Scan barcode
clockworkvk's review against another edition
2.0
Worth the 5 NIS I paid for it to get some new perspective.
gmvader's review against another edition
3.0
Star Wars on Trial is based on an article for salon.com that David Brin wrote a number of years ago. The premise of which was basically a forum for him to rant about how popular Star Wars is and how unworthy it is of that popularity. David Brin is, by all accounts a brilliant author and an incredibly intelligent man — as far as I can tell form listening to his interviews, which really only means that he is confident and well versed in the subjects he talks about. Matthew Woodring Stover is an author of Star Wars tie-in fiction as well as some other things. In this book he sets out to defraud David Brin — in a mostly light-hearted way — of his delusions about Star Wars.
The ‘trial’ is presented as a series of accusations that must be expounded upon and defended against by each side. David Brin presents the accusations and then each of the authors calls on other well-known authors, writers and artist to provide essays in the defense or prosecution of said terms. The format works pretty well for that. Each of the authors present well-written and mostly well-thought pieces. Many of the arguments make sense for both sides, though some of the accusations are just plain stupid to begin with and some of them are indefensible from the start.
1. The Politics of Star Wars are Anti Democratic and Elitist: This first charge is indicative of the style of nearly all of the succeeding charges. If the first three movies are taken without the newer ones then this accusation has little to nothing to stand on. With Lucas’s addition of Episodes I-III he retroactively gave Star Wars a message that was wrong and decidedly uncomfortable on so many levels that it becomes almost shudder inducing. This accusation is almost inarguably true with the consideration of the new movies. (This is why I try, with all my might, to ignore the existence of those new movies.)
2. While Claiming Mythic Significance, Star Wars Portrays No Admirable Religious or Ethical Beliefs: This seems like a silly argument to be having. I am not aware, except perhaps in George Lucas’s own mind, of any claims of mythic significance for Star Wars. It most certainly has cultural significance but nothing can really claim to have that until it already does and the argument is moot. That Star Wars is based on myth and heavily leans upon the Campbellian mythos is also understood but I do not see any kind of disconnect between leaning on myth for story material and not having a message or moral to engender.
The problem here is one that much of children’s literature contained for many years. Until the advent of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland almost all the children’s books were intended to teach some moral or cultural value to their readers. Then Alice took her dream induced trip down the rabbit hole and readers and writers alike discovered that not all stories need have a message. Star Wars, I think (again speaking of the original three movies), is a story without a message, other than good guys win. (It’s unmistakable, also, that there are definitely unintended messages hidden in there: Luke is a good guy but he wantonly slices his way through anybody that gets in his way, Yoda tells people not to bother trying if they don’t think they can do it, Darth Vader, murderer of millions, can be redeemed and forgiven because… These are no more intentional than the anti government, antiestablishment, slavery loving overtones of the newer films — they’re just slightly less insidious.)
3. Star Wars Novels are Poor Substitutes for Real Science Fiction and are Driving Real SF Off the Shelves: It’s statements like this that make Brin sound like an overstuffed shirt. What is ‘real SF’ anyway? The claim that it is driving this so called ‘real’ stuff off the shelves is also the most ludicrous claim that I have ever heard. If not for Star Wars there probably wouldn’t be a Science Fiction shelf for ‘real SF’ to be driven off of. Unsurprisingly the defense had three authors contribute to debunking this obvious fallacy.
I understand and agree with much of the criticism leveled at Star Wars — especially as I’ve gotten older. Lucas’s callous treatment of life, ethics and logic is almost insulting on many levels. I can get behind most of those arguments about the shortcomings that are inherent in the stories, characters, and scenes. One thing that is completely inarguable, though, is that Star Wars made modern movies, television and books into a market. Without Star Wars we would have none of those things in the same scale that we have them today. The same argument can be used for Harry Potter and Twilight. Despite the flaws, it is inarguable that the number of people that read and enjoy reading books today would not be the same scale had those books not existed. Society loves mediocrity and, as a whole, we love turning our brains off and having fun. Star Wars (Harry Potter, etc.) have provided that for a significant number of the world’s population.
4. Science Fiction Filmmaking has been Reduced by Star Wars to Poorly Written Special Effects Extravaganzas: No argument here, though my cynical nature tells me that Hollywood would have gotten there anyway, one way or another. Movies like Transformers can’t be wholly blamed on Star Wars — Michael Bay and the American public need to shoulder some of that burden.
5. Star Wars has Dumbed Down the Perception of Science Fiction in the Popular Imagination: I’m not really sure what this is saying except that David Brin is embarrassed that the important books that he writes are associated with Star Wars through genre titles.
Most of the world has a mistaken view of science fiction that is not entirely the fault of Star Wars, though I think the argument could go either way. Star Wars, when it first came out, was an attempt by George Lucas to build something that harked back to the old days when he was a child and the pulp magazines put out stories by Leigh Brackett and Jack Williamson about swashbuckling sword fighters that roamed among the stars seeking justice (The Empire Strikes Back was even written, in part, by Leigh Brackett). The argument is that as a result of it’s success the film and television industry has been stuck in that same era as inspiration for their source material.
Again, I think Hollywood would have made the bad choices anyway, it is Hollywood, after all, that’s what they do there. The new science fiction released in film each year is consistently about forty or fifty years behind the curve. In other words the fresh new movies that people get so excited about are based on stories that were written in the mid-sixties. This means that the popular perception of science fiction is at least forty years old — probably fifty. Again, I don’t think I would argue with you either way if you wanted to claim it was Star Wars’ influence that caused this.
6. Star Wars pretends to be Science Fiction but is Really Fantasy: I don’t actually see why this is a problem. It also strikes me as a little bit elitist and hypocritical to accuse something of not being good because it doesn’t follow genre conventions. Raise your hands if you’re surprised to hear Star Wars is fantasy…
7. Women in Star Wars are Portrayed as Fundamentally Weak: There’s actually little to argue here. Leia is smart and amazing in the first movie. She resists torture at the hands of Darth Vader, she mouths off at Han and Luke when they come to rescue her (‘Aren’t you a little short for a Stormtrooper?’) and fights off stormtroopers while they are boarding the Falcon. That’s not to say she don’ts have flaws. As an administrator and politician she never once administrates or politicizes but that’s not her fault as much as it is Lucas’s. By the time the new movies came out Amidala is portrayed as a simpering milquetoast politician who can’t really do anything without a man to help her — even if the man is only eight years old. It gets worse from there.
There is a general trend in Hollywood over the last couple of decades where women are given less and less to do and are being shoved into slots that fill cultural stereotypes more than ever. Star Wars is no exception to this backward trend, unfortunately.
8. The Plot Holes and Logical Gaps in Star Wars Make it Ill-Suited for an Intelligent Viewer: Maybe.
Star Wars has plot holes. Some of them so big that you could literally drive the Death Star though them. Stover claims that, according to George Lucas that’s the point. Star Wars is supposed to be inconsistent logically, scientifically, thematically… I’m not sure what it gained by this except that it has allowed fans to spend countless hours devising explanations for the logical fallacies in the universe. If George Lucas created all the gaping holes in his story in order for the authors of the dozens of novels to have more room to explore the universe then he is a genius. I suspect, rather, that they are just plot holes. He threw the whole thing together on a whim, didn’t think too hard about it and was surprised when it became popular. He doesn’t have answers. Fans are much better at that anyway.
My biggest complaint about this book is that the two authors who edit the essays and provide the opening and closing statements seem to have strikingly different agendas. Brin comes off as a pompous fool who thinks Star Wars would have been better if only George Lucas had called him up and taken his advice. Stover treats the whole thing like a farce referring to Brin as a Sith Lord at every turn and cracking terrible Star Wars themed puns whenever the opportunity arises.
The essays themselves are mostly well-written and well-thought pieces. Each author giving some good arguments. Many times I would read the prosecution essay and be convinced that, yes that is all true. Then I would read the opposing view and find myself swayed. In the end I had to come to my own conclusions, which is the point, so in that I would say that this book is a success.
This probably won’t be a popular book, most people just won’t care. People like what they like. If you are interested in examining Star Wars critically, both good and bad aspects of it, then this is one of the better sources to turn to.
I learned a few things. I wanted to headbutt Nick Mamatas (which I think is what he was going for, so good for him). I rolled my eyes at some of the arguments, I laughed at others. It also made me think, which is never a bad thing.
The ‘trial’ is presented as a series of accusations that must be expounded upon and defended against by each side. David Brin presents the accusations and then each of the authors calls on other well-known authors, writers and artist to provide essays in the defense or prosecution of said terms. The format works pretty well for that. Each of the authors present well-written and mostly well-thought pieces. Many of the arguments make sense for both sides, though some of the accusations are just plain stupid to begin with and some of them are indefensible from the start.
1. The Politics of Star Wars are Anti Democratic and Elitist: This first charge is indicative of the style of nearly all of the succeeding charges. If the first three movies are taken without the newer ones then this accusation has little to nothing to stand on. With Lucas’s addition of Episodes I-III he retroactively gave Star Wars a message that was wrong and decidedly uncomfortable on so many levels that it becomes almost shudder inducing. This accusation is almost inarguably true with the consideration of the new movies. (This is why I try, with all my might, to ignore the existence of those new movies.)
2. While Claiming Mythic Significance, Star Wars Portrays No Admirable Religious or Ethical Beliefs: This seems like a silly argument to be having. I am not aware, except perhaps in George Lucas’s own mind, of any claims of mythic significance for Star Wars. It most certainly has cultural significance but nothing can really claim to have that until it already does and the argument is moot. That Star Wars is based on myth and heavily leans upon the Campbellian mythos is also understood but I do not see any kind of disconnect between leaning on myth for story material and not having a message or moral to engender.
The problem here is one that much of children’s literature contained for many years. Until the advent of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland almost all the children’s books were intended to teach some moral or cultural value to their readers. Then Alice took her dream induced trip down the rabbit hole and readers and writers alike discovered that not all stories need have a message. Star Wars, I think (again speaking of the original three movies), is a story without a message, other than good guys win. (It’s unmistakable, also, that there are definitely unintended messages hidden in there: Luke is a good guy but he wantonly slices his way through anybody that gets in his way, Yoda tells people not to bother trying if they don’t think they can do it, Darth Vader, murderer of millions, can be redeemed and forgiven because… These are no more intentional than the anti government, antiestablishment, slavery loving overtones of the newer films — they’re just slightly less insidious.)
3. Star Wars Novels are Poor Substitutes for Real Science Fiction and are Driving Real SF Off the Shelves: It’s statements like this that make Brin sound like an overstuffed shirt. What is ‘real SF’ anyway? The claim that it is driving this so called ‘real’ stuff off the shelves is also the most ludicrous claim that I have ever heard. If not for Star Wars there probably wouldn’t be a Science Fiction shelf for ‘real SF’ to be driven off of. Unsurprisingly the defense had three authors contribute to debunking this obvious fallacy.
I understand and agree with much of the criticism leveled at Star Wars — especially as I’ve gotten older. Lucas’s callous treatment of life, ethics and logic is almost insulting on many levels. I can get behind most of those arguments about the shortcomings that are inherent in the stories, characters, and scenes. One thing that is completely inarguable, though, is that Star Wars made modern movies, television and books into a market. Without Star Wars we would have none of those things in the same scale that we have them today. The same argument can be used for Harry Potter and Twilight. Despite the flaws, it is inarguable that the number of people that read and enjoy reading books today would not be the same scale had those books not existed. Society loves mediocrity and, as a whole, we love turning our brains off and having fun. Star Wars (Harry Potter, etc.) have provided that for a significant number of the world’s population.
4. Science Fiction Filmmaking has been Reduced by Star Wars to Poorly Written Special Effects Extravaganzas: No argument here, though my cynical nature tells me that Hollywood would have gotten there anyway, one way or another. Movies like Transformers can’t be wholly blamed on Star Wars — Michael Bay and the American public need to shoulder some of that burden.
5. Star Wars has Dumbed Down the Perception of Science Fiction in the Popular Imagination: I’m not really sure what this is saying except that David Brin is embarrassed that the important books that he writes are associated with Star Wars through genre titles.
Most of the world has a mistaken view of science fiction that is not entirely the fault of Star Wars, though I think the argument could go either way. Star Wars, when it first came out, was an attempt by George Lucas to build something that harked back to the old days when he was a child and the pulp magazines put out stories by Leigh Brackett and Jack Williamson about swashbuckling sword fighters that roamed among the stars seeking justice (The Empire Strikes Back was even written, in part, by Leigh Brackett). The argument is that as a result of it’s success the film and television industry has been stuck in that same era as inspiration for their source material.
Again, I think Hollywood would have made the bad choices anyway, it is Hollywood, after all, that’s what they do there. The new science fiction released in film each year is consistently about forty or fifty years behind the curve. In other words the fresh new movies that people get so excited about are based on stories that were written in the mid-sixties. This means that the popular perception of science fiction is at least forty years old — probably fifty. Again, I don’t think I would argue with you either way if you wanted to claim it was Star Wars’ influence that caused this.
6. Star Wars pretends to be Science Fiction but is Really Fantasy: I don’t actually see why this is a problem. It also strikes me as a little bit elitist and hypocritical to accuse something of not being good because it doesn’t follow genre conventions. Raise your hands if you’re surprised to hear Star Wars is fantasy…
7. Women in Star Wars are Portrayed as Fundamentally Weak: There’s actually little to argue here. Leia is smart and amazing in the first movie. She resists torture at the hands of Darth Vader, she mouths off at Han and Luke when they come to rescue her (‘Aren’t you a little short for a Stormtrooper?’) and fights off stormtroopers while they are boarding the Falcon. That’s not to say she don’ts have flaws. As an administrator and politician she never once administrates or politicizes but that’s not her fault as much as it is Lucas’s. By the time the new movies came out Amidala is portrayed as a simpering milquetoast politician who can’t really do anything without a man to help her — even if the man is only eight years old. It gets worse from there.
There is a general trend in Hollywood over the last couple of decades where women are given less and less to do and are being shoved into slots that fill cultural stereotypes more than ever. Star Wars is no exception to this backward trend, unfortunately.
8. The Plot Holes and Logical Gaps in Star Wars Make it Ill-Suited for an Intelligent Viewer: Maybe.
Star Wars has plot holes. Some of them so big that you could literally drive the Death Star though them. Stover claims that, according to George Lucas that’s the point. Star Wars is supposed to be inconsistent logically, scientifically, thematically… I’m not sure what it gained by this except that it has allowed fans to spend countless hours devising explanations for the logical fallacies in the universe. If George Lucas created all the gaping holes in his story in order for the authors of the dozens of novels to have more room to explore the universe then he is a genius. I suspect, rather, that they are just plot holes. He threw the whole thing together on a whim, didn’t think too hard about it and was surprised when it became popular. He doesn’t have answers. Fans are much better at that anyway.
My biggest complaint about this book is that the two authors who edit the essays and provide the opening and closing statements seem to have strikingly different agendas. Brin comes off as a pompous fool who thinks Star Wars would have been better if only George Lucas had called him up and taken his advice. Stover treats the whole thing like a farce referring to Brin as a Sith Lord at every turn and cracking terrible Star Wars themed puns whenever the opportunity arises.
The essays themselves are mostly well-written and well-thought pieces. Each author giving some good arguments. Many times I would read the prosecution essay and be convinced that, yes that is all true. Then I would read the opposing view and find myself swayed. In the end I had to come to my own conclusions, which is the point, so in that I would say that this book is a success.
This probably won’t be a popular book, most people just won’t care. People like what they like. If you are interested in examining Star Wars critically, both good and bad aspects of it, then this is one of the better sources to turn to.
I learned a few things. I wanted to headbutt Nick Mamatas (which I think is what he was going for, so good for him). I rolled my eyes at some of the arguments, I laughed at others. It also made me think, which is never a bad thing.
kikiandarrowsfishshelf's review against another edition
4.0
So this little volume debates Star Wars and whether or not it has harmed Sci-Fi writing or viewing. I brought pretty much because it has essays by Tanya Huff (who is on the prosecution) and Kristine Kathryn Rusch (who is on the defense). Largely, I have to say the prosecution came after better. Many of the defense essays seem to take good natured pot shots at the opposition, and while I don’t think Stover really believes Brin is an idiotic corrupt Sith Lord, it does wear thin after a while, and really don’t you have anything else?
The both sides are largely made up of writers from Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres. The prosecution, that brings the charges, is led by David Brin. The defense is led by Matthew Woodring Stover, who wrote, among other things, the best novel adaption of the prequels. Of the defense essays, the best are the three by writers (including Rusch) taking about the impact of Star Wars on the book selling marketplace. They are the most supported and while they do focus on the question mostly from an author/seller perspective as opposed to the reader (an important factor), they are the most reasoned and factual. The responsible from the defense to the sexism charge is rather strange because the prosecution focused on the films and the defense on the novels, seemingly to indicate that both Leia and Padme are problematic in the films.
Still several of the issues are funny. Stand out essays are the ones by John C. Wright, Lou Anders, Kristine Kathryn Rusch, and John G. Hemry.
The both sides are largely made up of writers from Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres. The prosecution, that brings the charges, is led by David Brin. The defense is led by Matthew Woodring Stover, who wrote, among other things, the best novel adaption of the prequels. Of the defense essays, the best are the three by writers (including Rusch) taking about the impact of Star Wars on the book selling marketplace. They are the most supported and while they do focus on the question mostly from an author/seller perspective as opposed to the reader (an important factor), they are the most reasoned and factual. The responsible from the defense to the sexism charge is rather strange because the prosecution focused on the films and the defense on the novels, seemingly to indicate that both Leia and Padme are problematic in the films.
Still several of the issues are funny. Stand out essays are the ones by John C. Wright, Lou Anders, Kristine Kathryn Rusch, and John G. Hemry.
More...