"The path of least resistance is the path of the loser."(1)
Nice quote, huh? In our modern times, one might expect this to be something shouted by Donald Trump at one of his rallies. Guess what? It is said to be the words of H. G. Wells. Exactly where this quote came from, I know not, but it is taken as de fide by so many who write about this grandfather of modern science fiction that it is of common attribution to him, for better or for worse.
On the positive notion, it could be said that if H. G. Wells had said this, he was being provocative in trying to push for progress or innovation, which calls for ever looking forward and dreaming big, and thus coming up with and focusing on the big ideas. This would align with his notions of utopia and globalist, socialist agenda, which we can certainly say lead to mixed results as to how positive or negative this vision might be. Yet, these ideas remain within our society, both on the left and the right, though branching out in different ways. For instance, Trump would be comfortable with this sort of idea because it fits in his narrative about toughness and how our freedoms that are protected in the Constitution had come by a hard fight, and preserving these freedoms means to continue that hard fight, regardless if the current streams try to break up the fibers of the national creed into crushed up sediment that gets swept away with the current, or falls to rest in the depths of the bottom of the bedrock to become long forgotten. Therefore, one must resist the temptation to rest on one's laurels, but continue on in the fight in the upkeep of the ideals of the Constitution so that future generations can continue to prosper under them and keep America great. On the other hand, Obama could just as easily pick up this quote, forgoing any political correctness about there being no such thing as losers in the modern progressive pop psychology culture, but change the wording a bit to fit the narrative about following a 'living document' notion of the Constitution - that the rights and freedoms found in the Constitution are not fully written in stone, but continue to develop and reshape themselves to fit the modern needs and demands of society - so as to say that the modern progress and new normal is only possible when people are willing to stand up for this vision of their individual rights and prevail over the 'haters'. Thus, under Obama's vision, those who are 'losers' are those who hate his vision, and that of the people that follow his vision of 'progress'. Either way, neither the right nor the left would say to follow the path of least resistance, for then that would lead to compromise - which neither the right nor left have had a good record of, nor can we say that such compromises have left us necessarily the better off. For this reason we might say there is a necessary resistance that naturally forms between the right and left to oppose each other with the ideal that the best ideas will win out in the end. In a certain sense, then, we are talking about the politics and diplomacy among politicians and their parties as being something of a passive-aggressive battle that substitutes might makes right physical warfare, but is still warfare in the matter (or 'immaterial') in the realm of ideas. This is generally a more peaceful battle, but remains a battle nonetheless.
Appeal of Novelty: Which is Better, Innovation or Imagination?
But what does this have to do with something more trivial - say as whether the first, or the most recent Star Wars movie in the franchise is better? Well, let's take the argument out from the surface issue and delve deeper.
First off, though I might agree that Star Wars: Rogue One is a great installment in the movie franchise, I wouldn't compare the current movie as being better than A New Hope, simply by the special effects, nor would I say that it would feel painful to watch the original movie that started the whole franchise after watching the newer movie. That's like judging a book by its cover. Sure special effects can enhance a movie, just like good detail in writing can do so for a novel. However I have to go with H. G. Wells that good science fiction is about the main thesis, or idea, and not so much the details on how things work. Granted, Jules Verne, another grandfather of sorts of science fiction, was nearly obsessed with details. He would make elaborate blueprints of machines in his books, insisting that his inventions were built "upon a groundwork of actual fact, and of using in their construction methods and materials which are not entirely without the pale of contemporary engineering skill and knowledge" (2). He even further insisted on his use of realism by stating the following, which we might consider comical today:
"I do not see the possibility of comparison between his [H. G. Wells] work and mine. We do not proceed in the same manner. It occurs to me that his stories do not repose on a very scientific basis. ... I make use of physics. He invents. I go to the moon in a cannon-ball, discharged from a cannon. Here there is no invention. He goes to Mars in an airship, which he constructs of a metal which does not obey the law of gravitation. Ça c'est très joli ... but show me this metal. Let him produce it." (3)
Therefore, let it be considered here that when the novelty of the details, as well as their accuracy, may wear out over time, the ideas stand the test of time. This is then where H. G. Wells' notion of dreaming big and focusing on the idea pushes ahead, because it is the ideas that keep us engaged on the possibility of the 'what if?' that remains beyond the question of how to develop and design future technology and sprites.
That's why A New Hope remains important. It's from that one idea that is the kernel of the Star Wars universe, and thus supports the whole of the entire franchise. Granted, some argue whether Star Wars is really science fiction, and rather should be considered more or less a space fantasy. Back when the prequels came out, they were calling it more of a space opera, or saga. Even before that, in the time of the original trilogy, people were considering it more of a modern mythology. But, even today, it's more commonly noted as a hero's journey, which is something of the classic myth or legend in storytelling - much like Jason and Argonauts, or even Hercules, as well as Clash of the Titans, which was recently redone in 2010 (I still like the 1981 version directed by Desmond Davis, and with Harry Hamlin as Perseus and Laurence Olivier as Zeus, but that's for another rambling <.<). However, fantasy, or the classic myth/legend storytelling and the more modern myth and speculative aspects of science fiction often do overlap, as can be seen in the different approaches taken by Jules Verne and H. G. Wells in writing what would become known as science fiction. However it be, it should not be denied that the two genres of fantasy and science fiction do have their distinct elements that make them different genres. Namely, one of the major differences is that the heroes journey type narrative is more in the realm of classic myth, and thus aligns more with fantasy. Science fiction, on the other hand, is generally more on the thesis of 'what if?' and relies more upon the main idea to center around in the narrative, and thus what the universe revolves around, instead of just the hero and his (or her) cohorts.
Coming more from the literary angle, then, I consider that all the special effects, no matter how pretty they are, mean far less than the story. A story's characters and its concepts are what will remain important even when the visuals get old. This aspect is why people may be able to watch an old black and white movie. Despite not being in color, even despite any graininess from the aging film, or in other ways showing its age, one can still follow the story, get to know the characters, and interact with the ideas presented in the story, and still find something relevant in it even in our current modern times. This also stands true when it comes to the Bible. We can talk or read about Jesus and the Apostles, wherein the account and events of them in the Gospels is some 2000 years ago. We can also read or talk about the story of Moses, which is at least a thousand or so years before Christ. Even further, we can consider the story of Abraham, which is still further back. Not to mention we can still ponder about Adam and Eve, which accounts for a time and event in prehistory - that is, in a time for which, outside this kernel of the Creation story, we have long forgotten, and from which also the Bible tells us we had forgotten the name of God. We even account for these things in the Bible that are only mentioned in passing as the days when the sons of God were upon the land, and many speculations are made about these things, from giants to modern mythos of ancient aliens, to the notion from the ancient classical period of this Golden Age from which the worlds most ancient stories derive from. Therefore, understanding origins is important to me in understanding and appreciating a story beyond just enjoying a movie's special effects, and beyond a novel's mind tickling details.
Sources:
1. "The path of least resistance..." Wells, H. G. http://www.azquotes.com/author/15487-H_G_Wells
2. "...upon a groundwork..." Verne, Jules. from Gordon Jones, 'Jules Verne at Home', Temple Bar (Jun 1904), 129, 670. https://todayinsci.com/V/Verne_Jules/VerneJules-Quotations.htm
3. "I cannot see the possibility..." Verne, Jules. from R. H. Sherard, 'Jules Verne Re-Visited', T.P.'s Weekly (9 Oct 1903). https://todayinsci.com/V/Verne_Jules/VerneJules-Quotations.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment