Star Wars on Trial: The Force Awakens Edition: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Debate the Most Popular Science Fiction Films of All Time

Not able to classify myself a Sci-Fi geek, and not a particular fan of Star Wars (although I recall being thrilled by the original Star Wars), I approached this book from a point of view I thought would be largely neutral. It turned out during reading that I sided almost entirely with Brin (prosecution) at the beginning and ended more neutral than I began--a self-revelation that I found refreshing. I found the actual witness testimony (the essays) to be highly entertaining and illuminating, but the cross-examinations more tiring and often belittling than valuable to the book; although it would hardly be a trial without them. By the end of the book, I was ready to be done with it, capped off effectively by the final closing argument which did nothing but enrage me. Hmmm... I am probably not a member of the demographic this book may be aimed at. However, having never been tempted to buy any of the additional Star Wars merchandise or novelizations (okay, I admit I would like to build the lego ships), or even to watch Episodes I, II, or III more than once, it was a nice glimpse into what these other books have to offer--which for some reason I had always assumed were just more of the same caliber as the movies themselves or worse (cranked out drivel). Overall, I give this a 3.5-4.0 because I largely enjoyed the essays, and in the end, learned a lot more about the EU (The Extended Universe) than I would have had I continued on in my Star Wars starved existence. One of the other reviewers said it was a must for a "complete" Star Wars collection. I would say, it is a must for anyone who is determined to have a minimalist Star Wars collection.

Intellectually, the Prosecution wins the case with flying colors. Emotionally though, the Defense makes some very good points. The book is written with humor and enthusiasm, all contributors from both sides are obviously having fun and it should be noted that everybody acknowledges the fun and entertainment value of Star Wars and its ability to make us dream. Including David Brin who gives praise and respect to George Lucas in his opening statement (p.47). I think the book will appeal not only to Star Wars critics, but to its fans as well. An extremely entertaining read.

If you like the SW universe and think it's fine as-is, don't get this. If you dislike the SW universe and share the opinions Dr. Brin expressed in his salon.com article - take a pass here. If you like the SW universe, but ever found yourself feeling a little disturbed by the implications of certain scenes or events in the movies, GET THIS. Brin gets WAY too caught up in delivering his panegyric about American society and humanist values, but that doesn't mean the man can't make a few valid shots. The grousing about whether SW belongs on the fantasy or SF shelf is ridiculous. It's like trying to argue if Firefly belongs on the SF or Western shelf. Ditto with the usual "death of the midlist" argument and "dumbing down SF" arguments that also undercut their argument they're populists who trust the common man (after all, the common man isn't paying attention to the REAL story. Furthermore, they read THOSE books, and not the ones who will Uplift - pun intentional - them). The upside is that Karen Traviss's essay is one of several hilarious rebuttals. Many of these arguments are like really good fanfic - they stretch the limits of that universe and make may out of the holes and bugs they find there. Some get really creative in explaining certain things - I'm thinking Brin's take on Yoda and Metzger's idea of the Jedi as more or less like Neo from the Matrix - exploiters of the universe's programming bugs. These guys don't go far into the Expanded U, so don't expect any debate on the Vong or the Ruusan events. If you wanted to pass this along to your fellow SW fans, though, I'm sure they'd love to expand it to those.

Before you read the review, I do give some things away, so be warned! Star Wars On Trial was fun to read and even made a few points that I had not thought of before. Oh, they had the normal stuff - weak or bad science, plot holes, stupid characters. Some of it was new - never thought of the Jedi as being just as bad as the Sith. Not Evil, as much as overbearing, too powerful, too smug. The idea that bringing balance back to the Force meant destroying both the Jedi and the Sith was a new idea that hit me like a train from behind. Also, on a more serious note, the chapters dealing with sexism really did seem to make me think about many of the scenes in which the female characters seem to do nothing to help the plot, their fellow comrades or the Republic - Old or New. And they could have done so much. A must for any fan of the movies but be prepared to laugh, cry and, yes, sometimes wonder if the people in the book are sometimes taking the whole thing too seriously.

Back in 1999, physics professor, NASA consultant, and science fiction writer David Brin contributed an essay to Salon.com highlighting the logical inconsistencies in the (up until then) four Star Wars films and pointing out what he saw as the darker philosophical and ethical underpinnings of the series - a feudal universe in which elite, super-powered beings control the fate of civilization, a galaxy where might is right, in which the life of the commoner is to be ruled by The Jedi or The Sith. "'Star Wars' Despots vs. 'Star Trek' Populists" generated a tremendous amount of interest and feedback from Star Wars and science fiction fans and over the years on his own website Brin came back to the topic now and then, (often, he laments as an aside in "Star Wars on Trial," taking time away from his other writing projects). With the release last year of the final chapter in the Star Wars film series, Brin is back to update his arguments and lead the prosecution in "Star Wars on Trial," a book-length collection of critical essays on the six-film cycle and its relationship to film-making and science-fiction. The book is organized conceptually around a trial, with a prosecutor leveling charges and a defense counsel attempting to poke holes in the state's case. The six charges brought to court are, in order: 1) The Politics of Star Wars Are Anti-Democratic and Elitist; 2) While Claiming Mythic Significance, Star Wars Portrays No Admirable Religious or Ethical Beliefs; 3) Star Wars Novels Are Poor Substitutes for Real Science Fiction and Are Driving Real SF off the Shelves; 4) Science Fiction Filmmaking Has Been Reduced by Star Wars to Poorly Written Special Effects Extravaganzas.; 5) Star Wars Has Dumbed Down the Perception of Science Fiction in the Popular Imagination; 6) Star Wars Pretends to Be Science Fiction, but Is Really Fantasy; 7) Women in Star Wars Are Portrayed as Fundamentally Weak; 8) The Plot Holes and Logical Gaps in Star Wars Make It Ill-Suited for an Intelligent Viewer. Each charge is argued in separate essays, both for the prosecution and the defense. In between the essays are short chapters in which the prosecutor and the defense cross exam the essayists and address the bench on procedure issues. Leading the defense and providing opening and closing arguments in this literary trial is three-time Star Wars novelist Matthew Woodring Stover (Traitor, Shatterpoint, Revenge of the Sith), a writer whose books I have enjoyed but for whom I have lost some not small measure of respect after reading his smarmy ripostes to Brin's more reasoned arguments. It's not necessarily that Brin's ideas are better (sometimes they are, sometimes not); it's just that Brin is more erudite. Stover comes off like one of those annoying people you read in usenet forums who, when he can't make a cogent argument, resorts to humor to deflect attention from his lack of a reasoned counter argument, or to avoid having to admit he is wrong. One t