I was watching PBS on astronomy a little while ago. it was all about observatories and the Hubbell Deep Field.

Then it finally hit me! And then I understood better why some have trouble picking out the differences between Fantasy and SciFi. I was thinking about why Star Trek has so many temporal and alternate time line episodes in its long history, and other technology matters.

Simply put, Star Wars is not SciFi. I can't think of any reason why I would call it SciFi, other than its placement in a distant universe while using advanced (but unchanging) technology.

So I looked for that issue online. . . found a lot, but this caught my eye:

LINK HERE

See book link above. Here is a review; there are others.

>> 5.0 out of 5 stars The most fun I've had reading Star Wars in a long time
By ShriDurga (Japan)

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; 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 the whole, the prosecution makes its best case on textual matters, picking at the obvious inconsistencies within the films and demonstrating what everyone who has seen them has known all along, that George Lucas is a poor writer who suffered moreover from having to force the plot when he found he had to make sequels and later prequels. There's also a devastating argument from real-life attorney John C. Wright demonstrating the lack of religious content in the Star Wars universe, in addition to a well-argued essay from astrophysicist Jeanne Cavelos outlining the evisceration of the two major females in the series, Leia and Padme, who go from being strong, independent characters to stereotypical damsels-in-distress.

For its part, the defense makes its best case on the wider issue of cultural matters, on the effect of Star Wars on science fiction and filmmaking. Novelist Karen Traviss, one of the most popular of the current crop of Star Wars authors, argues convincingly that Star Wars literature can be more than turgid prose hastily churned out for cash by revealing some of the positive changes she was forced to make in her own writing when commissioned to write her first Star Wars novel. And addressing the complaint that Star Wars fiction is driving "real" science fiction off bookstore shelves, novelist Laura Resnick points out that the success of Star Wars fiction has in fact provided publisher Del Rey the financial clout to expand its original science fiction publishing.

There are several other well-written and thought provoking essays in this collection addressing issues wider than Star Wars - such as the nature science fiction, the push and pull between art and entertainment, the economics of publishing and film making - that make this an interesting read for those that might like to delve into some of the issues debated among aficionados of science fiction and Star Wars.

For those interested in pursuing some of the issues raised in Star Wars on Trial, publisher PopSmart has a dedicated online forum (http://www.starwarsontrial.com) where you can participate in discussion with other readers and some of the essayists. <<

What do I say? I love SW and ST, for starters.

His points above:

#1 does not matter to me. It is a story.
#2 I don't fully agree with.
#3 I don't know if "real" SciFi has been driven off the shelves.
#4 May be true but is not a function necessarily of SW but of many things.
#5 I would say there are misperceptions, not "dumbed down".
#6 I agree with.
#7 Leia was "weak"?? I don't see this one. Padme was weak? There were female Jedis.
#8 I could drive the moon through the plot holes in the latest Star Trek! I don't agree with this point. Never saw any as big as what I saw in the latest ST film, which was great fun.

I should add I have seen NO "religious content" in Star Trek, ever. That has always vexed me. Never has the word "Christianity" even been mentioned, not any other current religious custom or holiday. So criticism of SW on this is absurd as ST has had many many hundreds of television episodes in addition to the movies.

My time is short now, but must be an interesting discussion.

You can read the other reviews at that link, and then get and read, and debate, the book, if you wish.

I'm sorry, I don't have the time to post very much--and I think you've covered some major points pretty well on your own--but I will say:
I think one of the biggest reasons Star Wars gets called science fiction is: it has space ships and laser weapons. (I was once told at a writers' conference that the industry shorthand for science fiction was the presence of space ships.)
Some people do maintain that true science fiction is only that which involves taking current technology and imagining future or alternative uses/improvements, etc., of it. Scientific types who do not believe alien life exists will toss out any so-called sci-fi story which contains aliens. And so on.
I think Star Wars is a lovely blend of fantasy and science fiction.
...Oh, and I suppose it's difficult for the marketing people at publishing houses or the managers of bookstores to categorise things, so they just start lumping things together, and Stardust gets stuck on the shelf next to Starship Troopers. But it does make it easier to put Star Wars on the shelf.

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

I absolutely disagree. Star Wars initially shows a fascist government in the OT, and then a constitutional republic in decline is highlighted in the PT. If anything SW places the viewer in the midst of governmental decline.

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

Better to mention Angels (TPM) and hell (ESB), than present an antiseptic, sterilized, and God-free Star Trek. In all seriousness, mythology and religion are not always synonymous. Star Wars is more Zen Buddhist than Zen Buddhism.

Charge #3: Star Wars novels are poor substitutes for real science fiction and are driving real SF off the shelves.

Charge #6 negates this argument entirely. You can't argue that Star Wars is poor science fiction and then argue it's not science fiction at all. It's either one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

Charge #4: Science fiction filmmaking has been reduced by Star Wars to poorly written special effects extravaganzas.

I'd say that Whedon's Serenity, Cameron's The Abyss, and RDM's Battlestar Galactica were pretty well written and had brilliant special effects. If anything expectations set by sci-fi fans are of a higher caliber. Not only do they expect brilliant effects, they also expect a damn good yarn.

Charge #5: Star Wars has dumbed down the perception of science fiction in the popular imagination.

Dumbed down? If there had been no Star Wars, there probably would never have been Lynch's Dune, or the resurgence of Trek in the 80's. Star Wars did more for Science Fiction & Fantasy than any other franchise in the history of movies & television.

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

Please see Charge #3.

Charge #7: Women in Star Wars are portrayed as fundamentally weak.

What Lucas did to Amidala in ROTS was deplorable IMO. Leia however, was fundamentally the strongest character in the OT.

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

Pl*th*les make for great adventures in Shysmilz. Yeah, SW has plot holes. Stargate has plotholes. Star Trek has plot holes (Heisenberg Compensator anyone?).

Seriously, sci-fi purists really put me off. There has to be some suspension of disbelief in science fiction and fantasy.

I like the idea that SW is more fantasy than sci-fi though.

Isn't that why they call it a "space opera?"


Great topic, and a great read!

I dunno. The Jedi walk around like the samurai of Feudal Japan

Kiri sute gomen (斬り捨て御免 or 切り捨て御免: literally, “authorisation to cut and leave” (the body of the victim) is an old Japanese expression dating back to the feudal era right to execute and be excused. Samurai had the right to strike at anyone of a lower class who was compromising their honour.

The expression is still sometimes used in modern day as "I apologise in advance for this one" for the subtle humour in offering what amounts to an unsympathetic apology.

The Jedi were given rights and privilege well above that of the ordinary citizen, and the Jedi Council was accountable to no one.

The incredible special privilege of the Jedi aside, the "Galactic Republic" does not seem to offer much in the way of democracy. From what we were shown in the movies, each world is left to govern itself. I can understand this, and however democratic Alderaan may have been, I doubt the people born to worlds controlled by the greedy Trade Federation had much say in their government.It would seem the Republic could not enforce its own values on its own dependent states.

Cool topic!

I've always been of the opinion that SW was fantasy (or rather myth/fairy tale) dressed up as sci-fi. I mean, the "long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" didn't give you a clue?

I think this is a stroke of pure genious from GL. Sci-fi has a tendency to become dated and obsolete very fast. If a story is supposed to take place in our future, then every change to our society coming after the story was written, which wasn't taken into account, effectively negates the story or makes it into alternate history. SW will never suffer from that. The story takes place in the past, and the whole universe is purposely made archaic, what with all the sword fighting and wizardry.

An example: If some day science comes up with another means of space propulsion than hot exhaust-type thrusters, then the SW space ships would be laughably obsolete if the story was supposed to take place in our future. But since it exists in its own universe, which already has a lot of technology and ideas that are deliberately backwards-looking, then retro space ships will never hurt the SW experience. So you can take SW as seriously a hundred years from now as you can today, unlike any sci-fi I know of.

Now, I'm a little pressed for time, so I will only discuss the first "accusation" against SW in detail. It's also the most relevant one, I think. I may return to the others at a later time, but I think the posters above have answered them quite well.

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

I actually agree to some extent with this. M_r is right, that the story is build up around the transition from (relatively) good to evil government and the fight to defeat the evil government. But I wouldn't call the Old Republic democratic. Oh sure, the members of the Senate seem to have free elections, but how are the senators themselves elected, if they are elected at all? Was Palpatine elected by the people of Naboo (surely not by the Gungans), or was he picked by the former queen?

I think the republic is a confederation, where each member world is allowed its own kind of government, whether that governemnt be democratic or not. Naboo seems to be in a period of transition from monarchy to democracy, but the process is far from complete even a thousand years after the founding of the republic. The member worlds select their senators in whatever way suits their constitution, and the senators then have a mandate to speak on behalf of their world. That isn't democracy. That's hardly even republicanism. It is perilously close to a noble republic, where the princes govern the entire state by parliamentary means, but reigns absolute in their own domains.

Add to this the Jedi, a group of super beings protecting the senate and "keeping the peace" (aka: keeping the regimes of the member worlds in power?). As the DM pointed out, the Jedi have authority to act like judge, jury and executioners and not even clean up after themselves.

The Jedi and the many aristocrats are also a sign, that the mentality of SW is not democratic. It is a universe of "übermenschen" (in Nietzsches original meaning, not the racial Nazi-variant), where a group of superior beings have risen above the common people and have a greater role to play in the fate of the world. In a way, the republic is ruled by a group of benevolent demi-gods, who in an abstract way cares for the well being of their lessers, but don't feel the need to consult with them about what those needs are. They know better. The rise of the Empire is the rise of evil demi-gods who slay the good demi-gods and takes direct and harsh control of the galaxy.

I would argue, that true democratic sentiment only comes with the Rebel Alliance. The good demi-gods having been slain, the common people finally rises up to defeat the evil demi-gods.

Man I wish I had the time to address this fully..

Right now I can only add some brief points to your already brilliant defence of our beloved saga.

1. The charges assume alot. Not only do they presuppose what quality science fiction is, they make the much more careless assumption that there is a general consensus on what quality science fiction actually is. They make the all too common "scientific" mistake of attributing objectivity (as in one state or rule applies to all) to humanity. Humanity is made up of individuals and is incredibly, beautifully diverse. Star Trek belongs to everybody. And so does Star Wars.

2. Anyone who wants to seriously cite democratic values and all of its possible variants needs to go to the source, that being Ancient Greece, not 18th century USA.

3. On that topic, the Jedi are not anti-democratic as they are protectors, not rulers. Though the Jedi code in the Old Republic (that's right - REPUBLIC) is not always made clear, at least in G-Canon, it does seem to preclude a Jedi from interfering too much in the affairs of systems without the authorisation of either the systemic government or the galactic senate.

4. "Space fantasy" was the term I believe George Lucas has used to describe Star Wars from the start.

5. If there is any objectivity or "firm common ground" on which to stage this debate, it is seriously compromised by personal attacks and smarminess. I am sorely disappointed with Woodring Stover for letting our side down.

6. At the end of the day it's just a bunch of Trekkies taking the "Star Trek is better than Star Wars" debate way too far.Overboard doesn't even begin to describe this. Surely their impressive talents could be better used in service to the public affairs of the real world. *Sigh*.

7. Cmon guys! (as in them), it's all about the story and how it applies to us as individuals! (See point 1) If you get something out of it, great! If you don't, whatever! It's all good!

8. That the two universes pose different philosophies on fatality is dead clear. To go and say that said universe is better because it relies on said philosophy is circular reasoning. If you're going to argue about whether there is a great will or not, use the real universe, not imaginary ones. You do realise that both the creators of SW and ST did it for fun at the end of the day. They might have done things differently when they saw how lucrative their stories were, but I'm sure the original inspiration and conceptions were something pure and done for their own selves. I can't help believing that both GL and the late great Gene Rodenberry would have a chuckle and shake their heads if they knew what was going on.

It's entirely debatable because not much is really written in regards to The Republic.

From what I've gathered through sw wikia is that regardless of planetary governments, the Galactic Constitution contained The Rights of Sentients, a document much like the magna carta & U.S. Bill of Rights.

The entries on The Republic, and Galactic Constitution on the site do not layout the requirements for planetary membership, so it's hard to determine whether or not certain forms of planetary government were encouraged or outright abolished entirely as illegal forms of representation. It is however, noted that by the time of the Clone Wars that the Republic was ineffectual because of it's own bureaucratic nature, and rank with corruption. So it's plausible that regardless of membership, the Republic probably didn't have the teeth to enforce it's own charter.

About a century before the Clone Wars, Naboo's monarch was killed in a war between the human and Gungan population. Since that time the monarch of Naboo was an elected position. Apparently the government's constitution retains a hereditary monarch clause in the event that a worthy dynasty reveals itself. So it seems that Naboo probably was a constitutional monarchy at the time of it's entry into the Republic.

What is interesting (and this will interest DM), is it seems that economic & technological institutions such as the Banking Clan, Commerce Guild, Trade Federation, CSA, and Techno Union, all hold some sort of special influence (if not outright representation) in the Senate. This would account for Lott Dod's presence in the Senate during Queen Amidala's objection to the blockade of Naboo. So it's entirely plausible that corporate, banking, and manufacturing entities shared some sort of representation, yet the requirements outlined for that representation remains unclear.

Truthfully, the politics of The Republic should have it's own topic in Prequels, because while information is scant, it doesn't really fit into this topic. We could carry on in a different topic much like we did with the "Consequences" topics GM began many moons ago.

It is almost 12:30 AM where I am I have to go - but back later.

Quickly, >> a writers' conference that the industry shorthand for science fiction was the presence of space ships. <<

I think they were being sarcastic!

In a different movie. . . just because some events, say, were located in 1870 in, say, Texas, or Wyoming, did not necessarily make it a "Western". There are certain requirements for the genre name.

So, the presence of advance technology does not make it SciFi.

I am not saying it is good or bad, but, as a Star Trek expert, I am saying I always had issues with the very many temporal and alternate time line episodes they had going back to Harlan Ellison's great "City on the Edge of Forever", the success of which fostered many more such stories resulting in too many issues and paradoxes for me. BUT, this first total change in the real and actual time line is very vexing to me.

SW never had temporal issues - and maybe that is just as well, be it Fantasy - or SciFi.

Back later.

No, they weren't being sarcastic. They were talking about classification from the standpoint of (mostly) publishing house executives and movie studio executives who may not actually be into the genre. You pitch an idea to one of these people and it has a spaceship in it, and they'll say: "Sci-fi!"

According to Jane Lindskold, SFF author, the presence of advance technology does equal sci-fi. You try arguing with her.

Meh. Genres are merely loose groupings of elements centred around a story. Some SW characteristics may come from sci-fi, some may come from fantasy, but as most of the posts above have said it's the story that matters and I agree .

There is a slight "torch" to bear when it comes to strict science fiction, in that future conjectures can only be made exclusively from scientific first principals already discovered. And yes ST is slightly more loyal in that regard. But again as pointed out above, ST is not perfect in this regard either - can I just mention ST IV again? Time travel by racing around the sun? Wasn't that in Superman? And one could hardly say the original tv series was a strictly scientific geek-fest now could one?

In respect to the workings of the Old Republic, I can't help thinking of the Simpsons' treatment of TPM lol :

http://www.mediabum.com/videos/Cosmic-Wars.html

I like the point that the New Republic is the most truly democratic of all governing models in SW, though it depends what your definition of truly democratic is.

If the industry shorthand for science fiction is the presence of space ships. Wouldn't that make Apollo 13 scifi?

1: Like the op said. It's a story. The republic is just a backdrop for our characters and is not portrayed as something better than modern western democracy. In rots Padme even questions if she and Anakin are on the right side of the conflict. The fact that the republic is not definitely good or bad is something that makes the PT more fun to discuss than the OT. It also makes the conflict with the separatists more realistic and less black & white.

In the OT the empire are obviously evil and the main characters are fighting to overthrow it. I don't See how thats a bad thing.

There is also several examples of classic scifi that have Anti-Democratic/Elitist political systems. Dune comes to mind.

2: Well first of when did starwars suddenly claim Mythic Significance!? They are adventure/action movies. If starwars ever claimed to be anything it's entertaining. And I would say the jedi way of not acting out selfishness is admirable.

3:
I would also like to add that this makes David Brin seem pretty elitist him self. He obviously thinks he knows better then the readers what is good scifi. Yet those books don't sell as good as the starwars novels? Well then just maybe he is just plain wrong and the readers are right.

Any way I think starwars is fantasy/adventure/action, anyway.

4: As much as I would like to see scifi that was less about action and effects. I don't see how starwars is to blame. This is a trend in all action cinema thees days. But it seems to sell very well. So unlike David Brin all I can say is: That is what most people seems to think is good scifi. I like less popular scifi.

5: Again David Brin is a better judge of what is good scifi then the rest of us. It's because the rest of us have had our perception dumbed down. Luckily, since David Brin is a little better then the rest of us he can tell us starwars is to blame.

Really is it so hard to accept that most of the time people want to see easy to enjoy entertainment and not the heavier more thought provoking scifi.

6: I can't remember George Lucas ever calling his films science fiction. Personally I think it falls more in the realm of fantasty.

7:

8: Well I agree that starwars has plot holes. But a lot of scifi does. Star trek has them too. Not just the new movie but the old ones too and the tv series. In fact, none scifi movies have them too. Imagine that.

Well. That's what I think about that. What I would like to know is why some one would spend the time to write a book about why he doesn't like starwars. He is a scifi writer. Wouldn't his time be better spent on his own work instead of hating on someone else's?