Which side are you on; the gospel of George Lucas, or the literal interpretation of canon?
As someone who is a massive Star Wars fan, but until recently has only really bothered with the main 6-movie saga, I really bought into Lucas story and narrative: Anakin's tragic path, and his redemption by Luke, plus the political fall of the Republic and rise - and subsequent 'defeat' - of the the Empire. I find that 6-movie arc so satisfying, that I never felt the need to read the books, or watch the animated shows.
I watched most of Disney's live action Star Wars at the first opportunity though, and it didn't take me long to start detesting the narrative direction taken in The Force Awakens (TFA). The idea that First Order, an obvious copy of the Empire, just happened to be at full power after the hugely satisfying end to the story provided by Return of the Jedi (RotJ) just made it impossible to care about this story. Disney's decision to bring back the Empire for the purpose of fun/nostalgia rather than thinking about the story was an utter and complete contrast to the way George Lucas had handled the grand overarching aspects of his stories. Perhaps he had bits like Boba Fett in Attack of the Clones (AotC) that felt a little fan-servicey, but for the big things like the Jedi, Republic and Empire, the story felt very carefully handled and wasn't stretched too far. It always remained consistent and had clear, naturally flowing components/beats. It was rhythmic and poetic, and this rhythm was prioritised above any desire for 'wouldn't be cool if'... e.g. 'this character came back'. Story, narrative, and message were sacrosanct.
Star Wars is not a logistical commentary, or a literal plot; it is a story, a mythical commentary
The Clone Wars (2008) (TCW) show was the first major story from which Lucas stepped slightly aside. Then later came his near-complete departure under Disney. With the genius, all-knowing creator not driving the ship, the stories were prone to new creators coming in and using all the aspects that fans recognise in Star Wars (the ships, weapons, names, characters etc.) but not having that same regard for the narrative at the heart of Star Wars. Lucas made Star Wars' soul about its message, not about all the bits of canon that decorated Star Wars and made it most recognisable on the surface.
READ: Is it right to say "That's not real Star Wars"? Mapping the central concepts of a fantasy universe.
This is mainly where the new rift in the fandom has emerged. The Lucas purists don't like the way RotJ's victory - whether it itself was symbolic or literal - was symbolically (at least, but perhaps literally too) cast aside in the Sequel Trilogy (ST). Disney defendants argue that the Empire wasn't literally defeated in RotJ, and that it is perfectly plausible that the First Order will rise - and that therefore there is no canonical contradiction. Suddenly, by way of excusing the plot, it is the canon that is paramount, not what you actually experience in the cinema. If it is logistically feasible in the real world, then its excusable in a fantasy world - even though that fantasy world is built on emotional myths with the primary purpose of showing how a hero won/fell, not providing a literal explanation of how a war was won/lost. Justifying these new narratives in the post-Lucas era of Star Wars involves turning off your emotions, and reducing the films into simple, uninterpretable texts in which the story that Lucas intentionally conveyed is no longer obvious.
The main discrepancies between narrative and canon are:
• Did Anakin really have an apprentice in-between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith (RotS)?
• Did the New Republic really fail so miserably after Return of the Jedi and allow the Empire to sustain itself before becoming the First Order, and all we get is a few explanatory novels?
• Did loads of Jedi, including Ahsoka, really survive Order 66 and not help Luke?
• Did Obi-Wan not stay in exile on Tatooine? (TBC in an upcoming TV show).
• Did Luke's Jedi really just fail like that, and all we get is a flashback?
In TCW, Dave Filoni told us that Anakin had an apprentice called Ahsoka in the intervening period between Episodes II and III. If you watch only those movies, the idea of Anakin having an apprentice doesn't jive so well. Fans of TCW will explain how its entirely plausible. There is a narrative contradiction if the main saga movies are your main point of reference, as you put Lucas' message and story first - but there is arguably no canonical contradiction when you really dive into the logistics of it, or if you're someone who has often consumed wider Star Wars content like TCW - and therefore Lucas' story is not as important to your perspective.
Was the New Republic really so weak, and did the Empire so easily survive into the First Order? Logistically, it makes sense that these events can happen in a war that spans a literal galaxy. But at its heart, Star Wars is not a logistical commentary, or a literal plot; it is a story, a mythical commentary, and the heroes you care about are not meant to just fail like that, and the ending you enjoyed in ROTJ is not meant to be wrong.
If you follow the 'good and evil' binary narrative in the Original Trilogy (OT) and Prequel Trilogy (PT), you know that the Jedi were destroyed in Order 66; only 2 remain (Kenobi and Yoda), and that Luke is the 'New Hope' that appears were there was none. That is diluted slightly when you hear one of the spinoff stories tell you that Ahsoka was alive the whole time, and Cal Kestis too. ROTS told us that Kenobi was to go into solitude on Tatooine and watch over Luke without drawing attention. The new untitled Kenobi series risks contradicting the spirit of that narrative - even if Obi-Wan could've feasibly travelled the galaxy at the time instead.
The Force Awakens told us that Luke was hiding on an island whilst his friends were dying. The Last Jedi (TLJ) told us that was because his nephew (who was turned to the dark side by a unknown creature called Snoke (who turned out to be a clone created by a clone of Emperor Palpatine)) turned bad, destroyed his temple, and led Luke to almost murder him, thus making Luke regretful. Sure, there's a chain of events there that any sequel fan can reference when arguing that it did happen, but this was all told to us straight after we ended ROTJ with Luke as the hero who thwarted the Jedi and presumably followed Yoda's command to 'pass on what you have learned'.
So the canon is: Luke did rebuild the Jedi, but it got destroyed. The narrative is: Luke and the Jedi are failures, with some justifying flashbacks thrown in to explain why. Rian Johnson, JJ Abrams, and fans of their movies felt that if the canon at least existed - if you had one scene or book where big events were explained - that is a satisfactory substitute for a developed narrative. Really, it was this extended narrative that was needed to justify such grand emotional shifts from the PT and OT and to take the audience along with them.
Now, in The Mandalorian, we have a show that is less controversial with all fans, but that is treading very lightly on the subject of lore and explaining the big, now controversial, galactic events. That could partly be because the writers are aware of the divide in opinion between Lucas saga purists and ST fans, and don't wish to turn one side away from the show. There are also those fans caught in the middle, the ones who consumed Star Wars content beyond Lucas' saga, but who fundamentally still adored his creation and thus had problems with the approach of Disney's movies.
Dave Filoni embodies this type of fan: he is not Lucas, but creates stories within his universe. He helped create Ahsoka and The Mandalorian, and thus has to build a canonical timeline that is logically consistent with Lucas (and perhaps Disney), but by pursuing his own narrative. He may try to pursue Lucas' narrative, but this is something so personal that he cannot truly capture it in the same way as Lucas would, which is fine. Fans of Filoni's work will generally be more okay with the canonical quirks in The Mandalorian, like how Ahsoka was alive through the events of the OT; or the transition to the First Order; or the absence of Luke's Jedi, than the Lucas purists will be, because they were not conditioned towards the central narrative of Episodes I-VI.
As this show dips more into the lore and e.g. explains why Luke still hasn't fulfilled the 'Return of the Jedi' narrative, the issue of canon vs. narrative will become more touchy for those who admired Lucas' handling of his original story. They might have to start accepting the literal interpretation of canon more, but hopefully the writers find a way to honour the overarching narrative of ROTJ by: 1) not simply showing a pathetic New Republic and supreme Empire/First Order, 2) showing Luke's Jedi in a respectable state, and 3) providing a powerful and convincing reason for why Ahsoka's presence doesn't contradict Luke's narrative as the main hero. They need to treat Lucas' narrative as sacredly as they can, but they'll also have to find a way to not annoy ST fans by totally contradicting their canon, possibly by keeping the events disconnected. Avoiding the development of the overall lore on the Jedi, New Republic, and Empire would be bad in itself, because then it would be assumed that the post-ROTJ narrative continues to be contradicted by the sequels.
It is a sticky situation, but the sooner one side wins out - and Star Wars either reverts back to the primacy of its themes or transitions fully to a canon-driven franchise - or the writers cleverly find a way to balance both, the less confusing this post-Lucas, post-sequel era of Star Wars will be for fans, and the easier it will be for them to accept the new state of Star Wars and enjoy it for what it is.
Comments