Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Naked and the Dead | Oh! The Humanity! (Or: Trust ... »

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

The Absolute Slave

posted by on November 21 at 12:09 PM

What’s missing in this image?
The chain:

Let’s give the Princess Leia/Jabba the Hutt dynamic some thought. What is the meaning of this situation? To grasp the meaning, we must isolate the slave, Leia. We must remove her from the story. What is she in actuality? Her blood is royal. She holds a high position in the galactic society. So, her being a slave amounts to the ultimate shame. She has fallen from the very top to the very bottom of things. But could it happen any other way? A great person must have a great fall. How can you be great if your fall is not so great? To fall just part of the way down the social hierarchy is poor for a person of high standing. Even The Bible is aware of this fact: The fall, like the rise (or the return), must be total—the king/queen must become a slave, must become all that he/she is not.

Imagine if Princess Leia had fallen to the middle of the galactic society. Picture her selling robot parts in a small shop, haggling over prices, shaking hands when deals are struck. This fate is too shameful for her or any noble. No, all the way down she must go. The best for her is to be a slave, a zero, a chained body. An absolute power deserves nothing less than the absolute shame of being a powerless slave.


RSS icon Comments


Han Shot First.

Posted by Jake of | November 21, 2007 12:16 PM


Posted by Jimmy Legs | November 21, 2007 12:20 PM

What's missing? About 50 pounds.

Posted by DaiBando | November 21, 2007 12:23 PM

see, he uses the opportunity of america to write stupid things about star wars. which is why his outrage at african strongmen is ridiculous and lacks authenticity.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 21, 2007 12:26 PM

Wow did you ever miss the point of Leia being a slave. She knowingly became a slave to save Han. Knowingly becoming a slave is different from becoming a slave through a fall from grace.
Leia actually was performing a great feat of friendship and loyalty by submitting willfully to the status of slave - all for love and friendship. All for the good.
If you are going to go all philosophical on us, Charles, you might want to get the premise of your argument straight.

Posted by Michael | November 21, 2007 12:29 PM

i isolated the image from the narrative. i'm not interested in the back story.

Posted by charles | November 21, 2007 12:34 PM

Michael, chaz does this kind of shit all the time. he gets the basic premise wrong, or makes up a crazy premise with no backing, then makes one or more unproven or ridiculous conclusions based on that unproven original premise.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 21, 2007 12:35 PM

you isolated the image from the narrative then used the narrative in making a point?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 21, 2007 12:36 PM

you are interested in the back story since he being royal is a necessity of your premise.

Posted by infrequent | November 21, 2007 12:38 PM

The point of this post seems to be, "it's more gratifying for an audience to see big changes in a character's status than small changes." Which is, like, duh. What an earth-shattering discovery.

Posted by mattymatt | November 21, 2007 12:44 PM

he uses star wars and slavery/marxism/africa to make points all the time. this is not shocking.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 21, 2007 12:46 PM

Right, Charles. Because an isolated image taken completely out of context, is such a great way to make a point about the contextualization of identity and social status.

And the Vietnamese prostitute was wearing sunglasses, so you couldn't possibly have seen her eyes "pop out" at the sight of some "Alabama blacksnake"...

Posted by COMTE | November 21, 2007 12:49 PM

Micheal, Leia didn't chose to be a slave. She risked her life to save Han, but she was enslaved only when her bounty hunter comedy number failed.

Maybe Boba Fett didn't remember seeing her at the convention.

Posted by Sirkowski | November 21, 2007 12:49 PM

Where's the evidence that Leia went into that situation expecting to become a slave? Perhaps her capture was all part of the plan, but unless Jabba turned all captive women into slaves, it seems just as likely that she could have been imprisoned or executed.

Posted by keshmeshi | November 21, 2007 12:49 PM

I agree w/ Bellevue Ave, chaz does this constantly. He argued that the firing of Stan O'Neal was motivated by racism. His losing $2.3 billion in a quarter was merely a pretext to fire the same man they'd hired two years earlier (and the $200 million to walk away was just to prevent a discrimination suit).

Can I have the number of slave #2.

Posted by left coast | November 21, 2007 12:52 PM

Wait a minute. What about White Russians?

Posted by Gitai | November 21, 2007 12:54 PM

Great, another out of context Star Wars story with Charles. You know, Star Wars freaks never get laid. Hmmmmm.... Can we get ECB to jump Charles right now so he can FINALLY get some??? At least it will occupy him for 2 minutes so he does not post anything on Slog.

Posted by Just Me | November 21, 2007 12:55 PM

I remember all my friends being completely ga-ga over this costume when the movie came out.

I didn't get it. I was ga-ga over Luke Skywalker.

I was so closeted and naive back in 1983. *sigh*

Posted by SDA in SEA | November 21, 2007 12:57 PM

blah blah blah *some broad in a skimpy outfit* blah blah BLAH blah *some other broad / same outfit* blah blah blah *a whole bunch of broads in the same skimpy outfit* blah blah blah. blah.

i'm noticing a pattern here.

Posted by brandon | November 21, 2007 1:02 PM

@12 good job bringing it back to the absolute dumbest thing Charles has ever written. Kudos!

Posted by Rotten666 | November 21, 2007 1:07 PM

Meaningless thought experiments.

Posted by underground | November 21, 2007 1:16 PM

the thing that is so sad about chaz isn't that he makes logical fallacies, that he wants us to rely on his dubious authority to validate points, or that he uses architecture, fashion/women and star wars to try and make points about politics, economics and history; the saddest part is charles is best when he is doing things that are completely unrelated to these stupid musings about any of the previous 6 subjects. it is that he probably enjoys doing what he sucks at more than what he is good at.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 21, 2007 1:17 PM

@3 - Ha ha ... I was gonna say the cocaine.

Posted by Mahtli69 | November 21, 2007 1:18 PM

Charles, I like to come to Slog and read...except when I see more shitty posts from you. Please stop. Please.

Posted by Bill | November 21, 2007 1:21 PM

Thanks for this, Charles. It really made my day.

Posted by Greg | November 21, 2007 1:22 PM

I gotta agree with the peanut gallery on this one - Charles, you're being oddly selective about what aspects of the back story you're isolating the image from.

Posted by tsm | November 21, 2007 1:31 PM

addendum to 22:

it is also sad that he probably thinks he is good at these kind of arguments when he is, in fact, not good at all.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 21, 2007 1:35 PM

Well, at least Charles posts lots of nice pictures to accompany his ramblings.

Posted by Hernandez | November 21, 2007 1:36 PM

hernandez, i would replace accompany with "spite" or "distract from"

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 21, 2007 1:38 PM

You will try to intellectualize anything just to show women of a certain type. You obviously seem to like them so why not just show the image and say nothing or something more to the point because verbally wanking about it does not really cast a different light on these women or give you a better or more noble excuse for showing them.

Posted by -B- | November 21, 2007 1:44 PM

Charles--I love ya and your writing, I really do.

But this time you took me back to the hilarious racial deconstruction speech by Hooper X in Kevin Smith's CHASING AMY...

Posted by andy niable | November 21, 2007 2:37 PM

Brilliant, enjoyable point.

Posted by StrangerDanger | November 21, 2007 2:40 PM

Charles, nobody would be complaining about anything you said if you hadn't talked about class as if it exists. They hate you because of the cognitive dissonance you cause when you make the realize their deeply indoctrinated belief in a classless America is absurd.

Try it. Say anything you like, but pretend there are not classes in America. Slog will love you.

Posted by elenchos | November 21, 2007 2:51 PM

31 for the fucking win.

Posted by HAHAHAHA | November 21, 2007 3:28 PM

elenchos must be malnourished. slog would love chaz if he wrote shit that wasn't just a variation of a theme, wasn't always built on fallacies and assumptions, and didnt think he was good at this kind of deconstruction when he isnt.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 21, 2007 3:40 PM

It's not the chain, it's the smile that's missing. Even when she did smile in SW, it was obviously a forced smile.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 21, 2007 4:00 PM

If Charles wants to get upset we should make him watch season one and two of Dynasty (now on DVD). Now THAT is capitalistic exploitation done with STYLE!!!! And the first Steven Carrington was HOT!!!!!

Posted by Just Me | November 21, 2007 4:12 PM

oh so now you're slog itself and speaking for slog, BA? Get a fucking' grip. You've let your hard on for Charles get the better of you laddie.

Posted by gnossos | November 21, 2007 4:26 PM

Damn, that girl is fine. Apparently this forum is really, really, really gay if it takes 40 posts to mention this most important of facts.

Posted by Jake | November 21, 2007 4:30 PM

Jake, if you're talking slavegirl #2 (and I have to imagine you are, grrrl), I had her @15. I would still like that number or direction to your post on Lustlab, slavegirl #2.

Posted by left coast | November 21, 2007 5:00 PM

as would we all, @40, as would we all.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 21, 2007 5:52 PM

"It's not the chain, it's the smile that's missing. Even when she did smile in SW, it was obviously a forced smile."

Because she needs a hamburger!

Slave #2 IS rather cute though...

What is it about Charles that everyone so rabidly jumps on him? So what if he wanted to take it partially out of context to illustrate a point? Sheesh, lighten up people!

Posted by K X One | November 21, 2007 5:56 PM

gnossos, you're on my tip. you already seem to have a grip.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 21, 2007 8:07 PM

Actually, BA, if I was on the tip I'd have gone totally Lorena Bobbit on it by now.

I readily admit your posts in the various Mudede threads bother me far more than I ought to let them. I try to avoid responding to trolls or getting in flames. You're not a troll -- you're a regular here on slog (and one who I sometimes agree with and sometimes don't). But, my telling you you're full of shit could produce flames.

You seem to think that you're making a point or being insightful, while I find you being asinine in the extreme. Maybe I'll find the willpower to avoid responding. And maybe not.


Posted by gnossos | November 21, 2007 11:09 PM

christina childs...

how'd you get outta my box.

i say gawd damn.

Posted by holz | November 21, 2007 11:59 PM

I dont really think im making a point every time i pull back a little bit of the curtain on chaz's idiotic posts. Im simply revealing what should be common knowledge to most people; chaz is poor at what he does.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | November 22, 2007 11:13 AM

Princess Leia makes my hand feel chained to my penis.

Posted by Pastey Boy | November 22, 2007 1:44 PM

I had to sit through two of thise films before I saw Carrie Fisher in her scanties. Now you want to spoil it for me? What kind of a man are you?

Posted by Alex | November 22, 2007 7:31 PM

djekaxg ijrb kpioe njqrk pnlwgi yodkfbr doskq

Posted by dojbk wykghnqva | December 4, 2007 2:49 PM

nokub jyxwtq evmpa pbqhrjzu jsdh xkzjovu qbswajdt [URL=]kqnflmu rzhsdjntf[/URL]

Posted by xyke mhcvg | December 4, 2007 2:51 PM

ntkdrm dsgikb kjewlzrv waiv etcwovnlz bglkiy jsni [URL][/URL] eacwfsdlo lnyafq

Posted by sflbx rtdaieh | December 4, 2007 2:51 PM

nokub jyxwtq evmpa pbqhrjzu jsdh xkzjovu qbswajdt [URL=]kqnflmu rzhsdjntf[/URL]

Posted by xyke mhcvg | December 4, 2007 2:52 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).