Customer Reviews

Star Wars on Trial: Science Fiction And Fantasy Writers Debate the Most Popular Science Fiction Films of All Time (Smart Pop series)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Back in 1999, physics professor, NASA consultant, and science fiction writer David Brin contributed an essay to Salon.com highlighting the logical inconsistencies in the (up until then) four Star Wars films and pointing out what he saw as the darker philosophical and ethical underpinnings of the series - a feudal universe in which elite, super-powered beings control the fate of civilization, a galaxy where might is right, in which the life of the commoner is to be ruled by The Jedi or The Sith.

"'Star Wars' Despots vs. 'Star Trek' Populists" generated a tremendous amount of interest and feedback from Star Wars and science fiction fans and over the years on his own website Brin came back to the topic now and then, (often, he laments as an aside in "Star Wars on Trial," taking time away from his other writing projects). With the release last year of the final chapter in the Star Wars film series, Brin is back to update his arguments and lead the prosecution in "Star Wars on Trial," a book-length collection of critical essays on the six-film cycle and its relationship to film-making and science-fiction. The book is organized conceptually around a trial, with a prosecutor leveling charges and a defense counsel attempting to poke holes in the state's case.

The six charges brought to court are, in order: 1) The Politics of Star Wars Are Anti-Democratic and Elitist; 2) While Claiming Mythic Significance, Star Wars Portrays No Admirable Religious or Ethical Beliefs; 3) Star Wars Novels Are Poor Substitutes for Real Science Fiction and Are Driving Real SF off the Shelves; 4) Science Fiction Filmmaking Has Been Reduced by Star Wars to Poorly Written Special Effects Extravaganzas.; 5) Star Wars Has Dumbed Down the Perception of Science Fiction in the Popular Imagination; 6) Star Wars Pretends to Be Science Fiction, but Is Really Fantasy; 7) Women in Star Wars Are Portrayed as Fundamentally Weak; 8) The Plot Holes and Logical Gaps in Star Wars Make It Ill-Suited for an Intelligent Viewer.

Each charge is argued in separate essays, both for the prosecution and the defense. In between the essays are short chapters in which the prosecutor and the defense cross exam the essayists and address the bench on procedure issues.

Leading the defense and providing opening and closing arguments in this literary trial is three-time Star Wars novelist Matthew Woodring Stover (Traitor, Shatterpoint, Revenge of the Sith), a writer whose books I have enjoyed but for whom I have lost some not small measure of respect after reading his smarmy ripostes to Brin's more reasoned arguments. It's not necessarily that Brin's ideas are better (sometimes they are, sometimes not); it's just that Brin is more erudite. Stover comes off like one of those annoying people you read in usenet forums who, when he can't make a cogent argument, resorts to humor to deflect attention from his lack of a reasoned counter argument, or to avoid having to admit he is wrong.

One the whole, the prosecution makes its best case on textual matters, picking at the obvious inconsistencies within the films and demonstrating what everyone who has seen them has known all along, that George Lucas is a poor writer who suffered moreover from having to force the plot when he found he had to make sequels and later prequels. There's also a devastating argument from real-life attorney John C. Wright demonstrating the lack of religious content in the Star Wars universe, in addition to a well-argued essay from astrophysicist Jeanne Cavelos outlining the evisceration of the two major females in the series, Leia and Padme, who go from being strong, independent characters to stereotypical damsels-in-distress.

For its part, the defense makes its best case on the wider issue of cultural matters, on the effect of Star Wars on science fiction and filmmaking. Novelist Karen Traviss, one of the most popular of the current crop of Star Wars authors, argues convincingly that Star Wars literature can be more than turgid prose hastily churned out for cash by revealing some of the positive changes she was forced to make in her own writing when commissioned to write her first Star Wars novel. And addressing the complaint that Star Wars fiction is driving "real" science fiction off bookstore shelves, novelist Laura Resnick points out that the success of Star Wars fiction has in fact provided publisher Del Rey the financial clout to expand its original science fiction publishing.

There are several other well-written and thought provoking essays in this collection addressing issues wider than Star Wars - such as the nature science fiction, the push and pull between art and entertainment, the economics of publishing and film making - that make this an interesting read for those that might like to delve into some of the issues debated among aficionados of science fiction and Star Wars.

For those interested in pursuing some of the issues raised in Star Wars on Trial, publisher PopSmart has a dedicated online forum (http://www.starwarsontrial.com) where you can participate in discussion with other readers and some of the essayists.

My two cents: Book = Good; Website = Disappointing.

Hidden benefit - introduction through these essays to the writing of around 20 authors!

I'm one of those people who both love Star Wars and hate it too. Okay, I don't hate Star Wars itself, but there are some things about it that just drive me batty. It's reassuring to know I'm not the only one.

This book is not a weighty philosophical treatise on the merits of Star Wars as art form, cultural phenomenon, etc. Instead it is a light but thoughtful exploration into some of the ideas floating through the SW fan community. I enjoyed it, but I think that, like the movies, if you take it too seriously, you are going to miss out.

This book is in the form of essays written on behalf of the prosecution and the defense, with some "cross-examinations" of witnesses in the "courtroom" conducted by Brin and Stover. Some of the essays are rather serious, and some entertaining. There is at least one that is just wacky. I read the table of contents at the bookstore, and had to buy it, and am glad I did.

Charge #1: The politics of Star Wars are anti-democratic and elitist.
Charge #2: While claiming mythic significance, Star Wars portrays no admirable religious or ethical beliefs.
Charge #3: Star Wars novels are poor substitutes for real science fiction and are driving real SF off the shelves.
Charge #4: Science fiction filmmaking has been reduced by Star Wars to poorly written special effects extravaganzas.
Charge #5: Star Wars has dumbed down the perception of science fiction in the popular imagination.
Charge #6: Star Wars pretends to be science fiction, but is really fantasy.
Charge #7: Women in Star Wars are portrayed as fundamentally weak.
Charge #8: The plot holes and logical gaps in Star Wars make it ill-suited for an intelligent viewer.

I enjoyed it thoroughly. I found myself reading the prosecution argument and saying, "yeah, that's right". Then I'd read the defense argument and say, "yeah, you tell him." And of course, I also disagreed at times. And as I mentioned this is NOT weighty philosophy, so at times you'll find some logic holes in the arguments on either side reminiscent of the logic and plot holes being pointed out in the subject matter. Why it works for me is that there is room for debate. Even though I ended up mostly agreeing with the Defense, there was a case to be made for both sides, which is what makes these questions worth asking. And this is what I have truly loved about SW fans. They ask these questions. They don't just sit back and accept whatever cockamamy junk is thrown at them. For instance, what percentage of SW fans accept the idea of Greedo shooting first? Okay what percentage born before 1997?

The only big beef I have is with the website. After you read the book, you are asked to perform the duty of the jury, and weigh in with your opinion at a website. The website is really a bit lame. There's an introductory page, and then an online forum. For those familiar w/forums, a section has been set up with an opening thread for each of the nine "charges". For a couple charges, forum registrants have created a voting "poll", but not for most, which just have discussion.

I personally think a no-registration-required poll should have been set up on a main page, separately from the forum, to track an overall reader consensus. While I once had more time to devote to my love of SW, currently it's all the time I can muster to read SW expanded universe novels, and maybe some supplemental material like "Star Wars on Trial". I do not have time to have a discussion about each charge. I do think that the small additional investment in the website I suggest is not too much to ask for those of us who can't benefit from a time-consuming forum interaction.

Intellectually, the Prosecution wins the case with flying colors. Emotionally though, the Defense makes some very good points.

The book is written with humor and enthusiasm, all contributors from both sides are obviously having fun and it should be noted that everybody acknowledges the fun and entertainment value of Star Wars and its ability to make us dream. Including David Brin who gives praise and respect to George Lucas in his opening statement (p.47).

I think the book will appeal not only to Star Wars critics, but to its fans as well. An extremely entertaining read.

If you like the SW universe and think it's fine as-is, don't get this. If you dislike the SW universe and share the opinions Dr. Brin expressed in his salon.com article - take a pass here.

If you like the SW universe, but ever found yourself feeling a little disturbed by the implications of certain scenes or events in the movies, GET THIS. Brin gets WAY too caught up in delivering his panegyric about American society and humanist values, but that doesn't mean the man can't make a few valid shots.

The grousing about whether SW belongs on the fantasy or SF shelf is ridiculous. It's like trying to argue if Firefly belongs on the SF or Western shelf. Ditto with the usual "death of the midlist" argument and "dumbing down SF" arguments that also undercut their argument they're populists who trust the common man (after all, the common man isn't paying attention to the REAL story. Furthermore, they read THOSE books, and not the ones who will Uplift - pun intentional - them). The upside is that Karen Traviss's essay is one of several hilarious rebuttals.

Many of these arguments are like really good fanfic - they stretch the limits of that universe and make may out of the holes and bugs they find there. Some get really creative in explaining certain things - I'm thinking Brin's take on Yoda and Metzger's idea of the Jedi as more or less like Neo from the Matrix - exploiters of the universe's programming bugs.

These guys don't go far into the Expanded U, so don't expect any debate on the Vong or the Ruusan events. If you wanted to pass this along to your fellow SW fans, though, I'm sure they'd love to expand it to those.

Not able to classify myself a Sci-Fi geek, and not a particular fan of Star Wars (although I recall being thrilled by the original Star Wars), I approached this book from a point of view I thought would be largely neutral.

It turned out during reading that I sided almost entirely with Brin (prosecution) at the beginning and ended more neutral than I began--a self-revelation that I found refreshing. I found the actual witness testimony (the essays) to be highly entertaining and illuminating, but the cross-examinations more tiring and often belittling than valuable to the book; although it would hardly be a trial without them. By the end of the book, I was ready to be done with it, capped off effectively by the final closing argument which did nothing but enrage me. Hmmm...

I am probably not a member of the demographic this book may be aimed at.

However, having never been tempted to buy any of the additional Star Wars merchandise or novelizations (okay, I admit I would like to build the lego ships), or even to watch Episodes I, II, or III more than once, it was a nice glimpse into what these other books have to offer--which for some reason I had always assumed were just more of the same caliber as the movies themselves or worse (cranked out drivel).

Overall, I give this a 3.5-4.0 because I largely enjoyed the essays, and in the end, learned a lot more about the EU (The Extended Universe) than I would have had I continued on in my Star Wars starved existence. One of the other reviewers said it was a must for a "complete" Star Wars collection. I would say, it is a must for anyone who is determined to have a minimalist Star Wars collection.

Before you read the review, I do give some things away, so be warned!
Star Wars On Trial was fun to read and even made a few points that I had not thought of before. Oh, they had the normal stuff - weak or bad science, plot holes, stupid characters. Some of it was new - never thought of the Jedi as being just as bad as the Sith. Not Evil, as much as overbearing, too powerful, too smug. The idea that bringing balance back to the Force meant destroying both the Jedi and the Sith was a new idea that hit me like a train from behind.
Also, on a more serious note, the chapters dealing with sexism really did seem to make me think about many of the scenes in which the female characters seem to do nothing to help the plot, their fellow comrades or the Republic - Old or New. And they could have done so much.
A must for any fan of the movies but be prepared to laugh, cry and, yes, sometimes wonder if the people in the book are sometimes taking the whole thing too seriously.

Just a quick note that the Star Wars on trial website is no longer available (per the publisher) so you will be unable to participate in the jury or look at what other people's opinions were.

There are some strong, thought-provoking "takes" on Star Wars' impact on pop culture and science fiction. The contributors do a great job of arguing their points.

David Brin is frustrated with Star Wars novels because they "are driving real SF off the shelves." What does Brin consider "real SF"? His own novels! So why not state his case honestly and directly? "I, David Brin, resent Star Wars because people find it much more appealing than my own work. Oh, I could invest effort in reverse-engineering what it is that draws people to those stories, then figure out how to create work of similar value myself (in fact many would call that the very essence of storytelling, my chosen profession). But that would take hard work and the willingness to step outside my own ego and consider the needs of my readers."

Like any run-of-the-mill Internet troll, Brin simply does not play fair. He has enough training in the sciences that he *must* know the basics of logic, yet there are so many specious arguments and apparently intentional false claims in Brin's book it's difficult to know where to begin. For instance, Brin knows Luke and Leia are not in charge of the Rebellion (we see them taking orders, are shown that the "queen" and other royals are elected democratically), yet Brin claims again and again that the Rebellion/New Republic is an imperial monarchy ruled by the Skywalkers. The lengths Brin will go to in support of his precarious straw man fantasy border on self-parody:

"....the Emperor comes from the same narrow aristocracy - on Planet Naboo - as Luke's mother. Probably, they're cousins. As for Anakin's mother, who's to say she didn't come from the same place?" You can really see Brin's PhD paying for itself in this whole line of reasoning. Who's to say Anakin's mom wasn't a sarlacc with an extreme makeover? Who's to say Jar-Jar doesn't fart the Force? There's no evidence of any kind for these possibilities, but there's no absolute proof against them either, and that's sufficient grounds in Brin's mind to build the foundational argument of a book-length attack piece.

At one point Brin admits that his core problem is not with Star Wars itself, but with the entire mythic history of mankind, from Gilgamesh and the Odyssey on up! His gripe is that myths generally tell the stories of superhuman heroes, which to Brin indicates a "contempt for the masses" (the non-superhuman), which makes him feel "creepy."

Occam's Razor: Which is more likely?

1. Brin feels creepy & contemptuous in the face of mankind's mythic history because myth itself is fundamentally unhealthy, and we must cease to "enslave ourselves to a single, tedious storytelling pattern [myth] ...especially because it pervaded so many failed, oppressive societies of our bloody, awful past."*

2. Brin feels creepy & contemptuous in the face of mankind's mythic history because he has a few self-esteem issues to work out, and with a bit of therapy might actually get past them, rather than endlessly performing mental cartwheels to project them onto straw-men.

*Most of the failed, oppressive societies of our bloody, awful past also encouraged their citizens to wear undergarments, so given Brin's bullet-proof grasp of inductive logic I'll keep an eye out for his next book, "Underpants on Trial!"

Whereas I commend Stover and all the other authors and essayists for taking time to make their contributions here with wit, wisdom, and even mild entertainment value, this book is obviously Brin's brainchild and Brin's mouthpiece, his personal hatchet job picking up where he left off in his white-knuckle foam-at-the-mouth anti-SW rant of a few years back. Brin nominated himself to be supreme arbiter of what is or is not "good" and "in the public's best interest," and the shining defender of pop culture, waving his magic sword in defiance of the evil "immorality" he sees in the SW films, chomping at the bit and begging for attention.

It is therefore no accident at all that Brin placed himself in the Prosecution's desk, as Brin has had a very admitted (and very dubious) axe to grind against SW for years, which in this context manifests itself as nothing less than textbook conflict of interest.
For example:
One of Brin's charges is that cheap SW novels have driven "real" sci fi off the shelves.
#1, Brin has reserved the right to define "real" all to himself and tolerates no disagreement, and
#2, Brin's own novels are exactly the ones that ARE pushed off the shelves, therefore he obviously has every reason to resent SW's success (as it has come at the expense of his own), and every reason to come off as a firebrand against Lucas's superior marketplace success (and for the record, Brin does indeed bestow "real" on his own writings, surprising no one).

The book brings up several distinct "charges" against Star Wars, but true to Brin's pre-existing bias, the vast majority of his arguments are obvious selective evidence, elitist ramblings, and Straw Men, with none being so ridiculous as Number one, being:

"The politics of Star Wars are anti-democratic and elitist."

Brin is fond of the word "demigod," and portrays the Jedi (against any rational observations of the films themselves) as black-magic tyrants, wielding their power as Divine Right to rule the galaxy as they see fit, unaccountable to anyone. Far from being debatable, this viewpoint is at best pre-established prejudice and at worst utter paranoia, completely refutable on any number of levels.
#1 The government in both the prequels and the originals, is obviously portrayed as democratically elected, with an elected Chancellor for the Senate (who is subject to recall and removal), and a non-jedi leadership for the rebels. In fact even after Skywalker gets his superpowers, he still follows orders from any number of mortals, doing his proper duty as commanded.

#2 In the prequels, at no time is it ever demonstrated that the Jedi exert power over this government and in fact quite the opposite, as the "demigod" jedi are shown being given, and FOLLOWING, orders from mere mortals in the elected government. And the only time the jedi make even an hesistant suggestion to seize power, it is to response to a leader with obvious anti-democratic suggestions. The jedi do not covet their power, do not aggrandize their power, and do not flaunt their power. And Yoda himself is giving a very poignant line in Attack of the Clones chastising jedi-overconfidence, proving his humble thoughts on the matter.

#3 For all of the harping of "Demigods," and Brin's insistence on being the ONE individual to have cracked George Lucas's evil and nefarious agenda to portray the jedi as superheroes worthy to surrender all free-will to, he completely ignores the quite obvious freedom-fighting contributions of any number of mere-mortals, portrayed on screen as being every bit as significant. Including but not limited to: a mere mortal (Lando) blowing up the 2nd Death Star, a mere mortal (Han Solo) saving Luke Skywalker over the 1st Death Star, a mere mortal (Wedge) being the only other Rebel pilot to survive, and fight with honorable ability and distinction in all three movies, and not to mention a mere mortal being the heroine of Phantom Menace, capturing the evil-doers herself in the throne room while the jedi were off goofing around with the Sith in the Hangerbay.

Such only scrapes the surface, but the last point is particularly telling, as one of Brin's other complaints is
"Women in Star Wars are portrayed as fundamentally weak."
With Amadali singlehandedly saving the Phantom Menace, and Princess Leia singlehandedly saving the Rebellion in all three original films, it can honestly be questioned if Brin really cared to research his positions at all. With his flimsy analysis and overbearing bias against the subject matter (not to mention the absolutely laughable, unwarrented, and juvenile ANGER repeatedly displayed by Brin, going so far as to label Yoda's "There is no try," speech as "offensive." This leads his co-editor Stover into observations of exactly who, between himself and Brin, is obviously the more happy and friendly induvidual to hang around with), we are giving plenty of room to wonder.

Other charges are as follows:
Charge# 4: Science fiction filmmaking has been reduced by Star Wars to poorly written special effects extravaganzas.
Charge# 5: Star Wars has dumbed down the perception of science fiction in the popular imagination.
Charge# 6: Star Wars pretends to be science fiction, but is really fantasy.

To be frank, Brin's insistence on even bringing these up showcases his elitist opinions on the matter. To an significant extent, Brin is angry that someone else is playing with "his" crayons, and he resents any intrusion on "his" genre by an artist Brin feels is beneath him (and even his co-editor Stover nails Brin with this same observation in the closing arguments). That is just a pure and simple shame, and a reprehensible attitude for one artist to place on another. Brin's obvious anger towards Lucas taints the credibilty of the majority of his arguments, and if he were to have channeled his creative energies towards something more, well, creative, he could have written a more "real" contribution to society. There have got to be more important things to argue about in this day and age. Pass on this one.