Star Wars on Trial (11 page)

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: In a backhanded way, Your Honor; since Mr. Brin's criticism of the politics of Star Wars comes by way of unflattering comparisons with works and authors he considers to be politically more palatable, I suppose I would ask him if Jules Verne's most famous creation, Captain Nemo, is not precisely the kind of "superhero" he derides? If, in fact, the vast majority of the protagonists of Robert A. Heinlein's novels don't fall into that category? If H. G. Wells's most famous novel, The War of the Worlds, does not present the absolute failure of democratic society to respond to a threat, requiring a deus ex machina to save the human race? If Mr. Wells's other legendary novel, The Time Machine, could not be fairly described as unconscionably racist in a biology-as-destiny sense? If the countless German soldiers disposed of by Mr. Spielberg's heroes in the process of Saving Private Ryan are any more than "slaughtered victims ... mere minions, after all. Extras, without families or hopes to worry about shattering. Spear-carriers"? If the same cannot be said for the numberless Klingons and Romulans and gods-knowwhat blasted to atoms by the Enterprise?

All these questions boil down to One Big Question: when you try hard enough,you can find elements to attack in just about anything, can't you?

As Mr. Brin is a hostile witness, a simple "Yes" or "No" will be sufficient. Please remind him that he is under oath.

DAVID BRIN: If it pleases the Court, may I begin my response by quoting from Homer's great epic poem, The Iliad, chapter XXI:

Forthwith the hero left his spear upon the bank, leaning it against a tamarisk bush, and plunged into the river like a god, armed with his sword only. Fell was his purpose as he hewed the Trojans down on every side. Their dying groans rose hideous as the sword smote them and the river ran red with blood...

... and when Achilles's arms grew weary with killing them, he drew twelve youths alive out of the water, to sacrifice in revenge for Patroclus. He drew them out like dazed fawns, bound their hands behind them.... Then he sprang into the river, thirsting for more blood.

All right, it wasn't just one wave of his hand.

Still, might I ask the Court, especially, to note the words "like a god"?

Moreover, let me make something clear: I never claimed that all Campbellian-style legends portray kings in ways that modern people find admirable! After all, despite recent moves back toward aristocratism, we are still rebels! It will take a lot of propaganda to make us turn away from our enlightenment revolution, to re-embrace the bad old ways.

Yes, it is easy to see the flaws of kingship in fellows like Agamemnon and Menelaos, though it can be a bit harder to notice in sweetened and sanitized figures like King Arthur, or Elrond, who had better press agents. Still, what's fundamental is that Homer and his ilk never let their common folk choose any other path. As in Star Wars, they must pick sides between demigods-usually the side that looks prettier. They never get to try a wholly different way.

Since Mr. Stover raised the subject of more recent literature, let's discuss Captain Nemo! Without a doubt, Jules Verne did tug at some of the same emotional strings as in classic tragedy. Nemo rails against the warmongering and oppressive "system" fighting it with great courage, ingenuity and success ... till he is brought low by his own arrogance and pride. Hubris, again. But, in this case, at least Nemo's rant against entrenched power gets heard. And note, he may be a genius, but he remains nothing without a skilled crew that shares his dream. (Again, the naval metaphor, leaving us with the best character of the book, the Nautilus!) This is a complex, hybrid tragedy, but one with lots of modernist elements, more than enough to call Verne a fellow revolutionary!

Let me also leap to defend Steven Spielberg, who actually strove hard to personalize German soldiers in Saving Private Ryan, at least as much as an American G. I. might have had time to do. (Limited point of view.) Especially impressive was the personal fight between two alpha warriors, and the way the winning German granted a nearby coward the chance to opt out ... only then, later, that coward gathered the courage to do his job. On a larger scale, can Mr. Stover truly not see this wonderful film as a true archetype of what I'm talking about? Myths that portray citizen soldiers standing up for their civilization, sometimes bickering, sometimes getting too angry, but nevertheless always returning to stand up?

it is not merely the fact that millions die that proves a tale to be anti-democratic. Millions are dying during Deep Space Nine and during Schindler's List! Yet, these dramas preach a very different lesson than kingly leadership or the authority of demigods. The crux is this: are people fighting and dying for elites, or for the accountable institutions, laws and general decency of a civilization that ought to be theirs to share and own? Government by, of and for the sapient?

The difference, in a truly modern tale, is that many of those "spear-carrier" millions get to do what they weren't allowed by Homer ... and are allowed to do only by accident in Star Wars. They do what our dads did, when a Great Leader roused Nazi romantics to follow him, aiming to end our democracy forever.

They stand up.

ITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT of folksy snapping of suspenders and straightening of bowtie, I suppose I have to get up and talk now, about what Learned Opposing Counsel has told you will be the Merits and Glories of Star Wars.

Well, I'm not gonna do it.

That's what I have witnesses for.

Besides, you're hip to the Merits and Glories already, or you wouldn't be reading this.

I'm here only to introduce myself and the subject, and to talk a little bit about the nature of the arguments you'll be reading. Along the way I'll clear up some minor points, and maybe highlight a few of the rhetorical games the Sith-sorry, the Prosecution-might be playing. Brevity being the soul of et cetera, I'll keep it short.

Short-ish.

Let's start right off with some straight truths.

First: I'm not exactly unbiased, and I'm sure as hell not going to pretend to be. In the interests of full disclosure, I'll tell you right up front that I have personally perpetrated three (that's three-count 'em) of those poor substitutes for real science fiction that are driving real SF off the shelves, including the novelization for Revenge of the Sith. Seeing as how one of the basic premises of this argument is a direct attack against my own work, I see no reason to take a high-minded tone. Since the Prosecution is clearly (and wisely) disinclined to accept a duel with lightsabers, I have reluctantly decided to settle for whipping them in print.

Second: as the author of the novelization of Revenge of the Sith, I occupy a privileged position in that I have had the pleasure of spending considerable time in a room with Mr. Lucas himself, discussing in detail certain elements of the Saga, including deeper implications of the destruction of the Jedi Order, the nature of the Force and any number of other things, some of which are still covered by the confidentiality clause in my contract. What this means is that I have access to a great deal of inside information, which I fully intend to use in the most ruthless manner possible without actually getting myself hauled off in binders by Lucasfilm Licensing stormtroopers.

Third: I openly admit that playing Defense gives me a number of advantages (for example, I got to read Learned Opposing Counsel's stuff before I had to write my own). The biggest one is that Our Side doesn't have to prove anything; it's the job of the Prosecution to make their case. All the Good Guys-excuse me, the Defense-have to do is demonstrate that the Prosecution, well, hasn't.

That they, in fact, can't. Ever.

That's my plan. That's the entire Defense Strategy.

Now, this will be an unusual trial for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it's taking place in a virtual space halfway between these pages and your imagination. I want you to keep that in mind; it's important, and we'll be coming back to it.

Another way in which this will be an unusual trial is that you'll be seeing an inversion of the customary relationship between Prosecution and Defense. In an ideal world, at least, the task of the Prosecution is to set forth an unbiased, unvarnished exhibition of the facts of the case, and it is then the task of the Defense to argue and obfuscate and generally aggressively advocate for the innocence of the defendant.