Star Wars on Trial Page 7

  Everything Opposing Counsel has to say about Yoda actually undermines his own case!

  If Mr. Lucas were truly advocating rule by a benevolent despot, wouldn't Yoda have turned out to be always right? Wouldn't Luke's rebellion against him have become a disaster, from which Yoda would have had to rescue him, as a father rescues an errant child?

  In fact, at every turn in the Saga, when a Figure of Authority speaks out and gives strict orders ... they're wrong.

  Except when that order is to trust in the Force.

  In other words: trust the voice of the life within you. Trust yourself. Trust love. Trust faith.

  Don't trust people who claim they know what's best for you.

  The Opposing Counsel makes an eloquent argument on the virtues of questioning authority, calling its effects "inarguably spectacular, underlying most of the accomplishments of modern-enlightenment civilization."

  What Opposing Counsel doesn't seem to understand is that George Lucas shares this belief in questioning authority, and that the entire Star Wars saga is a brilliant lesson in the virtues of questioning authority.

  Lucas understands that once we start to question Authority, we might end up questioning all manner of authorities. We might start to wonder if they might have their own agenda, or simply be just plain wrong.

  Like, for example, our own Emperor, er, president.

  It's a terrible shame that our powerful myth of suspicion of authority made our Powerful Liberal Media Elite (another myth) ridicule our vice president's assertions about links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and dismiss our national security adviser's stern warnings about mushroom clouds over Detroit. It's a terrible shame we were so distrustful of authority that nobody believed the president when he told us that sanctions and inspections weren't working to restrain Iraq's nuclear weapons program, and that Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger to world peace in general, and the United States in particular.

  If only we had trusted them, and let them lead us into that quick, cheap, simple war they were asking for; after all, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld assured the nation-before Congress, under oath-that the whole operation in Iraq would have taken only six weeks, would have been almost bloodless, and cost under ten billion dollars. If only we'd believed them, instead of being suspicious of authority.

  We'd have been so much better off right now.

  Having dealt with the major issue, let's take a moment here to clear up a thing or two. One of the Heroes of Real SF that Opposing Counsel cites, Robert A. Heinlein, had his alter ego Lazarus Long advise, in Time Enough for Love, that we should "Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by..." -well, let me say ignorance. Mr. Heinlein's word is less charitable. In that spirit of charity, let us assume that Opposing Counsel is merely mistaken on the following points-as opposed to intentionally misleading or deceptive-and that he, and the Court, will be grateful for the corrections.

  1) The ability to use the Force is not the result of a mutation. Midichlorians are the GFFA (Galaxy Far, Far Away) equivalent of mitochondria. Every living thing so far identified in the GFFA has them. This is what is called a metaphor-relating the Force to the essential energy of life in every cell-and anyone who tries to get technical about it is wasting his time.

  That is to say, everyone can touch the Force, and the Force can touch everyone. Everyone is, in fact, part of the Force, as is everything ("It surrounds us, and binds us," remember?). What Qui-Gon speaks of, when he measures Anakin's "midichlorian count" is Force potential, that's all. Does he have more potential than other people? Yes. Why?

  Because that's the way the world works. Like it or not.

  Some people are gifted. Some people aren't.

  Now, certain ideologues may be uncomfortable with this simple truth. No matter how much self-discipline I have, I will never be a composer the equal of Mozart, nor a basketball player the equal of Michael Jordan; I'll never be as handsome as George Clooney nor as brilliant as Stephen Hawking. Given the current state of cognitive science, it can even be argued that self-discipline is itself a talent, given to us in greater or lesser degrees. Neither Mozart nor Jordan, I might add, became great simply as a result of their great talent; they took great talent and developed it into great ability through years of training. Hawking had to train his intellect; even Clooney has to exert some discipline with diet and exercise to maintain his looks. It is talent that Qui-Gon measured, not actual ability, or power.

  (Is it really necessary to point out that the Jedi possessing the "highest midichlorian count ever recorded" got his high-midichlorian-count butt smoked-literally, as it happens-by Obi-Wan Kenobi, whose own midichlorian count is never described as anything special?)

  This, I need hardly point out, makes a fair hash of Opposing Counsel's preposterous "hereditary mutant elite" accusation.

  2) Shmi Skywalker is not from Naboo, nor is she related to Palpatine or Padme Amidala (except by marriage). She just isn't. Sorry. Nor is Palpatine related by blood to Padme. Sorry again. It just ain't so. You might as well drop that Family Feud crap right now.

  Yes, of course there are family elements to the Saga. But those aren't among them.

  I could tell you how I know, but then I'd have to send stormtroopers after your family.

  3) Neither Joseph Campbell nor Bill Moyers ever seriously claimed that the "Hero's Journey" or the "monomyth" is the "only human way to tell a story." Campbell's work is descriptive, not prescriptive, and to pretend that he is somehow responsible for what some unnamed and possibly entirely invented "romantics" have supposedly said is a shoddy con game.

  Joseph Campbell's primary work, The Masks of God, is precisely about enumerating the different ways in which myth is used in human culture, and the differing implications of the various elements, the differing aspects of human psychology that he believed the specific elements seemed to represent, and-only in the final volume, Creative Mythology-the ways in which mythic tropes continue to penetrate twentieth-century culture, and how they might be deliberately used by artists, and by others. Far from glamorizing feudal power structures or glorifying heroes, he was an acute observer and a voluminous synthesizer (which was all he actually claimed to be), as well as a very fine writer and, in worldview, something of a Hinayana Buddhist.

  There are plenty of aspects in Campbell's work that are open to criticism (e.g., if I recall correctly, I found his extensive disquisition on the use of pig symbolism from The Odyssey through Finnegan's Wake to be a bit suspect), but the ones Opposing Counsel has chosen don't happen to be among them.

  Aristotle, however, I will not waste words to defend. Aristotle is the most easily refutable philosopher in history; no other man has been so consistently wrong on so many points, with the possible exception of Samuel Johnson.

  And, of course, Opposing Counsel.

  4) One can hardly hold the Saga accountable for teaching that the "skilled and worthy warrior must cut off all attachments, etc." because this is explicitly defined in the Saga as the primary error of the Prequel-Era Jedi.

  With apologies to Opposing Counsel, he simply missed the boat here. That's all there is to it. Not only is that "cutting off all attachment" business defined as exactly what drives Anakin Skywalker to become Darth Vader, but it's precisely the error that Yoda is determined to correct by allowing Luke and Leia to be raised by real families, rather than trained as Jedi from infancy by him and Obi-Wan: so that they will know a family's love, and be connected to the reality of society in ways that the Prequel-Era Jedi could never be.

  Sorry.

  In all fairness, though, Opposing Counsel should have known better. After all, one of the most skilled and effective warriors in the Original Trilogy is Han Solo-who becomes more effective as he allows himself to become more and more emotionally engaged with his companions.

  How much more obvious does it have to be?

  5) How good-looking a character is bears no actual relation to whether or not he's a Good Guy.

  Th
ree words: Jar jar Binks.

  Not to mention Boss Nass. Admiral Ackbar. Kit Fisto. Saesee Tiin. Eeth Koth. Plo Koon. Dex from the Diner. How much longer do I have to go on?

  Not to mention that Vader himself is only nasty-looking without the armor. It's worth noting that on my Great Friggin' Gonzo Revenge of the Sith Tour, it was not uncommon for women from the crowd to request photographs not with me, but with whatever member of the 501st Stormtrooper Legion (wonderful fans doing volunteer work to help promote the book, and the Saga, along with raising money for various children's charities) happened to be wearing the Vader armor that day. It was also not uncommon for these women to burst into tears because they were so in love with him.... Hey, diff'rent strokes, it takes all kinds, whatever-but you see what I mean.

  6) Jedi Hell? Excuse my bleeding ears?

  Far from being the fairy-tale Manichaean silliness Opposing Counsel pretends to believe it should be, the redemption at the end of Return of theJedi is not Vader's, but Luke's-and the Galaxy's. Luke has renounced violence in the name of love; it is this which turns the tide, and produces the final victory to save the Galaxy.

  That's the true message of Return of the Jedi: renounce violence in the name of love. If Opposing Counsel finds this to be a pernicious theme, he should go argue with Jesus and Buddha, and leave Mr. Lucas out of it.

  Anakin Skywalker-Darth Vader-fulfills a distinct mythic role in the Saga: the Scourge of God. When the world (society, whatever) has become so corrupt that only destruction can answer, it is the Scourge of God-customarily a tragic character (q.v. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark)-who must carry out that destruction, and in the end be destroyed by his own violence. It's not good vs. evil or black vs. white; Anakin/Vader is in fact wiping out that old Manichaean duality that Opposing Counsel so wistfully pines for. Ana kin's (and Vader's) destiny is to bring balance to the Force, remember? To do this, he destroys both the Jedi and the Sith-and, necessarily, himself-and leaves Luke with clean hands and a clear conscience, untainted by the corruption of the past, to be half of, ahem, A New Hope for a better future.

  The other half?

  His twin sister, just as gifted with Force potential, but not turning toward ascetic contemplation as a Jedi. She's turning instead toward full engagement with the world: marriage, and a family and eventual participation in the government of the New Republic (in later years as its Head of State, in fact. Elected Head of State, I might add, and without the need for a Supreme Court to steal the election for her, either).

  Yeah, there's a nasty message there, all right.

  Opposing Counsel's real complaint seems to be that we don't see Anakin Skywalker burning in Jedi Hell.

  Ahem again.

  Ain't no such animal as Jedi Hell. Sorry again.

  Corellians (Han Solo's people) have a tradition of Hell-nine of 'em, if I recall correctly-but they're virtually alone in the GFFA in even having the notion of an afterlife at all. The "Force-spirit" phenomenon is not an afterlife as we use the term.

  I guess the death penalty just doesn't satisfy some people.

  That fellow Nietzsche-the one Opposing Counsel seems to dislike so much-had a saying that's worth keeping in mind here:

  "Distrust men in whom the impulse to punish is overwhelming."

  Wise words. Worth remembering in any number of situations, including this one. Because that's what's really going on here, isn't it? The overwhelming impulse to punish.

  And who does that sound like?

  The Prosecution-Opposing Counsel and witnesses alikedoesn't like Star Wars. The reasons may vary, but the reality remains. The Prosecution is here to beat on the Saga.

  They'll take any excuse. If they can't find one, they'll make one up. Assuming that all the above errors are, ahem, honest mistakes, one can only come to the conclusion that Opposing Counsel's lust for conviction has overwhelmed both his critical insight and his ability to do basic research.

  All the Defense will do, here, is try to point out where the Prosecution might be, ah, accidentally sliding over the foul lines of truth, as it were. Or where there are other, alternate explanations for what the Prosecution will insist is the Way Things Are. Because there are always alternate explanations, no matter what they try to tell you.

  They will insist You Must Trust Them. They Know Best. Don't Question. Don't Think For Yourself. Believe What You're Told.

  In the end, it comes down to a single word.

  Obey.

  Put in those terms, it all becomes familiar, doesn't it?

  Oh, I would never assert that Opposing Counsel is himself a Sith Lord, and his witnesses Sith agents-not at all. Even if true, being Sith is hardly a crime. And they may be entirely innocent; would a Sith Lord reveal himself by publicly attacking Star Wars? Nor would I claim that this entire trial is a sham, a frame, a massive put-up job orchestrated to shake public confidence in the Saga, in order to cement the Sith grip upon our government....

  Doesn't seem likely, does it?

  The most logical explanation is that the Prosecution is quite sincere; I believe we can safely assume that they are merely helpless dupes.

  Remember: treachery is the way of the Sith.

  Our best hope of justice in these proceedings is to remind you what this Court actually is. To remind you that that you are the jury. That the only opinion which matters here is yours. That these arguments take place not merely on these pages, but in your head.

  And in your heart.

  And so I will give you the only direct order you will ever get from the Defense. Don't place your trust in any of us.

  Trust in the Force, and only in the Force.

  That is, trust the voice of the life within you. Think for yourself.

  Trust love.

  Trust faith.

  May the Force be with this Court, and with us all.

  THE COURTROOM

  DROID JUDGE: Do you wish to comment or cross-examine, Mr. Prosecutor?

  DAVID BRIN: A moment, Your Honor. To recover from the Defense Attorney's personal style, and being told that I hold beliefs opposite to those I clearly stated. For the record, I never declined a saber duel with Mr. Stover. I'm likely twice his age, yet my rusty skills from the Caltech fencing team should suffice. At a sci-fi con? Bring it on, smart mouth.

  MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: Cool! We can sell tickets! You have any idea how much fans'd pay to see this? Holy crap! And since being twice my age would have you pushing ninety, you seem remarkably, mm, well-preserved ... not that I find that in any way suspicious....

  DAVID BRIN: Well, I thought you were a whippersnapper, given your pushy style. Still. However old you are, you better stay off my lawn.... And turn down that damn boom box! Dang kids. Where's my saber....

  DROID JUDGE (sighing): Humans. The Court fines both of you five samoleads for immaturity. Now, do you have comments or questions about Mr. Stover's statement?

  DAVID BRIN: Well ... I expected the Defense to offer glowing praise for Star Wars. I'm sure my own chapter contains more positive statements about the series than Mr. Stover put in his!

  MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: A measure of your innate fairness and nobility of character, sir.

  DAVID BRIN: Hm? Well. (shuffles papers) Still ... let's see. I'll skim past specific sophistries. Like the way Mr. Stover ignores the importance of moral discussion, diplomacy and restraint in the Star Trek universe, where such issues get hashed over perhaps too much.

  MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: Maybe we can save that for a companion volume, eh?

  DAVID BRIN: Gotcha. (eyes glinting) In fact, I'll concede a point or two. For example, someone else reading the worthy books of Joseph Campbell may find exceptions to my brief (and therefore superficial) summarization. Also, I'll stipulate that supporting characters in Star Wars may look silly, rather than pretty. Good point. And a minor one. Like others that I'll defer answering till our online discussion, when the jurors (readers and fans) may join in.

  MATTHEW WOODRING STOVER: Sure. Let's also skip past
minor points like I'm here as an advocate, not a witness, and I'm answering your questions as a courtesy. And for fun. Because I'm just friendly that way. I don't claim to be an expert on anything (not even martial arts, Del Rey Publicity's bio on me notwithstanding).

  And while we're at it we can skip past the minor point that in your rush to defend Captain Nemo and Pvt. Ryan (neither of whom I was actually attacking, by the way, but merely enumerating as passing examples of how any work of art might be vulnerable to the Prosecution's style of attack), you never actually answered my question. Which, as a witness, you really should have, instead of making another speech (admittedly inspiringhey, my dad, my mom and three of my uncles served in the Big One, too) about citizen soldiers....

  I seem to recall somebody once said something about how "the wicked flee where no man pursueth." And if we read wicked as merely an overly judgmental code word for, say, Sith...?

  DAVID BRIN: Code word .... for what? (pained expression) I can see this is going to be a long trial. Okay. Let's focus on Mr. Stover's core point-that Darth Vader is the epic's scary but righteously necessary "Scourge of God" who must cleanse the universe of both nasty groups of force-users, allowing a fresh start.

  Am I hearing right? For years, people have written to me defending of the core goodness of Yoda and-yes!-old Darth. Now, the Defense concedes that Yoda is a nasty, secretive, lying and loathsomely destructive little demon? This from an author, who repeatedly (if cryptically) claims inside knowledge-ex cathedra-from the ultimate source? It's a shock. Like when J. R. R. Tolkien called his elves selfish reactionaries! We're off guard.

  Very agile, clever. Except ... have we a right to be confused by the apotheosis scene, when Yoda, Anakin and Obi-Wan smile as pals, from Jedi Heaven? Over all the films, about an hour is devoted to Kung-fooey Yoda-isms. If we're meant to see through this smarmy little wise-guy, shouldn't there be at least thirty seconds devoted to someone-(Luke? Mace? Obi-Wan? A shoeshine boy?)-looking Yoda in the eye, and saying, nertz?