David Brin On Star Wars

DavidBrin is a thinker and ScienceFiction novelist.

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

http://www.kithrup.com/brin/starwarsarticle.html

Someone is working on a wiki for CollaborativeCriticism, and used this article in http://drf5n.freeshell.org/piki.cgi?DavidBrinOnStarWarsI as an example, since DavidBrin likes the idea of many eyes criticizing.

Basically, he says he doesn't like it.

A cheap way to dismiss a well-reasoned intelligent political argument. (Note that as the person who wrote the above "summary", I wasn't trying to dismiss his argument - I have agreed with it since long before Brin wrote it! I was just seeing whether anybody would actually read through the articles before I wasted time commenting on them here.)

Uh, it's a movie.

No, it's a cultural icon. And you'll have a hard time finding a sociologist who doesn't recognize the importance of that distinction.

Or even any sociologists at all for that matter.

Did this man ever look at the Iliad before he formed his opinions on it? Yes, hundreds of men die just to show Achilles is a good fighter - and each earns a name, father, and country of origin first. It gets repetitive, but emphasizes the fundamental point that war is tragic, something Achilles doesn't realize until his meeting with Priam that forms the point of the whole thing. In Star Trek, which he continually emphasizes as a craft of superior nature, RedShirts die with far less mourning than that. Yeesh.

And, back on StarWars, Brin completely missed the point of Vader's salvation: he was not saved because he helped Luke, but he helped Luke because he was saved. This may or may not be valid, but parallels can be found in some modern religions, and as the universe internal to the movie hardly counts as secular it does not seem something that so obviously deserves ridicule.

Brin may have a point about the emphasis on aristocracies in these works, but then, doesn't Trek simply emphasize a different, more military elite most of the time? All in all, it hardly seems well-reasoned.

/Who knows if he was saved? Vader could have betrayed his emporer out of pure selfishness to save his son. Lucas killed Vader off before we could see the extent of his 'salvation'./

The notion that the Greeks would have thought of war as tragic (or that they would have perceived the Iliad as preaching such a moral) is not supported by the facts. The ancients' minds and emotions functioned very differently from modern people's; they must have in order to explain why their societies were so alien to us. To jump from the listing of deaths to their being grieved and mourned is illogical. In fact, the spear-carriers in the Iliad were never mourned. And zero mourning is less than the almost zero mourning of red shirts in StarTrek.

That's been debunked. Evolutionary psychology shows quite clearly that human nature is universal, and that cultural ideals are a fairly thin veneer on top of that.
- Not disagreeing, but I'd love to read up on this. Any references?
- The two relatively recent absolutely must-read books: "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker, outlines the overturning of the Standard Social Science Model by evolutionary psychology (refuting in particular the very old "tabula rasa" theory of the mind that gives rise to the book's title), and "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, which covers similar ground but from a very different point of view. It gives the first real answer to the question, "if humans are so similar around the world, why is it that western civilization is the one that has materially dominated the modern world?". The answer explores the nature of humanity and the resources that have been available in different parts of the world; the domestication of plants and animals of various sorts turns out to be pivotal. Both are highly readable books for the lay audience, yet are very strongly grounded in modern research and are cited in later research papers. Pinker's book gives the most direct answer to the issue at hand, but both are must-reads; one is living in the stone age (literally, in some regards) if one isn't familiar with these new results.
That ancient people thought differently from us is well-evidenced, and has been argued to various extents by various authors, of whom Lura goes the shortest and Jaynes goes the farthest. The standard evolutionary psychology model isn't really on that spectrum, so Pinker's work need not be relevant, though I can't speak for it. Guns, Germs, and Steel, however, certainly doesn't refute the idea, it simply sheds light on how the change happened. In order to support an alien society, the ancient Greeks had to have alien psychologies; what led to its development is a different matter.
- It was "well-evidenced" by rather old standards, for instance, it was positively self-apparent in the year 1930. Is it still well-evidenced now that the new field of evolutionary psychology has been developed? I say "no"; do you have references to the contrary that take evolutionary psychology into account?
- Pinker's book is relevant, btw. He explains that, although the precise events that trigger interpretations of threat, loss, etc, vary from culture to culture, the emotional reactions once something is thus interpreted are universal in all humans (p38-39 hardback edition 2nd printing, The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker, c. 2002, ISBN 0-670-03151-8 )
- This paragraph from p. 69 may give a good feel for the overall thrust of Pinker's book: "The ultimate irony of the Standard Social Science Model is that it failed to accomplish the very goal that brought it into being: explaining the different fortunes of human societies without invoking race. The best explanation today is thoroughly cultural, but it depends on seeing a culture as a product of human desires rather than as a shaper of them."
Evidence remains evidence, and evolutionary psychology needs to take it into account to be worthwhile. Pinker's hypotheses are still debated enough that I'm not going to accept them as the default; if Lura's experiments can't be explained by them, it's the former I'm throwing out. I find it hard to believe the difference between modern people, who for the most part would be absolutely destroyed by murdering their children, and Spartans, who did so casually, is simply a matter of desire unrelated to the rest of their psychological development. And the quote you give is plainly a false dichotomy - culture and desires can shape each other. As for explanations that don't involve race, I don't see how Guns, Germs, and Steel requires you to assume people always thought the same way. This is now entirely off-topic for this page.

I agree wholeheartedly that ancients thought differently then we do, but I think in this case the difference lies elsewhere. Most of the spear-carriers in the Iliad are given fathers, and are mourned accordingly. For an epic solely about the glory of Achilles, his pity on old Priam, who has lost a son just as his own father soon shall, is a very odd theme. That the Greeks thought war was bad is an untenable notion, but I would need some explanation of this before I conclude they paid no heed to its sacrifices.

The notion that StarWars has a salvation religion of any kind is not supported by any facts either. Vader was never "saved" and the notion can be dismissed out of hand (whether it deserves ridicule depends on whether you're a Christian).

Actually, they say Vader was saved in the movie, so it does support the notion of repentance-based salvation. I'll agree the validity of this depends on one's stance, but I'm assuming Brin's criticism is not that StarWars reflects Christian values. If it is, that's perfectly fine, but it would be nice for him to say so.

: Part of his criticism is that accepting repentance undermines concern for human rights. Christianity has always undermined human rights and other human-centered values so Brin is against Christian values. Of course, it's doubtful he bothers thinking of Christianity at all; Christianity need not even be worth consideration to non-Christians. Another part of his critique is that the personal act of repentance by a demi-god is confused with the social consequences of his previous actions. Brin critiques the notion that Vader's being forgiven by his son for saving his life is on the same level as the billions he massacred. Even Christians should ask whether Vader's saving his son is an act of repentance for the billions he killed.

Christianity has always undermined human rights..??? Care to explain this? Show me a human right, and I will show you how it complies with Biblical teaching! -- BrucePennington

I think the speaker meant that while human rights and biblical teaching may agree, especially on the basics (known as the TenCommandments?), Christian practice doesn't always do so; many wars have been fought in the name of religion, and many have been prosecuted in the name of Christianity.

Thanks! I guess I need to read the material. The point still backs up my issue, though. Even the Bible shows us that we are fallible and evil by nature. Even Christians struggle with our natural flaws, lusts, greeds, etc. Bad Christian behavior verifies Biblical teaching. The question: "Even Christians should ask whether Vader's saving his son is an act of repentance for the billions he killed." shows a lack of understanding of the grace and mercy of God. Our sins (1 lie or 10 million killed) transgress an infinite God with infinite purity. [Can purity exceed 100%? Does combining "infinite" and "purity" make sense?] The price of redemption is too great to be met by an act of Man. This is why it had to be met by God Himself, through Jesus. It is our heart-felt repentance and acceptance of His act on our behalf that God looks for in us. In this way, Vader's repentant heart mirrors a spiritual truth. -- BrucePennington

As for the assertion that elites are aristocracies. As perspicacious as this basic insight is, the above author doesn't provide any reasoning to justify it (contrast with Brin's article). And in any case it's irrelevant since even if StarTrek sucks this does not invalidate any of Brin's (perfectly well-reasoned) criticism of StarWars. Shitting on one thing does not elevate another from the cesspool.

That's absolutely true. The remark was included simply to show he was maintaining a DoubleStandard; I was doubtful on whether to include it, and apologize for it.

Blah, blah, blah... DavidBrin sucks (read his books) and this is OffTopic anyway.

Movies and sociology have never been off topic for wiki before!

The problem with the assertion that elites are aristocracies is in its nuances. Only a hard-ass anarchist would consider the two equivalent. Brin, being only a wishy-washy libertarian, likely thinks there is a problem only with hereditary or mystical elitism. He sees no problem with militarism because it's neither mystical nor hereditary. He likely sees no problem with technocracy (technical or scientific elitism) either. Brin is using a double standard but to prove it you have to bring such a mountain of facts and arguments to bear that most people shy away from it. You're right but few people will believe you and good luck proving it.

I know Brin only through his work, but technical elitism is a major theme in his most popular series (the Uplift War), so I doubt he thinks that problems only apply to hereditary and mystical elites.

And he asserts that SW has no heroes but hereditary or mystical elites, but that's ignoring Jar Jar Binks, Han Solo and Chewbacca (although a coupla pages later he does point out that Chewbacca did more to destroy the second DeathStar? than Luke or Leia (who are both hereditary and mystical elites). Still, he pointed out some inconsistencies that I hadn't previously noticed, so I'm glad I read it...

Jar Jar Binks is the hero? Han, Chewbacca and Jar Jar are supporting characters, and they do do heroic things compared to the majors, but that is because the majors are so un-heroic. Lucas is so anti-hero that if something good needs to happen, he does a DeusExMachina using his least-likely character. -- DavidForrest

It seems to me that StarWars is too easy of a target. I've seen all the movies; like most I liked 4-6 a lot, 1-2 much less. On the other hand, I've never confused any of 'em with high art or literature - they're SpaceWestern?s and little more. Very well done (from a sfx) point-of-view space westerns, but westerns nonetheless. (And like Westerns, highly derivative of Kurasawa...) Nothing wrong with Westerns, but you gotta accept 'em for what they are... PulpFiction.

A literary critique of StarWars seems to me to be about as useful as a literary critique of Danielle Steele or EdgarRiceBurroughs?.

In other words, "Why bother?"

Because, while not "high" art, they're an important part of our culture?

What would it take to make them High Art or literature? What makes them pulp fiction rather than something more worthy?

In the matter of religion, there is no amount of evidence that can be produced to prove its existence or the relevance of its faith. It seems silly to ask for it. In the matter of a movie, iconic or not, a leap of faith must be made in order to enjoy what can be proven to not exist.

Star Wars takes a massive leap. It is not Science Fiction. It is Science Fantasy. Vader is not a man. He is a machine. He is a puppet, half a man with supernatural power. He is not a Demi-God. These powers run across a spectrum of positive and negative energy. The negative energy is like a deadly narcotic.

Luke Skywalker broke his father, Darth Vader, from this addiction. Then Vader killed his Emperor to save his son, but in the struggle the Emperor mortally wounded Vader.

Think of Vader as a Vampire. Luke saved him. Not a Vampire any more. Before he was Vader and now he is Skywalker again. It is clearly an internal conflict, not a matter of mass forgiveness.

Luke (speaking to Vader): I see the good in you.

He was saved because (supposedly) there is good. There was a chance to turn him away from the dark side.

Mr. Brin, either doesn't understand "Star Wars" or is dark-green with envy. I am going to guess both.

Vader did some very rotten things. I don't think a 3-minute death-bed conversion provides anything good, or noble and worth emulation. What is the message: After killing planets, Vader goes to Jedi heaven after having a weak moment and saving his son? ... who will in the future rebuild the Jedi Order. Vader would be expected to know this.

CategoryScienceFiction