![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Was thinking about how much I wish I was a better essay writer because I'd love to write a long detailed essay comparing the politics of Star Wars and Star Trek and how I think that key among their differences is that Star Wars is a dystopia and Star Trek is a utopia. This is one of the things that I think makes comparing them in a 'which is better' fashion, despite their superficial similarities (eg. genre, era of creation), an apples to oranges comparison. What makes an exploration of utopian ideals interesting is inherently different from what makes an exploration of dystopia interesting. Star Wars is a galaxy in collapse, stuck in a cycle of destruction and rebirth. Star Trek is about a galaxy coming together and the creation of peace.
In Star Wars, the war is never won. Victory is inevitably followed by defeat in a seemingly unbreakable cycle. Justice and happiness are transitory, fleeting, an illusion. Star Wars is a tragedy unfolding slowly.
In Star Trek, war is beaten back by peace, intolerance by understanding. The depths of despair may be deep, but emergence is inevitable. Star Trek is a story of hope with a happy ending.
Additionally, despite being the happier tale overall, Star Trek is written more with adults in mind despite being rated so it could be viewed by children, whereas Star Wars was always written with selling toys in mind and thus was written to appeal to children first and foremost. Star Trek is also the much more explicitly didactic of the two--I've mentioned before that Star Wars is much more confused in its politics but that lack of clarity makes it much less explicit in its politics as well.
Where the narratives coincide, however, is the mutual scorn they share for conservatives. This is not to say that Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas share identical politics, because I think it's clear they have some very important differences in that respect. But having seen a great deal of both and having seen a number of interviews with Lucas in how he characterizes the political aspect of his work, it seems pretty clear to me that he is often criticizing contemporary American conservatives (and I'd say that J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson's works also sort of do this in addition to revisiting the political moment of the original trilogy by it's narrative reenactment). And I think the scorn for conservatives Roddenberry has is communicated clearly by the didacticism of Trek.
I just have so many thoughts on this and I don't think I could elucidate them all properly or even write them all down.
In Star Wars, the war is never won. Victory is inevitably followed by defeat in a seemingly unbreakable cycle. Justice and happiness are transitory, fleeting, an illusion. Star Wars is a tragedy unfolding slowly.
In Star Trek, war is beaten back by peace, intolerance by understanding. The depths of despair may be deep, but emergence is inevitable. Star Trek is a story of hope with a happy ending.
Additionally, despite being the happier tale overall, Star Trek is written more with adults in mind despite being rated so it could be viewed by children, whereas Star Wars was always written with selling toys in mind and thus was written to appeal to children first and foremost. Star Trek is also the much more explicitly didactic of the two--I've mentioned before that Star Wars is much more confused in its politics but that lack of clarity makes it much less explicit in its politics as well.
Where the narratives coincide, however, is the mutual scorn they share for conservatives. This is not to say that Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas share identical politics, because I think it's clear they have some very important differences in that respect. But having seen a great deal of both and having seen a number of interviews with Lucas in how he characterizes the political aspect of his work, it seems pretty clear to me that he is often criticizing contemporary American conservatives (and I'd say that J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson's works also sort of do this in addition to revisiting the political moment of the original trilogy by it's narrative reenactment). And I think the scorn for conservatives Roddenberry has is communicated clearly by the didacticism of Trek.
I just have so many thoughts on this and I don't think I could elucidate them all properly or even write them all down.
