So a few weeks ago, I stumbled across this title at the local Borders bookstore:
I've got to admit I picked this one up and set it down several times, over several trips to the bookstore. But eventually I succumbed to the lure of topics like "The Politics of Star Wars are Anti-Democratic and Elitist" and "Women in Star Wars are Portrayed as Fundamentally Weak."
Then I read David Brin's intro. And Matthew Woodring Stover's intro. And I realized that, despite the extended conceit of putting the Star Wars saga on trial (complete with a droid judge to oversee the proceedings), there was some serious thought and discussion going on here. I mean, in Brin's intro, he manages to convey ideas about the meaning of Science Fiction and why it matters as a form of literature (yes, I just called Science Fiction literature… get over it, lit-snobs) that I've tried to put into words for ages. (Maybe that's because he's the well-paid professional novelist and I'm just a hack with a blog and occasionally too much time on my hands. But, I digress…)
Brin takes the role of Prosecuting Attorney (based, in no small part, on his articles in Salon after the opening of the Phantom Menace in 1999. (You can find those here and here.) Matthew Woodring Stover, who wrote the novelization of Revenge of the Sith (as well as Heroes Die, one of my favorite SF novels of recent years) handles the defense. And nearly 20 other SF writers and editors take on the arguments in the book, weighing in for either the defense or the prosecution on topics such as the ones mentioned above and debates about whether Star Wars is really SF or Fantasy, whether it has dumbed down science fiction, and whether it's reduced SF filmaking to mindless special effects extravaganzas.
I have to admit, I started the book siding with the prosecution (or the Sith, as Stover insists on calling them) on most charges. But then I found some convincing arguments from the defense. For instance, I found that, in several cases, how you view the movies seems to have an affect on how you look at them.
This was especially true of the first charge, that SW's politics are undemocratic and elitist. If you watch the movies in release date chronology, you tend to find yourself disappointed with the results and confused as to how Lucas can take you to the places he does and make the arguments he apparently does. (As Brin enumerates: True Leaders are Born, not Made; Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; and any amount of sin can be forgiven if you repent, And are important enough, among others.)
But if you view the films in the story's chronological order (from Episode 1 through Episode VI) those same arguments get flipped on their ear, as most of Brin's elitist examples are reversed by the time we get to the end of Return of the Jedi (though not all, as Darth/Anakin's redemption shows.)
Some arguments are better than others, however. Referencing the "extended universe" (all the books and games and other stories that have continued the SW saga outside of the movies) doesn't make up for Lucas' betrayal of the female characters he creates and then unmakes, especially in the prequel films. (Amidala's transition from blaster-wielding queen to sobbing, "I can't bear to go on" mewling waif is pathetic.)
Others are just bizarre, as the argument that Star Wars is not fantasy because we're all part of one huge computer simulation, and every "error" in a Star Wars film is a message revealing the truth to those who can understand it. I had a tough time buying into that particular idea.
I also found it very interesting that the only person arguing the SW books were dragging literary SF down was an editor, with three different authors weighing in on why their SW licensed work helped make them better writers.
Ultimately, I came away from the book pumped up and excited to write again (and not just random bush-bashing posts to my blog.) I wanted to get back into that creative space where SF really matters, and a good story not only can say something, but almost inherently, must.
And for a book with the title "Star Wars on Trial" (and one with an illustration of Lucas on the witness stand with a droid judge in the background, at that), that's a pretty impressive achievement.
There are several more books in this series, on topics ranging from the Firefly TV series (Finding Serenity), the Matrix (Take the Red Pill) to Buffy, Angel and the Simpsons, among many others.
I've just ordered "Finding Serenity." Here's hoping it's half as good as "Star Wars on Trial." (Chris, you can uncover your eyes now. The geek-fest is over.)
Star Wars on Trial:After months of listening to the rabid S.O.A.P. fans rattle on about their movie (no comment on how that translated to actual success of said movie) I have to acknowledge the power of a really cheesy title. And this one ranks right up there, I think.
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Debate the Most Popular Science Fiction Films of All Time
I've got to admit I picked this one up and set it down several times, over several trips to the bookstore. But eventually I succumbed to the lure of topics like "The Politics of Star Wars are Anti-Democratic and Elitist" and "Women in Star Wars are Portrayed as Fundamentally Weak."
Then I read David Brin's intro. And Matthew Woodring Stover's intro. And I realized that, despite the extended conceit of putting the Star Wars saga on trial (complete with a droid judge to oversee the proceedings), there was some serious thought and discussion going on here. I mean, in Brin's intro, he manages to convey ideas about the meaning of Science Fiction and why it matters as a form of literature (yes, I just called Science Fiction literature… get over it, lit-snobs) that I've tried to put into words for ages. (Maybe that's because he's the well-paid professional novelist and I'm just a hack with a blog and occasionally too much time on my hands. But, I digress…)
Brin takes the role of Prosecuting Attorney (based, in no small part, on his articles in Salon after the opening of the Phantom Menace in 1999. (You can find those here and here.) Matthew Woodring Stover, who wrote the novelization of Revenge of the Sith (as well as Heroes Die, one of my favorite SF novels of recent years) handles the defense. And nearly 20 other SF writers and editors take on the arguments in the book, weighing in for either the defense or the prosecution on topics such as the ones mentioned above and debates about whether Star Wars is really SF or Fantasy, whether it has dumbed down science fiction, and whether it's reduced SF filmaking to mindless special effects extravaganzas.
I have to admit, I started the book siding with the prosecution (or the Sith, as Stover insists on calling them) on most charges. But then I found some convincing arguments from the defense. For instance, I found that, in several cases, how you view the movies seems to have an affect on how you look at them.
This was especially true of the first charge, that SW's politics are undemocratic and elitist. If you watch the movies in release date chronology, you tend to find yourself disappointed with the results and confused as to how Lucas can take you to the places he does and make the arguments he apparently does. (As Brin enumerates: True Leaders are Born, not Made; Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; and any amount of sin can be forgiven if you repent, And are important enough, among others.)
But if you view the films in the story's chronological order (from Episode 1 through Episode VI) those same arguments get flipped on their ear, as most of Brin's elitist examples are reversed by the time we get to the end of Return of the Jedi (though not all, as Darth/Anakin's redemption shows.)
Some arguments are better than others, however. Referencing the "extended universe" (all the books and games and other stories that have continued the SW saga outside of the movies) doesn't make up for Lucas' betrayal of the female characters he creates and then unmakes, especially in the prequel films. (Amidala's transition from blaster-wielding queen to sobbing, "I can't bear to go on" mewling waif is pathetic.)
Others are just bizarre, as the argument that Star Wars is not fantasy because we're all part of one huge computer simulation, and every "error" in a Star Wars film is a message revealing the truth to those who can understand it. I had a tough time buying into that particular idea.
I also found it very interesting that the only person arguing the SW books were dragging literary SF down was an editor, with three different authors weighing in on why their SW licensed work helped make them better writers.
Ultimately, I came away from the book pumped up and excited to write again (and not just random bush-bashing posts to my blog.) I wanted to get back into that creative space where SF really matters, and a good story not only can say something, but almost inherently, must.
And for a book with the title "Star Wars on Trial" (and one with an illustration of Lucas on the witness stand with a droid judge in the background, at that), that's a pretty impressive achievement.
There are several more books in this series, on topics ranging from the Firefly TV series (Finding Serenity), the Matrix (Take the Red Pill) to Buffy, Angel and the Simpsons, among many others.
I've just ordered "Finding Serenity." Here's hoping it's half as good as "Star Wars on Trial." (Chris, you can uncover your eyes now. The geek-fest is over.)
Comments
Did any of the writers have the balls to say SW is simply NOT SF? Imaginative planets, spaceships, and light sabers do not equal SF - just as any use of magic is not necessarily fantasy. (witness The Illusionist and The Prestige)
SW is fantasy. Brin nearly makes the case - he's right about the themes not being traditional SF themes. SF does NOT belittle women. Leaders are made, not born, in SF. But, in fantasy, men rule and leaders are born. Mostly.
Still...sounds like a good read.
I've always thought of Star Wars as Space Opera as opposed to SF. But then Space Opera, it can be argued, is really fantasy using the trappings of SF. So it's the same difference.
I couldn't help it. I opened my eyes.
:)