Skybreaker
I bet this'll sound really stupid when my cognitive functions are at full capacity again.
Given that the Star Wars mythos is set across a whole galaxy, colonized by quadrillions of sentient beings and filled with more planets, stars and moons than could ever be written about, does anybody feel that the vast majority of the SW literature fails to take advantage of the sheer scale of its mythos?
Practically every significant storyline in Star Wars plays out from the perspective of a few individual characters, a few WW2-esque battles, and some isolated areas of some generic planets. The idea that the fate of the whole galactic community would, year in and year out, rest in a lightsaber duel between two individuals is both ludicrous and insulting to the source material these authors have been given. The frustrating lack of scale, of appreciation for the magnitude of the stakes at play and the players on hand, digs into the ridiculous space battles, the horribly unbelievable economies and governments, and the fact that all of these stories could have been so much more epic with just a faint appreciation of the arithmetic. You know those National Geographic shows that can put you on the edge of your seat over the magnificence of the world's oceans, or even a single portion of the Serengeti? Why does it always feel like you could just substitute some keywords and some textures and your average SW narrative could have unfolded in Boston downtown?
And oh, no, smaller, character based storylines aren't a bad thing at all. In fact, they perhaps more than anything would benefit from this, because when you make everything else seem so large and grand, it elevates their storylines, in this odd manner. It's ridiculous to expect all of the galactic victories to involve 1 on 1 swordfights; these individuals could do so much more, deal with so many awesome dynamics and epic things you could expect from an entire galaxy, but you never get it.
Alright I'm doing my HW now.
Given that the Star Wars mythos is set across a whole galaxy, colonized by quadrillions of sentient beings and filled with more planets, stars and moons than could ever be written about, does anybody feel that the vast majority of the SW literature fails to take advantage of the sheer scale of its mythos?
Practically every significant storyline in Star Wars plays out from the perspective of a few individual characters, a few WW2-esque battles, and some isolated areas of some generic planets. The idea that the fate of the whole galactic community would, year in and year out, rest in a lightsaber duel between two individuals is both ludicrous and insulting to the source material these authors have been given. The frustrating lack of scale, of appreciation for the magnitude of the stakes at play and the players on hand, digs into the ridiculous space battles, the horribly unbelievable economies and governments, and the fact that all of these stories could have been so much more epic with just a faint appreciation of the arithmetic. You know those National Geographic shows that can put you on the edge of your seat over the magnificence of the world's oceans, or even a single portion of the Serengeti? Why does it always feel like you could just substitute some keywords and some textures and your average SW narrative could have unfolded in Boston downtown?
And oh, no, smaller, character based storylines aren't a bad thing at all. In fact, they perhaps more than anything would benefit from this, because when you make everything else seem so large and grand, it elevates their storylines, in this odd manner. It's ridiculous to expect all of the galactic victories to involve 1 on 1 swordfights; these individuals could do so much more, deal with so many awesome dynamics and epic things you could expect from an entire galaxy, but you never get it.
Alright I'm doing my HW now.