18
Just How Many “Lukes” Are There in A New Hope, Anyway?

“You Don't Need to See His Identification”

Asking whether two fictional characters, from different stories, are the same or not falls within ontology (specifically, the ontology of fiction), which is a branch of the wider subfield called metaphysics. Ontology, simply put, is the study of being. When asking about the ontological status of a certain kind of object, such as fictional characters, three types of question loom large. First, we can ask whether there really is such a type of object in the first place: “Are fictional characters genuine objects? Are they things that genuinely exist?” If we answer “yes,” a second question immediately arises: “What kind of objects are fictional characters? Are they words on the page? Ideas in our minds?” Let's say that we sort out these initial questions. We then have a third question: “How do we tell when we have one fictional character and when we have two?”⁵

Answering this question requires the identity conditions for fictional characters – criteria that will answer questions of the following form:

• Is character C ₁ from story S ₁ the same as character C ₂ from story S ₂?

We'll explore various ways to provide identity conditions for fictional characters. To streamline the discussion, we'll represent the character named Luke depicted in ANH as Luke_ANH, the character named Luke depicted in TTT as Luke_TTT, the character named Luke depicted in TLJ as Luke_TLJ, and so on.

It may seem obvious to anyone who's seen both ANH and TLJ that the Luke in the first film is identical to the Luke in the second film, that is, that Luke_ANH = Luke_TLJ. But, from a philosophical perspective, it's not enough that we can figure out whether some or even most identity claims are true or false. We want an explanation of why some such claims are true, while others are false. Further, the answers to this question involving Lukes from other stories aren't so obvious. An account of the identity conditions for fictional characters can help us to settle these hard cases.

“Impressive. Every Word in That Sentence Was Wrong”

Let's get two simple but ultimately incorrect accounts of fictional character identity out of the way. The first thought one might have is that two characters, from two different works of fiction, are identical if and only if they have the same name. This clearly won't work, however, since it would imply (to switch universes for a moment) that The Beast from the Buffyverse is the same character as The Beast from Kung Fu Hustle, despite these characters having almost nothing in common other than their shared name.⁶

A slightly more sophisticated approach involves adopting a version of the principle known as the Identity of Indiscernibles, often attributed to the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716): two objects are identical if and only if they have the same properties or characteristics.⁷ Before applying this principle, we need to distinguish properties that are either internal or external to the story. We shouldn't conclude that Luke_ANH is distinct from Luke_TLJ because the former, but not the latter, existed in 1995, or because the latter, but not the former, is owned by Disney. These properties are external to the stories, and thus irrelevant to determining whether they're the same. We should restrict our attention to properties attributed to the character within the narratives. So we get what we'll call the Indiscernibility Account:

• Character C ₁ from story S ₁ is the same as character C ₂ from story S ₂ if and only if the (internal) properties C ₁ has in S ₁ are exactly the same as the (internal) properties C ₂ has in S ₂.

Even with this modification, the Indiscernibility Account just won't work. Luke_ANH doesn't have the same properties as Luke_TLJ. The former isn't a Jedi Knight, the latter is. The former is young and idealistic, the latter is grizzled, jaded, and cynical. If we apply the Indiscernibility Account to fictional characters, we're forced to conclude that ANH and TLJ depict different characters who just happen to both be named Luke. But that's clearly the wrong verdict. We need a more sophisticated account.

“This Is Not Going to Work.” “Why Didn't You Say So?” “I Did Say So.”

Let's examine a more sophisticated, but again ultimately incorrect, account of fictional character identity: the Say‐So Account, in which authors (or their estates, or whoever the relevant agents are) determine whether two characters, from two fictional works, are identical. Richard Routley (1935–1996) describes the view as follows: “In sum, what controls sameness across [fictional] worlds is qualified author say‐so, the qualification being that a core of features of the object must be preserved.”⁸ Amie L. Thomasson defends something like the Say‐So Account when she provides the following rule as a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for two characters from distinct stories to be identical: “If character C ₁ in story S ₁ is identical to character C ₂ in story S ₂, then the author of S ₂ must be competently acquainted with C ₁ of S ₁ and intend to import C ₁ into S ₂ as C ₂.”⁹ According to the Say‐So Account, Luke_ANH is the same fictional character as Luke_TLJ simply because George Lucas (and Rian Johnson, Disney, etc.) said so (or because they intended to “import” the Luke of ANH into TLJ in the appropriate manner). So, Luke_ANH = Luke_TLJ.

So far, so good – this account does a better job than the Indiscernibility Account. The problem arises when we consider cross‐continuity characters, such as Luke_TTT. If we were to ask Timothy Zahn whether, when authoring this trilogy, he was writing about the same Luke as he is depicted in ANH, he'd certainly answer affirmatively (and George Lucas and Lucasfilm would've agreed, since these books were canon before the 2014 reboot). Thus, on the Say‐So Account, Luke_ANH and Luke_TTT are identical – that is:

But now we have a problem. Identity is transitive, that is, it can carry across different relations of identity: so, if a = b and a = c, then b = c. Thus, the Luke that appears in TLJ must be the same character as the Luke that appears in TTT, and so Luke_TTT = Luke_TLJ.

This can't be right: certain facts true of the former – for example, that Luke_TTT and Mara Jade begin a relationship eventually leading to marriage and a child – aren't true of the latter, since (as far as we know) Luke_TLJ dies without ever having met Mara Jade and there's no mention of his having a son. The Say‐So Account leads to contradictions.

It's tempting to think there's an easy fix. We could just say that Luke_TTT was identical to Luke_ANH until the 2014 reboot, at which point Luke_TTT ceased to be identical to Luke_ANH. And then, when TLJ appeared (based on the say‐so of Lucas, Johnson, Disney, etc.) Luke_TLJ is now identical to Luke_ANH. Although, Luke_ANH was identical with Luke_TTT at one point in time, and identical with Luke_TLJ at another point in time, Luke_ANH was never identical with both Luke_TTT and Luke_TLJ at the same time. This would block transitivity, and thus the contradiction.

Unfortunately, this strategy won't work for a simple reason: Zahn hasn't gotten fully on board with the erasure of his stories from Star Wars canon:

[A]s far as I can tell from the announcement, [Lucasfilm] is not erasing the EU, but simply making it clear that nothing there is official canon. That's not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it immediately send everything into alternative‐universe status. If nothing from The Thrawn Trilogy, say, is used in future movies (and if there's nothing in the movies that contradicts it), then we can reasonably continue to assume that those events did happen. It looks to me like the Legends banner is going to be used mainly to distinguish Story‐Group‐Approved canon books from those that aren't officially canon but might still exist.¹⁰ (Making Star Wars)

Zahn is reaffirming that, at least until new films, comics, or television shows explicitly contradicting TTT are released, we should continue to believe that its events happened. In short, according to Zahn, Luke_TTT remains identical to Luke_ANH (and Luke_TLJ) because he says so.¹¹ Luke had quite a full life before becoming a recluse on Ahch‐To!

“Many of the Truths We Cling to Depend Greatly on Our Own Point of View”

Although the Say‐So Account doesn't solve our dilemma, its failure might provide the key to formulating a successful account of Luke's identity. The problem with the Say‐So Account hinges on the creator of ANH disagreeing with the creator of TTT as to whether the Luke appearing in the first story is identical to the Luke appearing in the second. From the perspective of the creator of ANH, Luke_ANH isn't (now) identical to Luke_TTT. But from the perspective of the creator of TTT, the same fictional character appears in both stories.

This suggests that identity claims regarding fictional characters might not be simply true or false, but are true or false with respect to a particular story. If so, then we shouldn't be asking whether it is true or false that Luke_ANH = Luke_TTT. Rather, we should ask two distinct versions of this question, one from the perspective of ANH and one from the perspective of TTT. We call this approach the Perspectival Account:

• Fictional character C ₁ from story S ₁, considered from the perspective of story S ₃ (that is, <C _1S1, S ₃>) is identical to fictional character C ₂ from story S ₂, considered from the perspective of story S ₃ (that is, <C _2S2, S ₃>) if and only if, when interpreting and evaluating story S ₃, we are meant to understand that everything that happens to character C ₁ in story S ₁ also happens to C ₂, and everything that happens to C ₂ in story S ₂ also happens to C₁.

Following this formula, let <Luke_ANH, ANH> represent the character Luke as depicted in ANH, and viewed from the perspective of ANH, <Luke_TTT, ANH> represent the character as depicted in TTT, but viewed from the perspective of ANH, and so on. When we consider whether <Luke_ANH, ANH> is identical to <Luke_TTT, ANH> the answer is clearly negative: When evaluating ANH, we're not allowed to infer that the Luke appearing in this work also did the things Luke is depicted as having done in TTT. But, if we consider the same two characters from the perspective of TTT, we should judge the relevant identity claim to be true: when evaluating TTT, we're meant to understand the Luke appearing in this work to have also done the things Luke is depicted as having done in ANH. So the following claims are true:

We can handle other cases along similar lines. For example, the Luke depicted in Old Man Luke is identical to the Luke depicted in ANH from the perspective of Old Man Luke, but not from the perspective of ANH.

The Perspectival Account avoids the problems seen in the earlier accounts and provides us with an adequate account of identity conditions for fictional characters. Further, the Perspectival Account allows us to explain how the truth‐value of fictional character identity claims can change over time. As we've noted, Luke_ANH and Luke_TTT are identical with respect to TTT, and are non‐identical with respect to ANH. But things weren't always thus. Before the 2014 reboot, we were meant to understand that the events depicted in TTT did in fact happen to the Luke depicted in ANH from the perspective of ANH. In short, prior to 2014 it was true that <Luke_ANH, ANH> = <Luke_TTT, ANH>. The fact that this identity changed from true to false in 2014 is easily explainable: the reboot dramatically altered how we were supposed to understand certain stories told about the Star Wars characters, and, in particular, it altered which stories we were meant to understand as having happened to the canonical versions of the characters.