Star Wars on Trial (14 page)

As far as looking Yoda (and, for that matter, Obi-Wan) in the eye and saying, ahem, nertz... ? It appears to the Defense that this is exactly what Luke does. In your favorite Star Wars film. I guess you'd prefer that he be rude about it ... but I hope you might recover from your disappointment.

DAVID BRIN: One of my favorite SW characters, Qui Jon, represents everything worthy about the Jedi. He serves the Republic-and a trillion citizens-putting them before Yoda. Generous and honest, he wants a different Jedi path, one worth saving. Like the old Republic sure looks worth saving. (At worst, it is portrayed as a bit.)

Still, Mr. Stover's explication? The chosen one is ordained to help annihilate the Jedi order, every earnest apprentice and billions of bystanders, while paving the way for a despicable tyranny. All so that Luke and Leia can lead a cleansed Galaxy from the rubble, with a clear slate.

Um, what kind of political-moral-ethical lesson is that! "We must burn the village, in order to save it?" Might the people of Alderaan and Coruscant prefer to have a voice in this slate-clearing? Must Qui Jon's sweeter version of Jedi-ness-and those trillions of citizens-suffer because of Yoda's "imbalance"?

Isn't all this "balance" talk just a rationalization for light-dark demigod archetypes to run amok?

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: Hey, everybody, watch this: I'm going to do Opposing Counsel the courtesy he refused to do me. Give him a straight answer to a loaded question.

No.

It's not "just a rationalization." It's the looming shadow of a tragedy. It's the GFFA equivalent of the Delphic oracle prophesying that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother.

The operative word here is tragedy.

Yes, bad things happen to innocent people. The flaws of folk of good will are struck by the hammer of Fate, and everyone suffers. That's what happens in tragedy.

That, apparently, is what pisses off the Prosecution. I suspect Opposing Counsel would similarly fail to find political-moral-ethical uplift in Hamlet, or King Lear-and we are all aware, I hope, of Mr. Brin's intimate concern with Uplift. (See? I'll throw in shameless plugs for your stuff, too!)

Let's be clear: I am not placing Star Wars on a plane with Shakespeare and Sophocles, but the Prequel Trilogy is within their continuum. Part of their arc. Where it fits on that arc is a matter of opinion; that it belongs on that arc is not. Both by intention and by execution.

Must everyone suffer? Maybe not. Things could have turned out differently. If Yoda had been younger and more flexible. If Obi-Wan had been less tolerant of Anakin's flaws. If Anakin had been more honest with himself, and with others. If Qui-Gon Jinn (Opposing Counsel's favorite character) had been less arrogantly insistent-against all advice, all reason, and 25,000 years of tradition-that Anakin Skywalker must be taken from his mother and trained as a Jedi... .

These characters are not paragons of perfection. They are flawed, and their mistakes have devastating consequences.

Everyone suffers.

That's how it went. That's how it goes. That's not interpretation; that's the historical record, as presented by the films.

"Political-moral-ethical lessons" are where you find them. The Defense, as I believe I have stated before, is not here to dictate interpretation; anyone looking for a dictator will have to search the other side of the aisle-

DROID JUDGE: Mr. Stover, please....

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: Hey, I already 'fessed up about the cheap puns, okay?

What do you want from me?

Mr. Brin closed his responses to me with a speech. Here's mine.

All I'm trying to say is that on matters of interpretation, my opinion is exactly that: opinion. So is Opposing Counsel's. I try to correct errors on matters of fact, but on matters of interpretation, everyone is ... are you ready for this?

Free.

Even Opposing Counsel. I'm willing to grant that Opposing Counsel's interpretation is exactly as valid as that of any other Star Wars fan. No more-but also no less.

I have a great deal of respect for the personal take-the individual take-of every Star Wars fan of every age, species, make or model, and I would never dream of trying to tell them what they should think. Not even Opposing Counsel.

Nor would I dream of telling George Lucas what he should have done in the Saga. I deal with what is; "shoulds" and "oughts" and the rest of it can, I hope, be left to the bluenoses and the tubthumpers and all the rest of the red-in-the-face shouters.

Now, I'm willing to admit the possibility that I might be a little out of my depth here. Opposing Counsel is a legitmate Giant Brain out of Caltech, and-if I'm not mistaken-at least a one-time astrophysics professor in the UCa1 system, and here I am, having ended my formal education by struggling to complete a BFA in theatre from a Midwest liberal arts college. Yeah, it's true: I was an actor ... so all of you can probably imagine the intellectual handicap I might be laboring under, here. Basically, I'm just a lucky Star Wars fan who's still holding down a night job as a bartender. (Yes, I do-and not for fun, either.) So maybe I missed something along the way, and I'm hoping somebody can explain it to me. In small words.

In all his talk of examining premises, and all the things that SF and fantasy and Literature in General Should Do For You, it seems to me that Opposing Counsel has been dragging around an unexamined premise of his own, a somewhat Puritan hand-me-down that needs to be dragged from the closet and shaken out in the sunlight every once in a while, because the mold that grows on it can choke art to death.

It's this notion that art has to be Good For You. That beauty is insufficient, and truth irrelevant, unless there's also some Crunchy Whole-Grain Goodness that's gonna Improve Your Psychic BowelFunction along the way.

Opposing Counsel's view seems-from my admittedly only semi-educated perspective-to be a more limited case of this notion: that art should somehow serve as a comforting social glue. That it should shore up the values of our culture. Or-as he likes to put it-our civilization. That any work of art which does not do this-which presents any other way of living one's life, or which might even, all gods forbid, actually criticize one or more of Our Mutual Sacred Values-is ... well, somehow wrong. Bad. Or, as the Soviets used to say, decadent.

Now, I'm not gonna claim he's wrong. There's an argument to be made there. I just think he oughta make it, instead of simply assuming everybody agrees with him.

Because I don't. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

Hell, I'm not even gonna claim that he really believes that. I'm just saying that this is how it looks from over here, and I really think that he ought to come out and make it clear, one way or the other, so we know where we stand.

Does Opposing Counsel contend that the proper function of art is to be a cheerleader for the culture/civilization/state?

If so, fine. I'm willing to grant validity to his viewpoint. That's the crux of the Defense, after all: the freedom of alternate interpretations. That's what I'm here arguing for. Freedom of the individual to make up his, her or its own mind.

But if that's not his position, then I'd like to know-

Just what in the name of Thomas sufferin' Paine has he been up on his high horse about?

That's my speech. Let him wave the flag all he wants; I'll wave back with a Caravaggio.

DAVID BRIN: Your Honor, since the Defense Attorney keeps talking about my motives (I don't recall ever doing that to him) I need to interject a quick response. I am being portrayed as a judgmental, sourpuss schoolmarm who insists that everybody eat their broccoli and that every plot twist in a story should be analyzed to death. And then pursued and hectored in the afterlife! This is ad hominem argumentation of the worst order ... attacking the man, in order to distract from what he says.

DROID JUDGE: Point taken. But keep it under half a page.

DAVID BRIN: Thanks. In fact, I can relish art at many levels, from nutritious to pure brain candy. I was happy to enjoy the original move (A New Hope) in the spirit of innocent fun that it was offered. And it is THAT film that ever since inspired kids and adults to wave flashlights and breadsticks at each other, going zvhooooom! (I admit, I do it too! What cool archetypes.) Heck, going even further, I love genuinely goofy, good-natured mindless romps like The Fifth Element. I don't schoolmarm them.

But that's the point! Count up the number of hours, overall, that are spent in the Star Wars movies lecturing at us! About focus and purpose and concentration and attachments and the failures of democracy and Manichean mystical forces and prophecy and balance (note how Mr. Stover evaded answering that one) and elites justifying secrecy and lies. As relentless plot bummers mounted, so did the preachiness. What can one conclude?

Either George Lucas was inviting us to converse with him about heady matters-in which case this book and trial are simply taking him up on his kind offer-or else we in the Prosecution team have a perfect right to point at Mr. Lucas doing the very thing Mr. Stover accuses me of! Taking things way too seriously. Ruining fun with endless prattling lecturey, smarmy, contradictory preachifying that has turned a cool sci-fi romp into a thundering, ponderous pile of Tauntaun....

DROID JUDGE: All right, Mr. Prosecutor. I think you have vented enough, in reply to any ad hominem remarks by the Defense. Do you have a final cross-examination question for the witness?

DAVID BRIN: Just one? I'm tempted to ask Mr. Stover what he means by arm-waving vaguely at Star Wars and calling it "Truth." Huh? Or why political issues from 2006 belong in a book about a timeless moral saga. But this wrangle is frustrating enough for the reader. So let's pose a more direct challenge.

If the core lesson of Star Wars is about rejecting both the vile Sith and the evil Jedi, why is it that nobody out there seems to have noticed?

In the United Kingdom, for example, the fastest-growing religion that people write on census forms is "Jedi"! Yes, a few brash cynics are taunting Yoda on the Web sites. But are you saying George Lucas meant for millions to despise what Yoda has done? And that he succeeded?

We could test it, in a room full of (unwarned) Star Wars fans. If I give a dollar to Mr. Stover for every one who says, "Of course Yoda does evil!" ... will Mr. Stover give me a dollar for every one who calls Yoda "wise and good"?

DROID JUDGE: A challenge, then. Mr. Stover may choose to answer here, or else to take up Mr. Brin's dare online.

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: I'll do better than that. If Mr. Brin can point to the spot in the transcript where I contended that "the core lesson of Star Wars is about rejecting both the vile Sith and the evil Jedi" I'll get down on my knees right here in court and kiss his stanky-

DROID JUDGE: Mr Stover! I am programmed to keep this PG!

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: Sorry; I'm from Chicago. This is the point, Your Synthetic Honor: Mr. Brin has not-so-gracefully skated back to his earlier con game of trying to conflate being arrogant and mistaken with being evil. I hope I never said Yoda was Eeeevil, nor did I mean to characterize the Jedi as such; perhaps we should once again check the transcript.

I do my best not to use the E-word, except when it's flung around by Opposing Counsel. As I said before, I'm not a moralist; even pointing out that Mr. Brin appears to have Sith tendencies is not a moral judgment, it's merely an observation-one I've been reconsidering, in fact, after finding out he likes Qui-Gon so much; I like Qui-Gon, too (though now that I think about it, it was Qui-Gon who essentially infiltrated Darth Vader into the Jedi Order... !).

Hmm ... no wonder he's Brin's favorite....

Anyway, even if I had used the E-word in reference to Yoda, the Jedi, Mr Brin or anyone at all, that would be an expression of interpretation-my opinion-which would deserve no greater weight than the opinion of anyone else. Including Opposing Counsel. I do not claim to be an authority on such matters, nor do I receive supernatural advice on the subject.

I do find it curious, however-and I wonder if some few members of the jury might share my surprise-that Mr. Brin, who spent so much of his Opening Statement explaining to all you Star Wars fans out there that Yoda is nothing more than, in his words, "a vicious little oven mitt," now hopes to make some quick cash by betting that the vast majority of you will think he's wrong....

I mean, jeez. Talk about having your weed and smoking it too.... How high do you have to be to not see though that one? Is it just me, or does this sound like the Prosecution is conceding defeat?

I avoid stating the "core lessons" of any work of art, for two reasons. The first is that I don't believe the function of art is to teach me a lesson-

DAVID BRIN: Not even when a work of art spends every other minute preaching-

MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: -the second is that such pursuits always result in gross oversimplification. As I advise young writers (advice I once received from a writer older and far wiser than myself): "If you can state your theme in a sentence, don't write a story. Rent a billboard."

That being said, however, I will offer to the Court my own personal interpretation of what I see as central meanings of the two trilogies.

Original Trilogy: Salvation (not in the Biblical sense, so don't even start) comes through friendship and love, not violence.

Prequel Trilogy: Things fall apart, the center cannot hold... Nothing gold can stay-To hold anything beyond its time brings suffering.