Far too many fans devote far too much time, energy, and YouTube bandwidth to complaining that everyone in the Star Wars Universe is either a Solo or a Skywalker, but reading the first offerings of Disney's Official Expanded Universe just drives the point home that that's exactly how it should be.
The Legends stories were all Skywalker/Solo stories precisely because those were the characters we'd already invested in. All of the world-building was done through the framework of "New stories, old characters," and any new characters were introduced via their connection to the old (Luke's new Jedi, Han and Leia's children, etc.).
The Legends authors didn't bother with "Let's spend a day on Ithor."
Instead they would write such a story as "Luke/Leia/Han/someone connected with them goes to Ithor, and we explore it through their interactions".
Choosing this technique means that the audience CARES about the new people they meet and the new places they go.
Even the X-Wing books, which focus on side-character Wedge Antilles and barely mention Luke at all, develop their new cast of characters through the one we already know.
Wedge personally recruits his team in the initial effort to reform Rogue Squadron, and we experience each person's individuality and backstory through the lens of Wedge's interactions with them.
Then, once the characters have been sufficiently developed in the existing framework and readers connect with them independent of the older characters, they can be let loose in their own stories like I, Jedi without the risk of a disconnect.
The Disney-approved EU books seem so focused on being Not-Skywalker/Solo stories that they're losing the original human connections to this universe that Lucas, Leigh Brackett, and Lawrence Kasdan poured so many years and so much effort into building.
I compare it to the more recently developed martial arts.
One can receive a black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, but if one cannot trace the line of masters back to the Gracie Family, one cannot be certified to teach the art in one's own gym.
An author can write a book and say "This is set in the Star Wars Universe," but even if he/she uses all the right jargon and references/visits familiar places, it will require much more effort to form a connection between audience and characters if the established cast is never mentioned.
Not to say it is impossible, but Star Wars in particular is infamous for overloading readers and audiences with planets, technology, and politics (an infamy the new set of EU authors seem set to continue), instead of the kind of character studies that "realistic" fiction authors do all the time.
The new trilogy is following the same basic format as pretty much all of the Legends stories, which has been proven to work over and over again, but fans still complain that "There's just Skywalkers and Solos everywhere! We want a bigger experience of this universe!"
Well how did you supreme intellects experience this universe in the first place?
Especially given that Finn's character is basically an answer to "What is Stormtrooper #3's story?" so branching out IS happening.
It's just happening, again, in the framework of new characters introduced via how they relate to characters we know, have already connected with, and are already following.
In my opinion, we need more Skywalkers and Solos, not less.
We need more of that original sense of adventure instead of getting bogged down in worldbuilding.
If you want Skywalker/Solo-free exploration of the Star Wars Universe, WRITE SOME!
And then edit in some known characters so we know what the hell you're talking about.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Agency and the Quarter-Life Crisis
It seems strange to think that the time of greatest agency in my life was when I was in school.
Agency here meaning feeling in control, of having the reigns of life.
I haven't had that feeling over the past four years.
So many of my peers couldn't wait to finish school because they felt trapped, slaving away for someone else and pining for graduation because it meant freedom.
But I never felt trapped or enslaved while in high school or college.
I've felt trapped and/or enslaved SINCE college.
Perhaps this is due to my knowing and thriving within the relative stability of my high school and college experience.
Knowing that the system is operating under a specific set of guidelines, and knowing that it will ALWAYS follow those guidelines, allows one to relax into the groove and find a niche.
That the adult world keeps changing the maps every time I hit a milestone is, by comparison, paralyzing.
Maybe I was trapped in school, but like Brooks Hatlen I knew how things worked and was comfortable with, even proud of, my place in the system.
Having been forced out of the system into a nebulous world which demands so much and offers so little, how else am I supposed to feel?
It's interesting that each generation reaches a point at which the world seems to have spun out of control.
For the World War II generation, it was the '60s. Yay hippies.
For the Baby Boomers, it was the '90s. Yay mass censorship.
For Generation X, we'll see.
For my generation, though, it's here and now.
It seems ironic that the youngest generation of adults (maybe second-youngest given that we have adults who barely or don't remember the '90s) has hit their X-life crisis so much earlier.
But it's because we grew up and went to high school and went to college and graduated from college in at least two different worlds.
Each generation, upon reaching their x-life crisis, pines for the time at which they felt the most in control, when the world seemed to be the most stable.
Our grandparents pined for the years immediately after WW2 (thank you, Archie Bunker).
Our parents seem to pine for the '70s.
Our older siblings pine for the '90s.
....we also pine for the '90s, or maybe the early '00s, but because our time of greatest control and stability was CHILDHOOD or ADOLESCENCE.
Thus the current market boom in '90s nostalgia.
Of course, the worst part of this for me personally is that there doesn't seem to be an end to it, unlike the trials and tribulations of childhood and adolescence and early adulthood.
The game is no longer "work hard and you will see the light at the end of the tunnel, and eventually you will emerge into the life you want".
It now seems to be simply "work hard and at some point you will die, and be glad of it".
I've had people point out many examples of individuals who weren't able to start doing what they loved until later in life, but in every case the person was MAKING MONEY and living in relative financial stability up until they had greatness thrust upon them, because they were living in a time when business was at least a little more lax in rampantly exploiting employees.
That fact makes the situation even more frustrating and increases the feelings of confusion and impotence.
Agency here meaning feeling in control, of having the reigns of life.
I haven't had that feeling over the past four years.
So many of my peers couldn't wait to finish school because they felt trapped, slaving away for someone else and pining for graduation because it meant freedom.
But I never felt trapped or enslaved while in high school or college.
I've felt trapped and/or enslaved SINCE college.
Perhaps this is due to my knowing and thriving within the relative stability of my high school and college experience.
Knowing that the system is operating under a specific set of guidelines, and knowing that it will ALWAYS follow those guidelines, allows one to relax into the groove and find a niche.
That the adult world keeps changing the maps every time I hit a milestone is, by comparison, paralyzing.
Maybe I was trapped in school, but like Brooks Hatlen I knew how things worked and was comfortable with, even proud of, my place in the system.
Having been forced out of the system into a nebulous world which demands so much and offers so little, how else am I supposed to feel?
It's interesting that each generation reaches a point at which the world seems to have spun out of control.
For the World War II generation, it was the '60s. Yay hippies.
For the Baby Boomers, it was the '90s. Yay mass censorship.
For Generation X, we'll see.
For my generation, though, it's here and now.
It seems ironic that the youngest generation of adults (maybe second-youngest given that we have adults who barely or don't remember the '90s) has hit their X-life crisis so much earlier.
But it's because we grew up and went to high school and went to college and graduated from college in at least two different worlds.
Each generation, upon reaching their x-life crisis, pines for the time at which they felt the most in control, when the world seemed to be the most stable.
Our grandparents pined for the years immediately after WW2 (thank you, Archie Bunker).
Our parents seem to pine for the '70s.
Our older siblings pine for the '90s.
....we also pine for the '90s, or maybe the early '00s, but because our time of greatest control and stability was CHILDHOOD or ADOLESCENCE.
Thus the current market boom in '90s nostalgia.
Of course, the worst part of this for me personally is that there doesn't seem to be an end to it, unlike the trials and tribulations of childhood and adolescence and early adulthood.
The game is no longer "work hard and you will see the light at the end of the tunnel, and eventually you will emerge into the life you want".
It now seems to be simply "work hard and at some point you will die, and be glad of it".
I've had people point out many examples of individuals who weren't able to start doing what they loved until later in life, but in every case the person was MAKING MONEY and living in relative financial stability up until they had greatness thrust upon them, because they were living in a time when business was at least a little more lax in rampantly exploiting employees.
That fact makes the situation even more frustrating and increases the feelings of confusion and impotence.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
A White People PSA
The following is a public service announcement for white people:
When speaking of social trends, such crime or mental or physical health, treating individual persons as autonomous social units is a very, very white idea. It's what started "the American dream" in the first place, and has in many ways always stood in the way of racial unity in America. Among educated white people, far too many are unable to see anyone as anything BUT individuals.
The positive of this practice is that it can stem from a desire to avoid generalizations and labeling based on stereotypes.
The negative is that it leaves those who hold with it unable to understand anyone who does not hold this viewpoint.
Other American racial and ethnic groups, in what started perhaps as a backlash against that idea, see any crime committed by or injustice inflicted upon or massive success attained by anyone of their race as an infliction of harm against their entire community.
A black woman who commits a vicious crime tends to be derided not just for making a personal choice to do harm, but for the harm that action causes for the black community as a whole.
Tiger Woods' golf successes were treated as a victory for the entire black community.
A Latino who is killed while in police custody is mourned not as an individual victim of a single tragedy, but as a surrogate for every son, brother, father, uncle, cousin, and husband in the community, and the outrage at his death derives from this surrogate status as well.
Meanwhile, a white man who commits a crime is derided by other whites as a single, isolated incident, whether it is a crime of passion, a crime of malice, or a crime resulting from mental illness (the last of these is an entire racial argument all its own regarding the unequal enforcement of the law and its reporting in news media).
Similarly, a white person having financial success is treated as a success for him/her only, and instead of being treated as a mark of progress for the white community (which isn't really a thing thanks to this very viewpoint) is treated with envy or disdain by other white people because he/she is not them.
If we as a country are ever going to shake off nearly two centuries of American (nearly six of North American) white-first race wars, we who are white and would be more educated and enlightened must recognize this tendency in ourselves and recognize that it is not the default for everyone, and in many cases has been hurtful to ourselves (see my generation's cynicism regarding "the American Dream") and to other racial and ethnic groups seeking true justice and equality in our nation.
It is not racist nor bigoted nor unrealistic to seek understanding, to seek to see people as they see themselves and to better see ourselves through their eyes.
Only through such sharing of sight can we move forward together into building a better and brighter world.
When speaking of social trends, such crime or mental or physical health, treating individual persons as autonomous social units is a very, very white idea. It's what started "the American dream" in the first place, and has in many ways always stood in the way of racial unity in America. Among educated white people, far too many are unable to see anyone as anything BUT individuals.
The positive of this practice is that it can stem from a desire to avoid generalizations and labeling based on stereotypes.
The negative is that it leaves those who hold with it unable to understand anyone who does not hold this viewpoint.
Other American racial and ethnic groups, in what started perhaps as a backlash against that idea, see any crime committed by or injustice inflicted upon or massive success attained by anyone of their race as an infliction of harm against their entire community.
A black woman who commits a vicious crime tends to be derided not just for making a personal choice to do harm, but for the harm that action causes for the black community as a whole.
Tiger Woods' golf successes were treated as a victory for the entire black community.
A Latino who is killed while in police custody is mourned not as an individual victim of a single tragedy, but as a surrogate for every son, brother, father, uncle, cousin, and husband in the community, and the outrage at his death derives from this surrogate status as well.
Meanwhile, a white man who commits a crime is derided by other whites as a single, isolated incident, whether it is a crime of passion, a crime of malice, or a crime resulting from mental illness (the last of these is an entire racial argument all its own regarding the unequal enforcement of the law and its reporting in news media).
Similarly, a white person having financial success is treated as a success for him/her only, and instead of being treated as a mark of progress for the white community (which isn't really a thing thanks to this very viewpoint) is treated with envy or disdain by other white people because he/she is not them.
If we as a country are ever going to shake off nearly two centuries of American (nearly six of North American) white-first race wars, we who are white and would be more educated and enlightened must recognize this tendency in ourselves and recognize that it is not the default for everyone, and in many cases has been hurtful to ourselves (see my generation's cynicism regarding "the American Dream") and to other racial and ethnic groups seeking true justice and equality in our nation.
It is not racist nor bigoted nor unrealistic to seek understanding, to seek to see people as they see themselves and to better see ourselves through their eyes.
Only through such sharing of sight can we move forward together into building a better and brighter world.
Friday, January 8, 2016
My Practice Essay: A Through F
I've been trying to gear up for my certification tests lately, taking many practice tests and trying to fill in the cracks in my academic knowledge which have developed (primarily in MATH) since I graduated.
In an attempt to create as realistic a testing scenario as possible, I wrote this essay for the practice test today.
PROMPT:
“Because the traditional grading scale of A through F fosters needless competition and pressure, colleges and universities should use a simple pass/fail system.”
ESSAY:
As the American school system struggles to regain a foothold as a top-rated educational system among the developed nations, it can be tempting to try brash tactics that attempt to wipe out the status quo rather than repair it and improve its productivity. Removing the traditional A through F grading scale would in the long run be detrimental to American students, and fails to address the larger issues which cause needless competition and pressure: lack of individual attention, compounded by an obsession with knowledge assessment over learning skills.
Removing the grading system will not increase the number of teachers per student, a ratio which other countries have raised each year and which the United States continues to drop each year as state education departments treat local school districts as an easy source of funding, pinching teacher pay and instituting hiring freezes to allow administrators at the district and state level to continue to receive raises and/or hire new administrators for positions which seem conjured out of thin air as teachers on the ground are forced to seek employment elsewhere. In this rigged system, students aren’t so much competing with each other for higher grades as they are competing for attention by their instructors, and our educational system favors those whose natural learning styles are reading, writing, and verbal, to the exclusion of all other learning styles, especially kinetic. And their teachers have zero freedom to attempt to reach out with other styles of instruction because they are so hampered by standardized assessments.
Which leads to the other cause of needless student pressure: our system’s obsession with standardized testing. A written test only allows those students who naturally learn best through reading and writing to excel, though in our current system of too-much-too-early, even those rare individuals struggle to vomit the massive load of information that has been crammed into their skulls. Standardized testing paralyzes our underpaid, overworked educators from being able to experiment with teaching or content, or to creatively engage their students. If they want their students to pass, they and their students must conform to the standardized system, and far too many cannot. By basing our entire educational system around standardized testing, we are stifling the best resources an education should provide: critical thinking and creativity. Both in our teachers and our students.
Thus, the A through F grading system is not the problem, nor has it led to our current set of problems. Not enough teachers and too many tests has led us here, and we cannot move on as a nation and join the rest of the developed world until we do so.
In an attempt to create as realistic a testing scenario as possible, I wrote this essay for the practice test today.
PROMPT:
“Because the traditional grading scale of A through F fosters needless competition and pressure, colleges and universities should use a simple pass/fail system.”
ESSAY:
As the American school system struggles to regain a foothold as a top-rated educational system among the developed nations, it can be tempting to try brash tactics that attempt to wipe out the status quo rather than repair it and improve its productivity. Removing the traditional A through F grading scale would in the long run be detrimental to American students, and fails to address the larger issues which cause needless competition and pressure: lack of individual attention, compounded by an obsession with knowledge assessment over learning skills.
Removing the grading system will not increase the number of teachers per student, a ratio which other countries have raised each year and which the United States continues to drop each year as state education departments treat local school districts as an easy source of funding, pinching teacher pay and instituting hiring freezes to allow administrators at the district and state level to continue to receive raises and/or hire new administrators for positions which seem conjured out of thin air as teachers on the ground are forced to seek employment elsewhere. In this rigged system, students aren’t so much competing with each other for higher grades as they are competing for attention by their instructors, and our educational system favors those whose natural learning styles are reading, writing, and verbal, to the exclusion of all other learning styles, especially kinetic. And their teachers have zero freedom to attempt to reach out with other styles of instruction because they are so hampered by standardized assessments.
Which leads to the other cause of needless student pressure: our system’s obsession with standardized testing. A written test only allows those students who naturally learn best through reading and writing to excel, though in our current system of too-much-too-early, even those rare individuals struggle to vomit the massive load of information that has been crammed into their skulls. Standardized testing paralyzes our underpaid, overworked educators from being able to experiment with teaching or content, or to creatively engage their students. If they want their students to pass, they and their students must conform to the standardized system, and far too many cannot. By basing our entire educational system around standardized testing, we are stifling the best resources an education should provide: critical thinking and creativity. Both in our teachers and our students.
Thus, the A through F grading system is not the problem, nor has it led to our current set of problems. Not enough teachers and too many tests has led us here, and we cannot move on as a nation and join the rest of the developed world until we do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
