The debate leaves the Internet

[Darth Servo]

To elaborate further, Mr Brins definition eliminates WotW and 2010 (at least the movie version--haven't read the book) because in both cases humanity was on the verge of being wiped out when a deux ex machina saves the day. Robin Hood IS sci-fi because it has the "common folk" rebelling against the nobility.

[King Kong]

From looking at the official book site here, the book is constructed as much like a court case as possible, listing eight 'charges' against the Star Wars franchise.

These charges are:

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 substitute for real science fiction and are driving real SF off the shelves.

4. SF 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 popular culture.

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.

What do people think of these charges? The first and second seem to be well demolished by Wong's response to Brin's essay. The third, fourth, fifth, and eighth charges seem to be primarily value judgments, but I don't have any statistics to show that Star Wars novels aren't dominating the SF market or that the perception of SF by the public hasn't been badly affected by Star Wars. The sixth seems bizarre and is not really a charge. The seventh is just stupid.

Essays accompany each of these charges, either for the prosecution or the defense. Interestingly, there are more essays for the defense than the prosecution. Only an essay for the defense addresses the first charge, and there are three essays for the defense on the third charge, but only one for the prosecution. Karen Traviss is one of the essayists for the defense on the third charge.

Brin and Stover only write the opening and closing statements, as well as the introductions. From what I've seen from the preview of the book on the site, Brin (in his opening statement) seems to be going for the same demi-god politics and the danger of anger arguments that Wong addressed in his response. He also seems to be focused on how "mean people get yucky-looking", suggesting that kids will learn from Star Wars that ugly people are evil, or that if they become ugly, then they will be evil (or something).

The moral arguments against Star Wars seem ridiculous to me, but I am interested in reading the essays about how it has affected science fiction.

[Bounty]

4. SF filmmaking has been reduced by Star Wars to poorly written special effects extravaganzas.

I'd blame this more on The Matrix then Star Wars. While TMP did move away from good storytelling and into CGI-wank, it only rode on the train, it didn't set it in motion.

7. Women in Star Wars are portrayed as fundamentally weak.

Any scene with Leia kicks this idea squarely in the nuts. It wouldn't have hurt to show women as something other then plot devices in the PT, though.

[Spacebeard]

4. SF filmmaking has been reduced by Star Wars to poorly written special effects extravaganzas.

I'd blame this more on The Matrix then Star Wars. While TMP did move away from good storytelling and into CGI-wank, it only rode on the train, it didn't set it in motion.

Don't forget about all of the "Attack of the Giant Fill-in-the-Blank" movies from the 50s. Well-written, story-driven SF films have always been the exception rather than the rule.

[Crossroads Inc.]

1. The politics of Star Wars are anti-democratic and elitist.

Yes. Which is why the whole POINT of the movie is to CHANGE the anti-democratic ruler.

2. While claiming mythic significance, Star Wars portrays no admirable religious or ethical beliefs.

Because "The Force" and striving for a personal balance of rules and moral guidlines has nothing to do with religious or ethical beliefs

3. Star Wars novels are poor substitute for real science fiction and are driving real SF off the shelves.

Which is why in any book store all we see is SW Books to the exclusion of anything else... Right?

4. SF filmmaking has been reduced by Star Wars to poorly written special effects extravaganzas.

<_<
>_>
Guilty on this count

5. Star Wars has dumbed down the perception of science fiction in popular culture.

As opposed to the mindless Treknobable which has weekly 'Re-Route all power through the main deflector dish" right?

6. Star Wars pretends to be science fiction, but is really fantasy.

Because with all those spaceships, lasers, aliens and blasters... None of THAT is sci-fi at all.

7. Women in Star Wars are portrayed as fundamentally weak.

Tell that to Leia, Mara-Jade, and sevral others who would kick you square in the nads for that statment,

8. The plot holes and logical gaps in Star Wars make it ill-suited for an intelligent viewer.

Because after all, Star Wars is the ONLY show ith plotholes, everything else is perfect.

[NoXion]

What the fuck? I honestly can't believe that Brin thinks his definition of sci-fi is valid. I'm actually quite fond of the trope of a utopian future for mankind (Plus some aggressive alien powers to make things interesting mind you), but to say that that is the one and only defining characteristic of science fiction is absurd on the face of it.

It just boggles my mind. There are loads of dystopian sci-fi 'verses. Brin is clearly delusional.

[NecronLord]

1. The politics of Star Wars are anti-democratic and elitist.

Yes. Which is why the whole POINT of the movie is to CHANGE the anti-democratic ruler.

I believe he's talking about Leia. Leia seems to have gotten her job through pure nepotism. She's certainly not someone I'd want representing me.

[Dooey Jo]

1. The politics of Star Wars are anti-democratic and elitist.

If it this is true (which I cannot know without knowing what exactly he's talking about), so fucking what? Does Brin read stories like the Arthurian legends and go "OMFG this is anti-democratic and elitist propaganda" and throw the book away? Oh wait, he really does that, doesn't he...

2. While claiming mythic significance, Star Wars portrays no admirable religious or ethical beliefs.

Star Wars claims no such things, but people had attributed it to it. And mythic themes and messages aren't really that hard to find, but then again, this is the guy that managed to conclude from watching TPM that the Jedi were the rulers of the galaxy, isn't it.

3. Star Wars novels are poor substitute for real science fiction and are driving real SF off the shelves.

What he really means is that people find SW novels better than his own and he doesn't like that.

4. SF filmmaking has been reduced by Star Wars to poorly written special effects extravaganzas.

Yes, because good writing used to be an major part of SF movies, with such unforgettable classics as Plan 9 and innumerable other atrocities.

5. Star Wars has dumbed down the perception of science fiction in popular culture.

No, SF was pretty damn dumb even before Star Wars. If anything, it popularised it, for which Brin should be thankful.

6. Star Wars pretends to be science fiction, but is really fantasy.

So what? It's a fantastic story in a science fiction setting. What a huge crime against SF and humanity.

7. Women in Star Wars are portrayed as fundamentally weak.

Yes, because that's why two of the most important people of the Rebel Alliance where women, and also why the three rulers of Naboo that we saw where also all women. Seems like Brin once again shows that he must have been watching an entirely different set of movies from the rest of us.

8. The plot holes and logical gaps in Star Wars make it ill-suited for an intelligent viewer.

Millions of intelligent viewers disagree.

[Darth Servo]

So...anyone plan on signing up on their message board and blasting Brin's BS?

[General Soontir Fel]

He also seems to be focused on how "mean people get yucky-looking", suggesting that kids will learn from Star Wars that ugly people are evil, or that if they become ugly, then they will be evil (or something).

Talk about confusing cause and effect....

I believe he's talking about Leia. Leia seems to have gotten her job through pure nepotism. She's certainly not someone I'd want representing me.

While true, it's nepotism on the part of Bail Organa, not Anakin Skywalker, so using that as an argument for 'Force-using rulers', as Brin seems to, is stupid.

[Spacebeard]

I believe he's talking about Leia. Leia seems to have gotten her job through pure nepotism. She's certainly not someone I'd want representing me.

While true, it's nepotism on the part of Bail Organa, not Anakin Skywalker, so using that as an argument for 'Force-using rulers', as Brin seems to, is stupid.

His first essay also claims that the rebels seek to simply replace rulership by Palpatine with rulership by Leia, which is patently false. He's blowing the title "princess" out of proportion, showing either that he slept through the movies or is being knowingly dishonest.

[Batman]

Lying through his teeth seems to be more appropriate.

[Darth Wong]

This kind of shit has been tried before. In 1954, at the height of McCarthyism, a guy named Dr. Wertham assailed superhero comic-books as being "unAmerican" because they promoted anti-egalitarian and anti-meritocracy values by depicting some people as having inherent advantages over others (I can only imagine how horrified he would have been at his biologist texts which depicted scandalously unAmerican notions of genetic inequality). In fact, believe it or not, there were actually Senate hearings on the subject of whether the comicbook character "Superman" was unAmerican.

In any case, it is quite startling how closely Brin's rhetoric mirrors that of Dr. Wertham's hysterical McCarthyite rantings. Maybe he should get together with Ann Coulter and call for Senate hearings on whether Star Wars is anti-American, since the only real difference between 1954 and 2006 in terms of right-wing rhetoric is that the word has changed from "unAmerican" to "anti-American".

[Vympel]

I've seen some of Brin's alleged "plot holes" claims. They're just as stupid as his idiotic essay.

[Adrian Laguna]

Examples please? I could use a good laugh.

[Srynerson]

3. Star Wars novels are poor substitute for real science fiction and are driving real SF off the shelves.

As someone with an economics degree I feel compelled to offer the observation that if Product X is "driving" Product Y from the market, that's actually considered strong evidence that Product X is a good substitute for Product Y, since it indicates that consumers would rather spend their scarce dollars on Product X.

[Darth Wong]

In my experience, most self-declared "real science fiction" is no more realistic than Star Wars. It simply puts on more airs of realism, much as Star Trek does, by showering you with technobabble and meaningless pseudo-mechanisms for its phenomena.

[Batman]

Isn't real Science Fiction a contradiction in terms anyway?
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of Superman being un/anti-american.

[AdmiralKanos]

Isn't real Science Fiction a contradiction in terms anyway?

Yes.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of Superman being un/anti-american.

Look up the Senate hearings on Superman in 1954. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction, and McCarthyism was one of the strangest truths of all. The truly frightening thing is how McCarthyism has quietly come back into vogue.

[Vympel]

I read about that 50s stuff- I also recall this idiot claiming that artists would draw dirty pictures within pictures trying to corrupt the minds of the youth- they'd refer to a triangular patch on some guy's shoulder and say it was meant to be a vagina.

[Ghost Rider]

I read about that 50s stuff- I also recall this idiot claiming that artists would draw dirty pictures within pictures trying to corrupt the minds of the youth- they'd refer to a triangular patch on some guy's shoulder and say it was meant to be a vagina.

Ah, Dr Wertham...the reason the comics got a creator code and why they destroyed 90% of the industry EXCEPT bland superheroics.

And the basis of his research? The Slippery slope of deliquents also read comics and "hidden" signals in them.

[Eleas]

3. Star Wars novels are poor substitute for real science fiction and are driving real SF off the shelves.

As someone with an economics degree I feel compelled to offer the observation that if Product X is "driving" Product Y from the market, that's actually considered strong evidence that Product X is a good substitute for Product Y, since it indicates that consumers would rather spend their scarce dollars on Product X.

That's an appeal to popularity, but it actually has a degree of merit. Fiction is entertainment after all, and what we know under the heading "Star Wars novels" have easily been more commercially successful than any single work from a "grand master of science fiction." Much in the same way, statistics will show reality shows like Survivor or The Real World to be far more economically successful than any one sci fi show, excepting, possibly, Trek. Because their production costs are so insanely low, we'd be forced to conclude that reality shows, by virtue of popularity, are an equally good substitute for most other TV shows.

And from an economical perspective, that'd probably be correct. Luckily, nothing says the economical perspective is relevant to our enjoyment.

Most SW novels, like Star Trek Voyager and Ricki Lake, intentionally pander to a deplorably low common denominator. Brilliant authorship or cinematography may net you popular acclaim, but all too frequently it's in the marketing and recycling of tried and true concepts that the big bucks lie.

[General Soontir Fel]

In my experience, most self-declared "real science fiction" is no more realistic than Star Wars. It simply puts on more airs of realism, much as Star Trek does, by showering you with technobabble and meaningless pseudo-mechanisms for its phenomena.

I thought The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was meant to parody such "explanations".

Somewhere, I've read this suggested definition for genres of fiction:

Realistic fiction is something that could happen right now.

Historical fiction is something that could have happened sometime in the past.

Science fiction is something that could potentially happen in the future.

Everything else is fantasy.

Of course, many writers/publishers/producers won't like that, because this will put Wars, Trek, BSG, and Bab5, among other things, squarely into the realm of fantasy, right next to Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Buffy. And "sci-fi" just sounds cooler.

Of course, definitions cannot be legislated. Terms mean what people think they mean, and in the popular imagination, spaceships, rayguns, and aliens make sci-fi. Star Wars is considered borderline because of the Force.

But if Star Wars is officially declared fantasy tomorrow, it won't make people stop buying SW books in favor of "real" sci-fi. "Sci-fi" is not the marketing tool used to sell SW--at least, not anymore. The Star Wars trademark itself is the marketing tool. People will buy SW no matter what genre you slap on it.

[mr friendly guy]

I read about that 50s stuff- I also recall this idiot claiming that artists would draw dirty pictures within pictures trying to corrupt the minds of the youth- they'd refer to a triangular patch on some guy's shoulder and say it was meant to be a vagina.

And lets not forget Wertham's claim that Batman and Robin were homosexual partners.

[Eleas]

And lets not forget Wertham's claim that Batman and Robin were homosexual partners.

Obviously he was grasping at straws, there.