Why I hope my kid won’t like The Phantom Menace…
by havoc
… because it’s a terrible movie, but I have one other reason.
We have a young child and I read parenting books. More than one talks about agency and effort. If you emphasize innate attributes rather than choices and habits, people get messed up. They value themselves in terms of something they have no control over.
In real life, effort gets more reward than inborn attributes. (There are studies on it, aside from common sense.) Believing that what you do matters more than who you are is a freeing idea. It creates optimism that it’s worth trying and learning, rather than pessimism that you and the world are what they are.
Who knows if parents can affect how children think about these things, but one can hope.
Like a lot of nerds, I enjoy science fiction and fantasy. These books and movies tend to involve heroes, frequently young, who save the world or some such.
Consider some classics everyone knows. In The Lord of the Rings, the hero’s virtue is perseverance. The book hammers you with just how long it took to walk across Middle Earth. (A good movie version had to be 3 movies.) Frodo doesn’t have any special talents, other than finishing the journey. Even then, he fails at the end and has to be rescued by luck.
In the original Star Wars trilogy, sure the force is strong with Luke, but he has to do a bunch of training, and when he leaves Yoda without enough practice he gets his hand chopped off.
Not exactly fantasy, but take Seven Samurai. A bunch of old pros illustrating character and experience as they save a village, with one young samurai bumbling along for the ride. Some of them get killed.
Now consider some less-classics. In the Phantom Menace, an annoying kid saves the day more than once, using his inborn scientology midi-chlorians. Even though he’s a little punk, everyone praises his midi-chlorian count. No wonder he turned out to be evil.
I recently finished and didn’t enjoy The Name of the Wind
Aside from a bad message, there’s no interesting story in these. Someone is born special and then they do special things and … whatever. Where’s the meaning? To me that isn’t a good story. Jar Jar is an extra insult – the real problem is bad story and characters.
I’m still debating how Harry Potter fits in to my argument.
Dune is the other weird Potter-like crossbreed; Paul is literally bred to have his qualities, and yet the book stresses that it is his powers of concentration, focus, dedication – powers of mind, basically- that lead to his ability to lead men, overthrow empires, etc.
Except that Paul isn’t a hero. He is bred to become a dictator, realizes the choices he has to make in order to save humanity are ones that he can’t and works to destroy the image and religion that was built up around him. His perceived to be a hero, much like how we perceive our own historical figures who rose to prominence through brutality but he is a tragic figure, an anti-hero. His saving grace is the compassion his father taught him. The brutality came from the harsh life he had living and fighting with the Fremen.
He also wasn’t innately bred perfectly. The true Quizat Haderach was to be born a generation after him. Jessica was to bare a girl but because of her love of the Duke, who wanted a son, she bore a boy. There were a number of other failed Quizat Haderachs in later books (I belive the Barron was revealed to be one later). The moral of the story was that you could breed potential into someone but you couldn’t control how they used that potential.
It is a complex story line with complex characters and themes. One of Herbert’s greatest abilities was to tell the story from a particular point of view, making you believe that one version of the truth, but developing the characters so that you would eventually question that truth along with the characters themselves.
I think Harry Potter bolsters your argument. Though the book mentions that he has some inborn attributes wt riding the broom, he still has to work his ass off over, and over, and over again (for sports, and schooling, and to defeat the various villians). Sure, he’s lucky, but he doesn’t rely solely on luck, nor can he rely solely on attributes; there’s lots of hard, grueling work for himself and his friends throughout the entire series.
A nice thing about Harry Potter is that he’s always relying on other people to help, and those people tend to have unique talents of their own to offer.
Right on. The actual adventuring and saving the day happens in close alliance with other people. The HP books are all about teamwork, and the one kid’s specialness is really reinforced by the bonds he is able to form with others — I would add that it’s particularly important that he is able to bond with others *despite* his primal damage by the evil event that scarred him.
If you have read all the books, there is an exploration of the notion of being “special” or “chosen” which hasn’t really come through in the films. I’m trying to avoid spoiling anything here though.
I figure Harry Potter fits in between the two extremes. Harry is a ‘powerful’ wizard but he is brought up in a way to remind him that is not important.. in fact I think the ones where I get the angriest at the books are in the Order of the Phoenix where Harry has become full of himself. [So I guess Harry is more of a Luke versus Anakin.. not a brat brought up about how powerful he is but more of life is hard, and remember it.]
Dude, I totally loved “Name of the Wind”.. I got it free on the Kindle and was hooked.
Now you’ll have to share other books 🙂
I think the Jar Jar character paid off in the end. It illustrated the kind of leadership that would vote “full emergency powers” to Darth W.
Ooops! I meant Sidious, Darth Sidious.
Although I don’t agree with about NotW (its sequel has FINALLY been released!), I think you are right to stress perseverance, work, and, generally speaking, strong character, with a single caveat: genetics simply can’t be “ignored” (I’m not claiming that you’re saying that, BTW). If we tell our kids that with hard and perseverance they can do anything some are bound to be disappointed. There was an interesting book published in the late 90’s that went into great lengths about the subject of “greatness”. They concluded that there was an “IQ” (shorthand for innate abilities not a specific test) sweet spot of around 2 to 3 standard devs from average. Assuming a child is around that group then I think there’s not any harm with saying something like “you can do anything that you put your mind to”, or some such. Even then, however, there are factors like luck, as you mentioned, which you just can’t foresee, and which don’t always work for you. That can be disheartening, but obviously can be dealt with as part of “character building”.
To briefly return to NotW consider this: Kvothe experienced an extremely traumatic incident when he was around 11, IIRC. This strongly contrasts to people like Atreides, Potter (I haven’t read these, BTW, but I have doubts as to their longevity), Skywalker. That can’t be dismissed so easily, IMHO.
“If we tell our kids that with hard [work] and perseverance they can do anything some are bound to be disappointed.” – But I don’t think that’s what Havoc is advocating. It’s not about telling kids they can “do anything.” It’s teaching them that their natural abilities, on their own, will only get them so far, but hard work and perseverance in applying those abilities will get them even further.
It was a bit ambiguous as to his feelings about this, but I would imagine that what you’re saying is correct.
Regardless, IMHO, the myth of “anyone can do anything” is both rampant and damaging enough that it’s worth pointing out its falsehood.
In my wild, optimistic vistas of the future I hope we can achieve SOMETHING similar to Iain Bank’s Culture.
This is exactly why I never really liked ‘Ender’s Game’ – Ender Wiggens is a natural badass at everything he touches through the book – how am I (a complete screwup) supposed to relate to him?
I didn’t like Ender’s Game either, but mainly b/c it felt stale.
In my experience, it’s not always necessary to “relate” to a character, because one can enjoy the story for its own sake.
“It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”
– Dumbledore, in _Harry Potter and the Chamber Of Secrets_.
Dumbledore with the wisdom
I can recommend the definitive Phantom Menace Youtube review. Even if you don’t find the format entertaining, it does a good job of pointing out the movie’s problems. It’s a long list:
One problem seems to be that it doesn’t really have a main character…
I damn my contrarian nature for putting me in the laughable position of defending the Phantom Menace, but:
“Even though he’s a little punk, everyone praises his midi-chlorian count. No wonder he turned out to be evil.”
That’s the point! I mean, really, everything you say is true, but…that’s the whole point. He’s Darth frickin’ Vader. No wonder he turned out to be evil indeed – that’s the whole idea, that’s Lucas’ whole thesis for the prequels: they’re an extremely over-extended belaboring of the point that just being super-strong isn’t good enough. Even wanting to do the right thing isn’t good enough; Anakin broadly wants to do the right thing, most of the time, but is convinced that he can do it by being awesome and kicking ass and, well, look how it all goes horribly wrong.
The prequels have all kinds of problems, but I think you’re being very unfair in this post, really. Now, if you want to kick Phantom Menace for being dull, terribly acted, and featuring Jar-freaking-Jar, by all means, go ahead and kick.
(I’m a lot more partial to the second one, which I think is a much better movie than it’s given credit for. The structure of the whole thing – how it completely undercuts its own supposed Giant Awesome Setpiece Battle by making it completely clear that it doesn’t matter, at all, which side wins – is, I think, awesome.)
I see your point, maybe the prequels show how Anakin had bad parenting from the Jedi, thought natural talent was enough, and thus went bad.
Taking the first movie by itself though, seems impossible to see this… it’s more like Anakin is straightforwardly the hero, from what I remember. Not that I’ve re-watched it 😉
Actually, the same applies to NotW. It becomes clearer as you read on with the 2nd book — the older, bar-keeping narrator is not exactly happy with the way things have turned out.
My recollection is that there’s little hints all the way through the first two prequels of where Anakin could possibly wind up, which get gradually more and more obvious, until they start really whacking you in the face (e.g. that heavy-handed conversation with Natalie Portman about dictatorships in the second movie). The ones in the first movie are pretty small, IIRC, so yeah, maybe you can’t expect kids to pick up on them, especially if they don’t know where the story’s going; but if they saw all six movies, it would all kinda make sense, I think.
(oh, and indeed, everyone praises his midichlorians – this is also intentional, and it’s a critique on how the Jedi council and etc etc etc handle Anakin, and why they’re so damn freaked out about dealing with Luke down the line. They screwed up, and they’re worried about doing it again.)
That’s an interesting idea; I hadn’t thought much about this from a parent’s perspective.
Do you think that it is unhelpful to focus on, say, the innate attribute that they are loved by their parents?
Perhaps some balance must be required — seeing the choices we make optimistically is important, but eventually we learn that there are few things in this world we have much control over. We need to recognise the things that are innate (our skills, our overall situation, etc) so that we can decide what we can do and what is important to us.
What about teaching the importance of good character, but that good character is not something we are born with — it requires decisions and effort to build?
well, I am not an experienced parent. but (some of) the books would say to express unconditional love but give out praise for actions. For example, instead of you “you are so smart/artistic/etc.” say “you must have worked hard on that” or something specific like “I like the color you used” or whatever.
Reminds me of my piano teacher who explained that sometimes the really talented conservatory students don’t turn out to be the best anyway because at a certain level, hard work is not optional any more.
While you’re collecting bad movies, don’t forget The Matrix. Hey, I’m the Chosen One, hence my swinging of arms and legs is better than anyone else. Booooring.
I have 3 kids, aged 6, 8 and 10. Recently we’ve been going through the Star Wars series in the Correct Order (TM), 4, 5, 6, 1 and 2. We have yet to watch 3.
One thing I’ve figured out is that kids know when a story is a story and they know how to just enjoy it. They loved Phantom Menace. They loved all the other Star Wars too.
The most important role model for kids is the parents. Period.
I used to read more parenting books (I still read some) but you can go crazy with all that advice.
yeah, the advice is all contradictory so it’s not like you could follow it all if you wanted to 🙂
After reading 18+ posts, I have noticed that all of the comments have come from an atheist/agnostic point of view. Christianity – in my experience – places who you are (innate attribute) above what you do (choices and habits). Does this mean all Christians are “messed up”? No. Also, as a parent of 4, I would say that who my kids are is more important (for want of a better word) than what they do.
isn’t works vs. grace still up for controversy, if we’re talking Christianity in general? though a particular Christian may have a belief one way or the other.
I’m not sure the religious/moral “who you are” belongs in the same bucket as practical traits such as smart, artistic, athletic, midi-chlorian-rich. I’m thinking more of talents than character traits, perhaps. emphasis on talent deemphasizes character, even.
Just curious: how do you know “who a person is” unless you judge them by their works? It seems that would require a level of mental rapport that blows by the border of telepathy and into the area of godhood.
Hey nDR01d,
I am a Christian too, and I was also thinking about this.
I tried to ask a similar question, though I was a bit more indirect by saying “Do you think that it is unhelpful to focus on, say, the innate attribute that they are loved by their parents?” In my mind though, I was also thinking about whether or not it would be constructive to focus on the innate attribute that we are loved by God (despite our actions/decisions). You can read my comment and havoc’s response above.
I agree with havoc’s suggestion that the religious/moral “who you are” is a different thing to the personal talents he is talking about here.
I think you are right that we place the “who you are” in that sense (loved by God, forgiven by God, important to God, fitting into a larger purpose, etc) above “what you do” (choices and habits). However, I think that we can in turn put “what you do” above generic traits/talents like “smartness” etc (as the original post was talking about).
Indeed, Christians still teach their children the importance of wisdom and responsibility when it comes to decisions in life. In fact, I think already as Christians we usually avoid teaching our children that they should focus on their innate abilities — we might say our innate abilities are not of value if we don’t let God use them (which is a decision we make). I would agree with havoc that an emphasis on talent de-emphasises more important things.
For what it’s worth, I don’t really see any notably atheist/agnostic points of views being expressed in the above comments — to wit, the discussion was about fictional movies/books and a very specific aspect of parenting.
@havoc – Personally, I don’t know anyone who would say works vs. grace is up for debate — and I am involved in a lot of non-denominational ministries so I meet people from many groups. Perhaps your experience or understanding of the issue is different though?
@liam – I’m not sure if my comments to nDR01d above clarify (or confuse) anything, but I guess he or she is thinking about “who a person is” as things like the fact that they are loved by God — it’s an innate thing that doesn’t depend on the person’s works. The kind of judgement of fundamental character you are talking about is something else I think, and we try to leave that to God to work out, indeed because we are not telepathic!
when I said up for debate, my understanding is that Christian denominations differ on exactly how salvation is achieved, and whether you can “earn” it through actions. That said, I don’t really know which modern denominations take which position on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Salvation
it seems there are a lot of shades of detail in how people view this issue.
Works versus grace may not be up for debate, per se, but whether grace is justified by faith alone (Sola fide) or by works is the defining schism of Protestantism. If you are dealing solely with non-denominational sects, it is understandable that you would not come into contact with Catholic and Orthodox conceptions of salvation.
In both of those tradition, what you do very much matters, as God’s grace can be lost through a deliberate rejection; that is, through mortal sin.
Since this is a bit off-topic I’ll keep it short.
I don’t know if I would say that b/c God loves all unconditionally, thus anyONE as well, that it indicates God is loving some other part of us than our… soul? Whatever you want to call it, I mean the thing that is ultimately responsible for our actions. God loves that unconditionally even if he doesn’t love our works, but for our purposes, and even in a practical, religious sense, who we are is what we do, most likely. Generally, if someone does good (biblical/Catholic) works, they are recognized as good by most, and if they accept Jesus (as a Protestant –well, not Calvinism, I suppose, but in general) they generally do good deeds even if they aren’t necessary.
To bring this back to what Havoc was speaking of, focusing on things we have no control over (whether the framework allows pre-destination, like in Star Wars, or not) isn’t very useful, nor does it lead to good character (if a person is constantly told they are good, I could easily see them coming to believe that whatever they do is good, rather than having to constantly make judgments).
I think problem is that Phantom Menace was beginning of tragic tale of Anakin Skywalker, but was dressed up like happy children story (yeah, he kicked their buts in that race, yay, seems like nice kid…what, he was evil in the end? wtf?!). Prequels definitely was serious dilemma for Lucas (sci fi effects, especially state-of-art, costs fortune), and I think was main reason why “Attack Of The Clones” were so inconsistent. Does he tells story to Star Wars grown-ups? Does he tries to welcome teens and pre-teens to his SW world? Then how do you tale story of wonder kid which tragically ends up badly because of several factors including faith and manipulative evil overlord?
I liked prequels and loved “Revenge of the Sith”, but yes, I can agree, Lucas could have done better job on them. Anyway, it’s his story and it is quite engaging.
Actually in Seven Samurai it is shown that only people of the noble class can be samurai. People of the lower class can only be peasants.
One of the samurai has a fake birth certificate. Although he gets the chance to prove himself worthy, he looks like a bum and he’s crazy. The message is “That’s what you get when you break the rules.”
The reason the samurai protect the village is not because they have character and experience, it is because their heritage dictates they do. It is exactly the same reason the peasants will never do anything but grow food.
Seven Samurai is an excellent movie, but its message should be taken in the context of the time and place it was made. It is rather backwards, actually.
Star Wars saga is just boring compared to “Dune”, “World of Tiers”, “Foundation”, “Hyperion Cantos” and certainly many other scifi saga I still haven’t read. But they aren’t books for kids. And hollywood is not making movies to make us have “deep thoughs” but to entertain us.
In my opinion Star Wars movies are made for kids to have a fun time, and to make parents buy derivated products so the kids stop annoying them.
Have a nice day,
I’m confident in my english but please excuse me for any mistake I’ve done.
I don’t remember thinking Harry Potter was anything special on any scale but “number of people I know who’ve read it”, but http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality (huh, never thought I’d be reading fanfiction, certainly not about HP) was entirely worthwhile. I think it’s got some of what you’re looking for.
Well, I just read the Name of the Wind an really liked it. While the kid is good at everything, he still screws up a lot (and pays the price) showing you that your actions are important!
I think it also comes down to being more willing to practice what you enjoy. We have one kid who will fish for hours. Literally. Our other kid is done fishing after 10-15 minutes but he can put legos together for hours. So while hard work and practice are important, I think it’s also important to learn the love of doing an activity for the activity’s sake. To love doing.
I’d say most developers enjoy writing code. Probably as much as (if not more than) they enjoy having a finished product.