For me what makes Star Wars particularly a work of genius for film are the various influences from the Kurosawa movies to 2001 A Space Odyssey, Flash Gordon, the Mongolian costume mixed with Sanscrit, the religions and biblical influences and Norse mythology and the Heroes Journey and countless other things all rolled into one.
My question is, is there a book along these lines which takes a huge array of source material and nods at it while making its own excellent plot and narrative? Sure, LoTR does it in terms of mythology, but it doesn't borrow or show off its prose in the way that Lucas shows off his knowledge of film and copies scenes. Dante could be said to be a tiny bit, or Shakespeare. But is there anything which gives a cheeky nod and a wink here or there to Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Hugo, Cervantes and countless other authors through prose and plot while creating something epic of its own?
The correct answer is Chaucer, but you might not like that you'll actually have to read a lot of medieval and antiquity literature to see how Caunterbury Tales is the medieval Star Wars.
Can I see the full pic? Maybe I should rewatch star wars
1. Star Wars is at best a decent children's movie that was made to sell toys and shill stupid black and white moralism, loosely inspired by Kurosawa's jidaigeki stuff. Way overanalyzed by people with ankle-deep taste who would eat dog food if enough people convinced them that it was 'complex'.
2. Kurosawa was a shit hack that Westerners praise because he adapted Western stories with Western audiences in mind. They lap it up because they think it's so "foreign" when all he really did was put Shakespeare characters in samurai armor.
3. To answer your question, I think Milton was like this but I haven't read him in a while.
wow wow wee wa! what a stupid thread!
anyway the answer to your second question is "like 90% of modernist and post-modernist literature". i mean, seriously, man. think about Pound's Cantos - where he's drawing on basically the entirety of multiple poetic traditions and incorporating it all into one allusive work. it's seriously a major part of the methodology of a huge number of authors since about 1920. Off the top of my head, Pound, Eliot, Charles Olson, Louis Zukofsky for poetry (also Frank Stanford who is later and more accessible) and Joyce, Pynchon, Nabokov in prose but there's literally a million names I could list that are doing that.
Now, is anyone doing that in the form of a pulpy adventure epic? Not as far as I'm aware. LotR probably comes closest. But are people doing it, yeah, absolutely.
Spengler's narrative of history probably comes the closest to what you're looking for.
Spengler rejected the Ancient-Medieval-Modern schematic, but he had one of his own:
Apollonianism represents 900-100 B.C.
Magian Culture from 100-900 A.D.
Faustian Culture from 1000-2000 A.D.
But it goes a little further because while they have their own eras, you can find either of these elements within any chapter in history.
From there, it gets very complicated very fast. Godspeed.
2. The cyclical movements of history are not those of mere nations, states, races, or events, but of High Cultures. Recorded history gives us eight such "high cultures": the Indian, the Babylonian, the Egyptian, the Chinese, the Mexican (Mayan-Aztec), the Arabian (or "Magian"), the Classical (Greece and Rome), and the European-Western.
Each High Culture has as a distinguishing feature a "prime symbol." The Egyptian symbol, for example, was the "Way" or "Path," which can be seen in the ancient Egyptians' preoccupation -- in religion, art, and architecture (the pyramids) -- with the sequential passages of the soul. The prime symbol of the Classical culture was the "point-present" concern, that is, the fascination with the nearby, the small, the "space" of immediate and logical visibility: note here Euclidean geometry, the two-dimensional style of Classical painting and relief-sculpture (you will never see a vanishing point in the background, that is, where there is a background at all), and especially: the lack of facial expression of Grecian busts and statues, signifying nothing behind or beyond the outward.
The prime symbol of Western culture is the "Faustian Soul" (from the tale of Doctor Faustus), symbolizing the upward reaching for nothing less than the "Infinite." This is basically a tragic symbol, for it reaches for what even the reacher knows is unreachable. It is exemplified, for instance, by Gothic architecture (especially the interiors of Gothic cathedrals, with their vertical lines and seeming "ceilinglessness").
The "prime symbol" affects everything in the Culture, manifesting itself in art, science, technics and politics. Each Culture's symbol-soul expresses itself especially in its art, and each Culture has an art form that is most representative of its own symbol. In the Classical, they were sculpture and drama. In Western culture, after architecture in the Gothic era, the great representative form was music -- actually the pluperfect expression of the Faustian soul, transcending as it does the limits of sight for the "limitless" world of sound.
The concept of the prime symbol is a fictional concept uniting a particular culture of writers and artists. It's the source of a particular strain of thinking throughout history.
If the OP is looking for in-joke references to the last thousand years of literary history, I apologize.
The literary equivalent of the technical aspects of the film is not exactly equitable
Not that it doesn't happen but those works are "nod" to older sources, in film there is still a transference of source and inspiration, in literature there a greater ocean of works that only the most prominent rise to the surface.
There are works fashioned out of other works but not in that way that takes the most famous ones and make a mesh out of it, that would not be considered the act of passion but the pressure to be as plebian as possible
In film it works because because the newest film are the ones people know in literature that is not the case.
Dat handwriting doe
It's about 9 pages long, and really changed my opinion of the prequels and star wars as a whole. Now you can see the effort that went into each scene in order to create something like Proust or Joyce's epic works which is easily dismissed when you're just watching it as a kids action film.
Funny how peoples aesthetics around art mostly revolves around, "this is art because I like it. this is not art because I don't like it."
I'm trying to get published a young adult fantasy novel I wrote that matches that description close enough. It's meant to be a satiric take on the Heroes Journey and many elements of fantasy and mythology told following the journey of a Mary Sue. I'm really hoping it will catch on among the young teenage girls who made Twilight and Hunger Games so popular but some of my influences were Dante, Homer, Joseph Campbell, Tolkien, and Manly P Hall.
The Divine Comedy. Literally everything that happens is a biblical or classical allusion.
e.g. when Dante first sees Beatrice he turns to Virgil to say: "I know the signs of the ancient flame". Which is what Dido says when she first sees Aeneas in the Aeneid.
>Star Wars is at best a decent children's movie that was made to sell toys and shill stupid black and white moralism
They didn't start selling the toys until after the 3rd movie when Lucas decided to monetize everything in sight
Means a lot, anon. Once things start moving a little more I intend on promoting the hell out of it however possible. Best case scenario an agent and publishing company pick it up, worst case I'll self-publish and sell copies dressed as a Plague Doctor in Times Square.
It proves that Lucas has a grand visual narrative in his work of repeating elements and that he is an artist.
Unfortunately no one notices it unless it is pointed out to them, it doesn't improve the films rather it makes them a mess of forced similarities and they are just sci-fi romps not art-house. It proves Lucas got lucky with the help of good visual stylists in the first film and even the subsequent two films are only middling, coasting on the fame of the first.
A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back preceded the geekdom shit and the monetizing of the franchise.
Empire Strikes Back was and still is a GREAT film. And this coming from someone who absolutely hates sci-fi and fantasy shit. I also hate episode 1 2 and 3 and readily admit that it's angsty teenage sci fi garbage. Although Lucas was always quick to sell out he was smart... he put his entire genius into A New Hope and then handed Empire Strikes Back over to Leigh Brackett and Irvin Kershner. Brackett (who worked on the Long Goodbye and other amazing classic noir films) turned the screenplay into a work of art.
However I really don't understand people who don't feel anything after seeing the Bespin battle between Luke and Vader
The first time I ever watched that I felt the same way I did after finishing reading Monte Cristo or All Quiet on the Western Front. It even rivaled the feeling I got from watching some of my favorite classic films whether that be Kubrick movies or Bogart's from the 40s.