Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!lah%ucbmiro From: lah%ucbmiro@Berkeley Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Cuteness, Ewoks, and other "abominations"... Message-ID: <2706@topaz.ARPA> Date: Sun, 14-Jul-85 03:39:39 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.2706 Posted: Sun Jul 14 03:39:39 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 03:26:11 EDT Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 82 From: lah%ucbmiro@Berkeley (1st Lt. RYN Leigh Ann Hussey) I had an interesting correspondence recently regarding "cute", and why it has become anathema. As example, I listed a variety of characters, including the Ewoks. The recent blast at the ewoks prompted me to reproduce, in brief, that correspondence here: What is wrong with "cute" these days? I'm sorry, but I LIKED the Ewoks! I have spared myself the dubious delights of the Smurfs, along with most of the other rubbish that advertisers think will appeal to kids (and God help us, sometimes they're right). That is definitely excessive cuteness, suited only to young adolescents, female I assume, who go to bed surrounded in teddy-bears. But the cuteness of anything, even if it does resemble a walking teddy-bear, is decidedly limited when it wakes you up, as it did Leia, with a sharp spear at a sensitive spot. It is even more limited when hoardes of them rig deadfalls, treeborne traps, and batallions of archers to take out a legion of storm troopers. So I think labelling the Ewoks "cute" is one of the oversimplifications that abound when people discuss Star Wars -- or when certain self-appointed network critics discuss anything having to do with sf. Likewise silly speculation on their names: for instance, "it's Wookie spelled backward" (which of course, it isn't). Guessing further, I'd say that the most vocal sf followers these days want to project an image of "maturity", of following a literary form of serious intent. Anybody who feels like that is bound to feel that "cuteness" is souring his cause. Again, I think this is one for the self-appointed critics, and not to be taken too seriously by most of us. It will have its day and be forgotten. Friends of mine have complained about the various traps used to trash the imperials, viz., how could they build them in such a short time? I assumed, naturally enough, that there are large predators on the planet, that we never see, on which they use things like the swinging logs (that was a good one!) Ah, yes, the Ewoks and the old two-logs-in-the-trees-as-a-giant-nutcracker trick. Considering the evidence, I am quite prepared to believe the thing was already there, or didn't take them at all long to build. What evidence? They were a martial tribe. The first encountered introduced himself to Leia with a spear, and gloated when the Imperial who tried to capture her was eliminated. Han's group, trying to find her, was captured in one of their traps. The whole group except 3PO was bound hand and foot, or more, and carried to the village, helpless. Anybody who proposes to me that these are harmless, naive little teddy bears whose expression of bad temper is throwing stones will have to defend himself vigorously. Whatever the reason -- perhaps, as you suggest, large predators not seen in the movie, where they would, after all, have been irrelevant -- the Ewoks were well able to defend themselves. They made weapons and traps quickly, and there were many of them -- certainly enough quickly to hoist two logs into the trees and rig them for quick release. (And they had avoided the stormtroopers when the moon was checked for native life. Even acknowledging that the stormtroopers' brains and helmets are probably made of the same stuff, that suggests that the Ewoks are skilled at evasion). Apologies to my friend for publishing the letters, but I think they would never have been seen otherwise. I think, especially in light of some of the recent digest material (D. Tucker's sallies and whatnot), that we're all taking ourselves and SF much too seriously. This dislike of "cuteness" (a subjective term, at best) is evidence. And c'mon, you Hoka and Fuzzy fans! Why take offense? I like them too, and that's why I liked the Ewoks. There is nothing about them to be ashamed of. And some of their methods were far more original than the usual stage-swordplay and shoot-em-up horse-operas-to-the- stars ("tin badge pinned to the space suit" says my fiance from the other room...). Comments? Flames? Leigh Ann Militant