David Brin and his opinions about Star Wars

This may be redundant, but I thought I'd post my reactions to Brin's article.

By now it's grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda

Sorry, Brin, but that's grammatically impossible - "agenda" is plural.

Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.


The whole saga is about the fall of a democratic republic and the rise of a monarchy. Elites do not rule in the Republic - the Jedi council does not rule in the Republic. The ruling body is the senate.

"Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.

I'm not even sure what he means by this. Is there some situation where the Jedi acted without evidence and were not held accountable? I can't think of it.

Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.

Close; should be "Any amount of sin can be forgiven".

True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.

There is not a single ruler in the six movies that I can think of that is in that position due to heredity. Not even the Emperor! Maybe Brin was confused by the whole "elected Queen" thing? Otherwise it's hard to guess what he might mean.

Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.

Well, yes. They can.

Above all, I never cared for the whole Nietzschian Ãœbermensch thing: the notion -- pervading a great many myths and legends -- that a good yarn has to be about demigods who are bigger, badder and better than normal folk by several orders of magnitude.

So all mythology is Nietzschian? That's a surprising development! Nietzsche's views were quite modern and quite unlike anything from ancient Greece or Rome. I wonder whether Brin really detests all literature from before about 1400.

Or the implication that we must always adhere to variations on a single story, a single theme, repeating the same prescribed plot outline over and over again.

This may be an implication of Campbell's, but I don't think it's valid when applied to Star Wars. The fundamental story of Vader (chosen one - great hero - fall - great champion of evil - redemption) is unlike any mythological story I'm familiar with. It's not just the same story again.

It is essential to understand the radical departure taken by genuine science fiction, which comes from a diametrically opposite literary tradition -- a new kind of storytelling that often rebels against those very same archetypes Campbell venerated. An upstart belief in progress, egalitarianism, positive-sum games -- and the slim but real possibility of decent human institutions.

Ah, so Brin condemns Star Wars because it doesn't adhere to his ideas of what the philosophy behind science fiction should be. Always be wary of people who tell you "THIS and nothing else is the philosophy of such and such a kind of book".

As for the literary elite, postmodernists despise science fiction because of the word "science," while their older colleagues -- steeped in Aristotle's "Poetics" -- find anathema the underlying assumption behind most high-quality SF: the bold assertion that there are no "eternal human verities."

Okay, this is a good point. But I can't help but think that it's just as short-sighted to write off Star Wars for not seeming to adhere to certain views as it is for the literary critics to write off science fiction for the same reason.

In contrast, "Oedipus Rex" is about as interesting as watching a hooked fish thrash futilely at the end of a line.

Okay, I guess he does hate all literature from before 1400.

They represent an agenda.

I would hope that a professional author could take some time to learn the difference between a singular and a plural.

They hiss and leer, or have red-glowing eyes, like in a Ralph Bakshi cartoon.

You mean like in The Lord of the Rings? Then why not say so? Perhaps he figures he can get away with

 

Good work, Aiwendil. My favourite bit:

Wow, I'd hate for people to condemn a work of art just because it adheres to some philosophical points they don't agree with. Wait a minute . . .

Now if only someone who supported Brin's argument could post some kind of response, we'd have a real debate going here.

 

I don't think Brin agrees with Brin, let alone anyone else.

I have cone to the conclusion that nobody could accidentally misunderstand so much about SW. He intentionally set out to demonize Lucas and the SW saga to vent his frustrations over the Box office bomb that was the Postman.

 

Good post Aiwendil apart from one thing in modern English agenda is the singular agendas is the plural so Brin was correct on that one.

From dictionary.com
Usage Note: It is true that Cicero would have used agendum to refer to a single item of business before the Roman Senate, with agenda as its plural. But in Modern English a phrase such as item on the agenda expresses the sense of agendum, and agenda is used as a singular noun to denote the set or list of such items, as in The agenda for the meeting has not yet been set. If a plural of agenda is required, the form should be agendas: The agendas of both meetings are exceptionally varied.

 

Certainly, due to constant misuse of the word, descriptive dictionaries will note it as singular. Modern dictionaries also include such monstrosities as "irregardless" and define "decimate" as "destroy utterly".

 

If we should look to the future and forget the past, why do the same mistakes keep happening. History repeats itself. Campbell's proof of likeness in many cultures demonstrates our shared experience.

Just a few reputes:

-Vada is not redeemed by the saving of Luke, but by his killing of Palpatine. If Rommel had killed Hitler, and surrendered to the allies in WW2, he would have been welcomed. War is War, both sides commit bad acts.

-I think Lucas is trying to return a sense of morality and myth to this world of artificial, anything goes attitude. The full Yoda line is "Fear turns to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering".
One cannot escape fear, nor anger. Anakin is made an example as to how to cope with confliction. He fails the test, as many real life people have.

-A Long time ago in a galexy far away, I think was an effort of Lucas to remove SW from reality in a sense of this earth, this humanity, this possible future, and also as a note from Matinee entertainment he is constrantly referencing.


Give Lucas a break, or come up with something as influencial and amazing, that becomes so ingrained in the culture of today.

 

Since this thread has been resurfaced its given me the chance to read the article again and this time really see someone whose agendum is just to discredit a visionary, perhaps because the simplicity of his vision is the reason for its power. SW addresses something thats very powerful no matter how its told or who tells it: a fatherless child, or more accurately put: a fatherless BOY. Boys need fathers. REAL fathers. Not big brothers, not a council of teachers, but a father. A boy thats doesent have a positive, authoritive male figure throughout his childhood is headed for the darkside. SW is really that simple and yet its told in such a majestic and romantic fashion that sometimes people get washed up in it and miss that point totally. When your gifted and you dont have a dad to watch your back growing up, the Palpatines of the world come out of the shadows.

 

Vader is not redeemed by the saving of Luke, but by his killing of Palpatine. If Rommel had killed Hitler, and surrendered to the allies in WW2, he would have been welcomed. War is War, both sides commit bad acts.

I would say it was both. Him saving Luke, and killing Palpaitne.

 

I have to agree with above. Its not the one act that saves Anakin, but the fullfilling of his destiny. Bringing balance to the force by killing Palps along with saving Lukes life. You know I think a lot about these movies and what could be or is etc, but some ppl need to stop overthinking these movies.

 

-Vada is not redeemed by the saving of Luke, but by his killing of Palpatine. If Rommel had killed Hitler, and surrendered to the allies in WW2, he would have been welcomed. War is War, both sides commit bad acts.

I think it's ultimately both, but more the opposite of what you're saying. A big theme of Lucas' work is symbiosis and living beings working together. Vader is only justified in destroying Palpatine by acting defensively (saving Luke's life), and Palpatine causes his own demise by acting out of a destructive nature. Had Vader just come out and killed Palpatine with a lightsaber, he would have been acting out of aggression.

It is only through the preservation of Luke's life, the son and representation of both society's and Anakin's future, that Anakin can truly redeem himself, because his son ultimately carries the story of his failure to lead mankind into the next generation.

But, yes, removing the element that is tainting the Galaxy (and the Force) as a whole is a big step towards making the Galaxy a better place, but had he done so under any other circumstances, Vader himself may have remained evil.


The most smugly ignorant comment by Brin had to be his take on the switching of allegiance: Characters who get angry join the dark side. Brin wanted to know of a single case of someone getting so upset at a hated enemy that he joined them.

As for Brin's commentary on people who ultimately embrace their enemy, it is a common tactic in POW camps and in propaganda in general to get people to compromise themselves and make contradictory statements to turn against their allies. In a dictatorship, such as the Empire, Lucas is showing this on both a micro (Anakin->Vader) and macro (Republic->Empire) scale. The Republic is firm in its ideals as a functioning democracy, but as we see in the PT, fear turns it against itself and society is suddenly convinced that democracy does not work, favoring a military machine that ends up becoming the Empire.

 

This Brin guy needs help if you ask me no I'm serious he's talking about Star Wars if it were a piece of earths history like the second world war and painting GL as the Hitler figure of this empire that is Star Wars this guy is a wacko.

 

I do wonder what Brin's problem was. I had heard of him before and I'm guessing he is a pretty good sci-fi writer, but what the heck is his problem? Star Wars is just a movie! Maybe he really is jealous of Lucas. I don't know, but it seems wierd that a grown man would get so angry and worked up about a movie series. And, yeah, I find most of his points to be highly incorrect and ill conceived.

 

I dont like Brins' stance on SW, but I do love his works. The guy's a gifted writer. Some pretty deep stuff that are also pretty easy reads, which is rare in adult science fiction. His " Uplift " books are on par with Asimovs " Foundation " novels and Donaldsons " Thomas Covenant " books. Brin is attempting prophetic social science, like Wells and Heinlein; Jules Verne, too, if you want to go WAY back. Too bad he hates SW. He just cant differentiate theory based science fiction with allegorical, mythological fantasy, which puts him in the same boat as alot of the top contemporary science fiction writers. They think because its set in space with aliens and spaceships that its their realm and Lucas shouldnt have trespassed. Too bad.

 

Upped for the sake of discussion.

Try to attack Brin's argument while refraining from calling him an idiot. Some of you know what I mean.

 

I still dont agree with the article but the guy is a brilliant writer. " The Practice Effect " and " The Postman " are really wonderful. Ill reiterate what I said months ago and thats that traditional sci-fi writers , who are closer to real scientists than storytellers, seem to have a misplaced anger at Lucas for setting his fantasy and myth in space, which they perceive as their realm, which is ridiculous.

 

On March 13, 2004, when I created this topic, I never included a link.
So I'm a bit late but here is the link to the article,

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/

I'm going to re-read it in the morning and hopefully offer some additional comments to what I've already said about it.

-Seldon

 

I agree with some of his points, true, but I think he has the whole Vader part wrong (see above post about Rommel killing Hitler), and the Jedi all confused.


(In a hurry now, but I might come back to give a longer review)

 

I disagree with Mr. Brin. I also wonder if perhaps he hasn't made an error when he said that SW was about the elites of that society. Does anybody remember what the heroes of the OT were doing when they gathered together? Han and Chewie were in a wretched hive of scum and villainy. They were smugglers. Luke was a farmer. Ben was a crazy hermit. Leia was a princess without a planet.

 

This guy just plain doesn't get it if he thinks the message of SW is normal emotions leading to your destruction. He needs to rewatch ROTJ.

 

Personally, I think the man jumps to a few too many conclusions. However, I think that he definitely has a point about the villians in the story. Although I love Vader-great cinematic presence-it seems to really fly in the face of life that someone would openly refer to themselves as being a minion of of the "Darkside" and openly endorse hate for its negative attributes. It's like they're screaming "Hey, Look, I'm a bad guy!!!" I personally would have liked it if Palpatine and Vader thought that they were on the side of good and that the Jedi were backwards dogmatists. It would have made for a more compelling, and tempting, moral dilemma and it worked beautifully for KOTOR. It's sad that a derivitive product offers a more complicated and rewarding view of the villians than the movies.

 

The problem with that is that Star Wars is one of those stories that is between good and evil, white and black. It is not an exploration of the gray areas. There are different ways to tell a story, and Lucas chose to write one where good and evil are clearly defined.
I don't have a problem with that.

-Seldon

 

I think David Brin missed the point of Star Wars. Hw seems to think the Jedi are gods, which they are not. They have unusual powers and abilities, but how does that make them gods. The scariest thing he said was that he wanted to bottle up Superman's abilities and give it to everyone. You can't hand out Superman's abilities or Jedi abilities to everyone. Why do the Jedi train for so long? So they can control their abilities. You have to be taught control before getting Superman or Jedi powers, or else chaos reigns.

 

If the prequels say anything in regard to the Jedi, it is that even "gods" can be destroyed. The Jedi weaknesses are exploited and they are crushed.

-Seldon

 

I, as yet, have not read all of Brin's article posted at the top of this thread. Having read the first half-dozen paragraphs and feeling his comments were misplaced I scrolled down to look how long it lasted, and it always seems an awful waste of time to continue to read something I disagree with - experience tells me I rarely change my opinion by the end and that I've probably only done it to satisfy my own argument as I shout at the screen.

As a result, I didn't reach the point where he refers to the forgiveness of Vader (referred to by someone as "The author is upset that Star Wars forgives Vader.") so what I have to say is just based on the posts responding to the article. I've read all the responses with great interest.

My point is that, based on the age of this thread (I'm therefore assuming Brin wrote his piece well before the OT DVD release) it might be reasonable to say that Brin's point regarding the 'forgiveness' of Vader has been legitimized by Lucas himself.

The replacement made in the ROTJ DVD, removing Sebastian Shaw (the Vader Anakin) in preference for a pre-Sith Anakin could possibly be used to justify Brin's stance - we cannot forgive Vader. Vader is dead. Long live Anakin Skywalker.

I can't say I know Lucas' justification for making the alteration, perhaps it was just a continuity thing with the PT and early promotion for ROTS. But perhaps it was in Lucas' mind that now that we have a pre-Sith Anakin we can forgive him and rejoice his redemption, discarding the 'Anakin' that lived inside Vader's suit.

 

It is painfully obvious that Brin has an agenda (agendum? ) of his own. Let me see if I can make it less painful. Please keep in mind that I am merely speculating here, and doing so on things I'm not really qualified to guess at.

I think his arguments can be boiled down to the dangers of the "hero myth". Brin calls it the "demigod myth" and "elitism", but I will stick to "hero" to avoid being made into pedant-poodoo.

The "hero myth" is the idea that some people are "bigger" (i.e., stronger, smarter, richer, braver, etc.) than others, and that these people are important. This is actually true. However, this often leads to the idea that "smaller" people are unimportant, which is wrong. Democracy is an attempt to correct this psychological trend.

Popular movies focus on heroes, or at least on individuals. Why? Because people are more interested in other people than they are in abstract concepts. You can't get excited over a historical force without proper training. You don't cry when an economic trend dies, unless it has some impact on you or someone you know. It's wired into our brains.

I think I should point out that sometimes individual people can be seen as abstract concepts as well. Hitler is one such example. Brin pointed out that we wouldn't forgive Hitler if we knew that he had saved his own son, but I think some of us would - if we had known Hitler as intimately as we had known Vader.

Because that's what stories do. They make us care about the characters, one way or the other (at least, the good ones do). How do they do this? Usually by making the characters people we can easily relate to. If this means broad archetypes in cliché'd situations, so be it. If it means making the villains ugly and the heroes beautiful - sure, why not? It's not like we can get into every single character's head in two hours.

Take a look at Star Trek and you'll see the same things Brin was ranting against in Star Wars: heroes and villains and people-being-people. In fact, take a good, close look at the movie The Postman or even Brin's book that the film was based on. (Although I will admit that the book had some disturbing things to say about the "hero myth". But it's still a story about a hero, nevertheless.)

All "hero" stories are subliminally un-democratic by their very nature. Even the ones where the hero is fighting for democracy. The best you can do is try to tell the story in a way that warns against abuses of the "hero myth", which I think Star Wars does rather well.

My overall conclusion is that Brin has become overly passionate about something he cares about very much, and because of this he is seeing things through a strangely tinted glass. Personally, I agree with him on the dangers of the "hero myth" - at least I think I do, unless I've read his article through strange filters of my own.