MY RATING: 
BRIEF SYNOPSIS: Star Wars and George Lucas are brought up on charges for crimes against science fiction.
PROS: Covers a lot of ground that relates to science fiction, thought-provoking essays, just a darn good read.
CONS: A few weak essays, uneven tone and a bit too much author bias in some places.
BOTTOM LINE: Star Wars On Trial should be read by every fan of Star Wars and should be enjoyed by readers of science fiction in general.
MY REVIEW:
Star Wars On Trial is not like most of the other books in the Smart Pop series in that SWoT is not a collection of essays about Star Wars. Well, it is, but SWoT is structured as a legal hearing where Star Wars is being charged with various crimes against science fiction. Each charge is then argued both by the prosecution (David Brin lead attorney) and the defense (Matthew Woodring Stover lead) and their various witnesses. Each author has created an essay specific to the charge in question. This conceit works well for the most part, although I did find that the occasional courtroom cut-scene seemed a bit to forced. However, that did little to lessen the really good stuff discussed here. The charges are as follows:
- The politics in Star Wars are anti-democratic and elitist.
- Star Wars portrays no admiral religious or ethical beliefs.
- Star Wars novels aren't real SF and are driving SF off the shelves.
- Because of Star Wars, all SF movies are nothing more than empty SFX showcases.
- Star Wars has dumbed down the perception of SF in the popular perception.
- Star Wars is really science fantasy and not SF.
- Women in Star Wars are portrayed as fundamentally weak.
- The plot holes and illogical gaps make Star Wars ill-suited for an intelligent viewer.
There are some nits though, but nothing that knocks the overall book down too much. I think there were two essays that were rather weak. One I wasn't sure if the author was really serious about what he was proposing, and the other one was supposed to be funny but I didn't find it to be. This leads into the next nit, the uneven tone. SWoT alternates between seriousness and levity seemingly on a whim. I guess this is to be expect as each author has their own take on how serious they should be in their essay. But for the most part, the overall book fits together well. The only other annoyance for me was the propensity of some of the authors to toss in their own political beliefs and agendas into the essay. I don't feel this was necessary or even relevant to the discussions at hand. And even the first charge, which deals with politics in Star Wars, didn't need reflections on today's political climate. To me, each viewer of Revenge Of The Sith is going to see whatever political message that their beliefs lead them to see. But, this is a minor nit as the politics disappear before the half-way point.
One other cool aspect of this book is that BenBella has created a website where we can go and debate these points online with others, including the authors. This is a cool idea.
Star Wars On Trial should be read by every fan of Star Wars and should be enjoyed by readers of science fiction in general.
Comments (5)
| PermaLink
| Category: Book Review
Posted by JP Frantz at Friday July 21, 2006 at 11:28 AM
© 2008 SF Signal
Interestingly, you discussed above the injection of the authors own political agendas and beliefs. All during the summer of 2005 a well known movie critic, Michael Medved (formerly one of the critics on PBS's At the Movies), kept the constant harangue that the movie (RotS) had a specific Anti-Bush and Anti-Iraq war and an overall anti-American message. Besides, some really weak evidence from the movie; AFAIK, most of his evidence relied on statements made by George Lucas in 2004(I think) at Cannes Festival about how he was ashamed to be an American because of the Iraq war.
Posted by Allan Rosewarne on Friday July 21, 2006 at 9:19 PM at 9:19 PM
I really wish that David Brin would stop getting involved in useless projects such as this (and the King Kong effort) and WRITE ANOTHER UPLIFT NOVEL!!!!
How long as the starship Seeker been left hanging now? Geeeeeeezzzzz!!!!
Posted by Fred Kiesche on Friday July 21, 2006 at 9:28 PM at 9:28 PM
And that, Allan, is pretty much the sum total of evidence presented in the book. I'll have to go back and re-read that particular essay (it was the defense's turn on charge #1), but I seem to recall that the anti-Bush charges were actually irrelevant to the point being made. In other words, the essay would have been just as strong without the constant haranguing. That's why I believe that whatever political message you may get out of RotS is really a reflection of the beliefs of the viewer going in.
Posted by jp on Friday July 21, 2006 at 9:28 PM at 9:28 PM
The empire are the good guys...they freed the slaves on the desert planet and they are all law and order but essentially let poeple alone.
The republic and the jedi are aristacratic and class based.
note: I do not know the name of the desert planet and that does make me cooler then anyone who does. 
Note2: Knowing who Horza is makes you more cool.
Posted by joshua corning on Saturday July 22, 2006 at 1:03 PM at 1:03 PM
The only Horza I know, SF-wise, is from Iain M. Banks' Consider Phlebas....
Posted by jp on Saturday July 22, 2006 at 1:25 PM at 1:25 PM