may be worthwhile to learn this lesson from Polonius and Solo. The world has changed much in our lifetimes. It will change more before this current Crisis is over. When we come out the other side, remember that you may need to re-examine your assumptions, and unlearn what you have learned.

A Suit of Sables

"Let the devil wear black, for I'll have a suit of sables."
The Tragedy of Hamlet,Prince of Denmark, Scene 3 Act 2, by William Shakespeare 

Kylo Ren wears black. He's conflicted and complex. He has father issues. He contemplates a skull-like mask, presumably taken from a grave site. 

If you search for "Kylo Ren Hamlet" you will find that plenty of folks have made this comparison already. For purposes here, it's even simpler: like Kylo Ren, Prince Hamlet is a member of a generation that is, in his fictional universe, of the Artist archetype.

To start, recall that Artists are members of generations raised during Crisis periods, born after a Hero generation and before a Prophet one. Their negative attributes have come up a few times now: They are "indecisive neurotic guilt-ridden" which Prince Hamlet matches across the line. He also seems to have been born at the end of a previous Crisis, a war between Norway and Denmark.

Hamlet's father, the recently murdered King of Denmark, was a renowned Hero who "smote the sledded Polacks on the ice," who took on King Fortinbras of Norway in single combat, his life and kingdom on the line. Prince Hamlet expounds on his father's exceptional reign to anyone who is around, even the dead king's Queen, Gertrude. He's not the only one, either: Marcellus and Bernardo open the play with a discussion of these very campaigns.  In Act V, the gravediggers still talk of that fight against Fortinbras many years before, while their assessment of Prince Hamlet is little more than "mad, and sent to England." 

(The first mention of the name "Hamlet", in Prince Hamlet's own play, is of his father, the King.)

Hamlet's own actions, meanwhile, are not those of a warlike monarch. He was studying at university when summoned home for his father's funeral. While he carries a sword, and is proficient in its use, he is mostly seen in artistic pursuits: He composes poetry for Ophelia, directs the troupe of actors, writes new dialogue for them, and, of course, acts mad himself. One can imagine the Prince being carefully protected as the war ended, barely let out of the castle and never alone, allowed to go away to school but only to relatively nearby Germany. With his father, vigorous and relatively young, in charge of a now-peaceful kingdom, there is little interest in involving the Prince in affairs of court. 

Hamlet, like other members of Artist generations - like Kylo Ren - simply has no chance of being as amazing as his father, or any others around for that Great War. Their adventures are legends, spoken of later in hushed tones, with memories of accompanying portents, assurances about how it really did happen. Measured against those giants of the past, he's always going to fall short. 

As an Artist, don't expect a Redemption for Kylo Ren. As Change was futile for Hamlet, so it will be for him. The best he can hope for might be a pyrrhic attempt to set things right. Trying to save him would be a cheat. Not only is it too similar to Darth Vader's arc, it's not the way that Artists' stories turn out.

The Force Awakens - Characters

If The Force Awakens is a Prophet story set in an Awakening, do the characters belong there, too? It's likely they will be, since we took Finn and Rey's arcs into account in determining the story.

That's not guaranteed, though. It happens that the characters in a story act as if they belong in a different era. This can be because the creator has changed the period (moving a narrative from the Great Depression to the Panic of 1893, say) without updating the characters (e.g. from young Heroes to young Prophets). The author might also allow their own point of view overtake that of a different generation. Perhaps it's a Baby Boomer writing Gen X characters, and making them more principled, or the reverse, so they end up more cynical.

Whether this is a good or bad thing is one of the questions this blog will try to determine. First, there has to be some way to determine what archetype matches with a given character. 

To start, consider characters from the original trilogy as previously identified. Luke and Leia are Heroes, Han Solo is a Nomad. They have limited screen time, and there's not much to add from this story. Rey, Finn, and Kylo Ren, though, are worth further examination.

It's worth noting that while Daisy Ridley and John Boyega are both 23, Adam Driver is nearly a decade older, at 32. (The previous post erroneously identified all three as in their twenties.) All three actors are Millennials, but are they playing Hero characters, or something else?

For ease of comparison, here's that chart of basic generational attributes again:

Archetype	Positive Attributes	Negative Attributes
Hero	Rational Selfless Competent	Overbold Unreflective Insensitive
Artist	Caring Open-minded Expert	Indecisive Guilt-ridden Neurotic
Prophet	Principled Resolute Creative	Ruthless Selfish Arrogant
Nomad	Savvy Perceptive Practical	Amoral Pecuniary Uncultured

Unlike that previous analysis of John McLane, no obvious option pops out. It does seem that none of them are Nomads  - each has primary motivations that are beyond practical matters or money. Rey scratches out an existence on Jakku despite having the skills to depart.  Finn leaves his stormtrooper role for moral reasons. Kylo Ren clearly has some issues he is working out. 

Actually, one option does stand out for Kylo Ren: Neurotic, indecisive and possibly guilt ridden, it seems like he is an Artist. Considering his interaction with Han Solo, "caring" would seem a stretch, although unlike some Dark Force disciples he doesn't habitually kill prisoners or those who displease him. He's also Expert with the Force - his abilities appear as strong as anyone seen in any of the movies. When he stops Poe's blaster shot in midair early on, it seems an intentional display of the extent of his powers.

Finn and Rey, on the other hand, don't match any of those attributes. Perhaps they work better as Heroes or Prophets. 

Is Rey selfless, competent, and rational? She makes an effort to save BB-8, but her reasons appear to be for personal principles - "Droids are people too" or "Thou shalt not scrap working equipment," perhaps. It's not a rational decision, such as for personal gain or companionship. Once rescued, she expects the droid to take care of itself, and only grudgingly allows it to travel along. From then until the end, she is working to save herself as much as those around her.

How about insensitive, overbold, unreflective? She notices the old woman scavenging alongside her, and appears to be carefully considering her life while resting by the crashed AT-AT. Stealing a garbage cruiser might seem bold, but considering that she was being chased by locals and the First Order, it might make better be considered a creative (and wise) maneuver.  Convincing a guard to release her, then crawling along the side of a huge artificial chasm, are similarly creative solutions to her immediate problems. Having returned BB-8 to the Resistance she is determined (resolute) to return to her former existence rather than join up with them. We don't see her act ruthlessly, really, but she does attack threats fiercely, not holding back. Prophet attributes match well for her.

How about Finn? One way to consider the Hero attributes is as what a Stormtrooper should be: one part of many (selfless); good enough to work with the team (competent); working on reason rather than emotion (rational); not considering the implications (unreflective) or impact on others (insensitive).

Based on this criteria, Finn is ... not a very good Stormtrooper. It might be sufficient to say he's neither competent nor selfless. He doesn't fire at the villagers, from an excess of sensitivity, principles, or both. He's so rattled by his first experience with combat that he leaves his unit. Indeed, his solution for departure - freeing a recently captured pilot - is certainly creative, while firing on his own ship and shipmates qualifies as ruthless. Given the option to join the Resistance for real, he initially (selfishly) begs off, certain that it's a death sentence. While one could say taking on Kylo Ren with a light saber is Overbold (a Hero attribute), it fits well with Arrogant, too. 

While there are other areas that could be used to confirm this assessment - e.g. Rey and Finn work better on their own, whereas Heroes value teamwork - they best match as young Prophets. That's what would be expected in an Awakening period, of course, and that's expected based on the previous half-century or so of Galactic history. It even works well with the slightly older Kylo Ren being an Artist, since that archetype is born in the decade or two before Prophets. If we really want to extrapolate to an excessive degree, we could place the real end of the Galactic Civil War at about 25 years previous, or about 5 years after the death of the Emperor.

(Artists are born during Crisis periods, while Prophets are born in the decades immediately following. Therefore, the Crisis would have ended sometime before Rey or Finn were born, and after the birth of Kylo Ren. Perhaps the Republic required some time to reconstitute itself, much as the United States after the Treaty of Paris.)

So... Does it matter? Abrams, Kasdan and crew probably didn't go through The Fourth Turning looking for allusions to include, much less saying "Let's make Rey and Finn Prophets!" These attributes are consistent from a few different directions, though, so something is pulling them that way. There are a multitude of differences revealed between this movie and A New Hope, for any who feel a need to make a defense.  For fanboys, it allows for some interesting predictions of where the next movies might go. For writers, this shows ways to make stories that are more complete and real. It also leads the way to comparisons with other characters in literature, including some of the most well-known. Next time....

The Force Awakens - Setting

Star Wars: The Force Awakens appears to be a Prophet story, with Rey succeeding when she recognizes her own special gifts, using them to survive against Kylo Ren.  Does the recent in-universe history match with that?

Star Wars: A New Hope, with an evil Empire and its Stormtroopers, was World War II: There are The Good Guys who are opposing The Bad Guys to prevent horrific acts (like blowing up planets). Many of the shots were even directly copied from World War II movies, with The Dam Busters being a famous example. Luke, Han, and Obi-Wan appear to be Hero, Nomad, and Prophet, which makes sense for a Crisis, as with World War II. That would not work as well for World War I or Korea, nor were the stakes in those conflicts comparable to what the Rebellion is facing.

If considering a corresponding war for The Force Awakens, meanwhile, the obvious choice would be Vietnam. It begins with civilians killed and a village being torched, and continues with other references, including a later shot lifted directly from Apocalypse Now, using TIE fighters instead of helicopters.

Maz Kanata's castle looks a bit like the temple in Apocalypse Now -- all of Takodana resembles Vietnam, for that matter.

The more one looks into the actual (fictional) political situation, in fact, the more appropriate it seems.  In the film, it is mentioned that the New Order is opposed by a Resistance which is supported by the Republic. Good Republic and Bad Order seems so similar to A New Hope that the implication may have slipped by: The Resistance is an externally supported insurgent force fighting to neutralize the First Order, which is the remnant of the Empire that still controls part of the galaxy.  That means that the Republic is supporting a guerrilla war against a separate nation, while trying to keep itself out of the fighting.  The historical parallels are varied, and the preferred one probably depends on personal political leanings, but the Viet Cong in South Vietnam works well - as long as you are willing to consider General Organa as comparable to Ho Chi Minh.

(If that offends your political sensibilities too much, you could instead consider the Resistance as equivalent to the Nicaraguan Contras taking on Ortega. Which will naturally bring up objections from another part of the political spectrum. That could be why the political situation was mentioned in the opening crawl and hardly brought up again.)

This happens to fit well with the timing of other events in-universe. Rey, Finn, and Kylo Ren are all in their 20s. Other sources confirm that it has been 30 years since the Battle of Endor and the death of Emperor Palpatine. About 30 years after the end of the previous Crisis is when an Awakening would be expected to occur.  The rusting hulks littering Jakku, being rummaged for valuable bits of scrap, underline the time that has passed. There was clearly a huge battle fought, but those days are long gone. The poverty of Rey and others on this insignificant planet - that old woman who has been scavenging for years - shows that whatever might have been the expectation of the post-war period, there is injustice still.

It does look like the events are set in an Awakening, matching the Story ... and the film's title ... and Snoke's observation, "There has been an awakening - have you felt it?"