Star Wars On Trial

[Cydon]

Need I say more?

[matthius]

so....SW...is on.....trial?

[Luvinna]

It's a book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/193210089X/ref=wl_it_dp/102-1269131-1094513?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1DRTR6XU3FE5C&colid=3L9WCRNJDH97T

I haven't read it yet, but I really want to.

[Nathan Butler]

I'm reading it right now. So far, it's pretty thought-provoking, it a tad overboard at times.

[Konig15]

Stover seems immature. I don't know if that's his style, he's trying to make fun of the proceeding.

However:
REGARDLESS OF HOW TECHNOLOGY IS TREATED, STAR WARS IS SCIOENCE FICTION! That's it

If you treat magic as a science, when the dude in the funny hat shoots fire from his fingertips at the army of moving skeletons, that is fantasy. Subject matter matters, how it is treated is not.

Saying Star Wars isn't at least scifi/fantasy is like saying Final Fantasy VI is an adventure game. It makes you sound like a pretentious dumbkopf, and you're just plain wrong. Wrong. Not everything goes up to the 'purist' standard nor should it. There's a great cartoon called Exosquad that can be called sci-fi, soft sci-fi or fantasy depending on your standards, and it'd be a damn shame if Exosquad were tossed in the fantasy bin because it looks sci-fi but "the technology isn't questioned."

The discussion is asinine; i'd rather have my teeth cleaned than read "hard sci-fi" but I have better things to do than read about men in pointy hats fighting tolltaking trolls who live under the bridge. I need my hardware and I need my heart; can't have one without the other.

[Blizzard]

I won a free copy from the publisher. So far I have only read the introduction.

[Nathan Butler]

I must say, the one thing that irks me so far is the Defense constantly referring back to President Bush and 2006. Granted, that can make for a nice analogy at times, but it makes the book more time-centric, so in a few years, it'll be somewhat out of date, and it sort of undermines the arguments by playing politics rather than arguing the actual point in some cases.

Other than that, great so far.

[Darth Massacrus]

what is this book about, anyways? I havent heard too much...

[Cydon]

Go to www.starwarsontrial.com (http://www.starwarsontrial.com) and I think they have stuff from the book there. Mind you, previews.

[THX-1138]

Looks like I need to do some reading.:eh:

STAR WARS is not traditional sci-fi it is a form of mythology set in a technological setting. The technology is not as badly thought out as you might think. Making STAR WAS's technology work as best as possible is part of my job as a RPG Game Master.

Personally I like the blend of technology and mystism we find in SW. For those who are reading this book "STAR WARS On Trail", does this book discuss any of the inconsistencies in the story we see between the prequels and old trilogy???

[bendu]

Sounds like an interesting book. Stover is actually my favourite Star Wars writer, I also like his book Heroes Die a lot. I recommend it to any fantasy/sci-fi fans.

I always saw Star Wars more as fantasy than science fiction. The "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" is synonymous of fairy tale openings. Its a fantasy in a futuristic setting. George Lucas had that opening for that reason.

I for one am not a big fan of stuff being explain in detail on how it works scientifically. I like pseudo-science, where it just has to sound like it could work.

[THX-1138]

I for one am not a big fan of stuff being explain in detail on how it works scientifically. I like pseudo-science, where it just has to sound like it could work.
Its not as hard as you think Bendu. Art has a way of imitating life. Would we have flip phones if not for Starfleet? Generous quantities of both fantasy and very real science fiction can coexist in the STAR WAR Galaxy.

For example:
If particle shields can deflect missiles, shrapnel, and other incoming solid objects, why can’t they deflect atmosphere as well? Why can’t a ship’s particle shields, when set to low power, be used to form an aerodynamic shape around the ship making it slip trough atmosphere as it slips by small arm’s fire? Could not the ship’s avionics computer customize the shields shape to minimize drag regardless of temperature or atmospheric pressure on a myriad of worlds regardless of humidity temperature gravity or any other atmospheric variables? If this was so, why would engineers in the STAR WARS galaxy pursue aerodynamic forms for ships if they will only function best on a small handful of worlds that have the same atmospheric pressure as it was designed for?

All this real science can coexist with with the mystical force in harmony. Was anything along these lines discussed in "Star Wars On Trial"???

[Konig15]

Do you think it might be a good idea to have an "explain the Star Wars 'Goof'" thread? Each poster could have a chance to try and explain WHY something happened in Star Wars (like why the fighter ships act like they do or the gravity on the Invisible Hand) and the good results could land people reputation points. Cause honestly, I don't think the 'scientific goofs' are really goofs at all. A little bit of imagination can fix that right up.

[bendu]

Oh I know what you're saying THX. I do believe they can coexist. I just feel that Star Wars is more fantasy than it is science fiction. Explaining how something works is fine when needed, as long as it doesn't take away from the story's telling.

[Konig15]

Oh I know what you're saying THX. I do believe they can coexist. I just feel that Star Wars is more fantasy than it is science fiction. Explaining how something works is fine when needed, as long as it doesn't take away from the story's telling.

Stoopid question: Isn't that tru of all sci-fi. They never explain the origin of organic ships or the starburst, but I'd hardly call Farscape fantasy.

[THX-1138]

Oh I know what you're saying THX. I do believe they can coexist. I just feel that Star Wars is more fantasy than it is science fiction. Explaining how something works is fine when needed, as long as it doesn't take away from the story's telling.

By far good story telling is most important but getting the smaller details right adds to the overall success.

Do you think it might be a good idea to have an "explain the Star Wars 'Goof'" thread?

If you start it send me the link. You can expect my two cents worth.

[bendu]

Stoopid question: Isn't that tru of all sci-fi. They never explain the origin of organic ships or the starburst, but I'd hardly call Farscape fantasy.

I'm referring more to novels. Some authors spend too much time on scientific exposition and it detracts from the story. Though I do believe that some exposition is required, like THX says. It can be confusing if something isn't explained properly afterall.

I never watched Farscape. But its much more difficult to explain things in a visual medium. Having a moment to stop and explain how everything works would be quite jarring in a movie or tv show. Some movies and shows are effective enough at conveying how things work in a roundabout sense. Its just when its like, "Okay now let us take a moment and I shall explain to you the physics of transdimensional shifting with the reality warp discombobulator drive." That I find it dull and a little condescending to the audience/reader.

[THX-1138]

Its just when its like, "Okay now let us take a moment and I shall explain to you the physics of transdimensional shifting with the reality warp discombobulator drive." That I find it dull and a little condescending to the audience/reader.
Yes I hate those too. They call them a "writer's courtesy".:rolleyes:

In TV and movies, I would rather not know about specifics (less is more) and be left asking questions after the movie/TV show with friends. Those answers are best served up by sourcebooks based on the same show.

Where very technical answers become necessary is more often in RPGs where the GM needs to have at least a basic understanding of a given technology to explain phenomenon caused by it to the players. An even deeper understanding may be required if the role playing session is very forensic in nature (Crime Scene Investigation or Private Investigation work). It never hurts to improve your understanding in those cases and what better place to figure the nuts and bolts of sci-fi technology than on a forum?:bye:

[Luvinna]

This is all very interesting, guys, but it's just a bit off the topic of the Star Wars on Trial book. Please take it to PM or start a new thread. Thanks!

[Cydon]

How bout we discuss plot holes? There part of the book. For example:

If Sidious didn't want to be discovered untill the last minute, why did he send Darth Maul to find Amidala. She came to Corusacnt, thats EXACTLY what he wanted her to do. To cast the vote of no confidence on Valorum.

[bluemilk]

I'm reading it right now. So far, it's pretty thought-provoking, it a tad overboard at times.
I agree with your above statement, on both points. At the same time, this book is almost annoyingly addictive. I've been reading it pretty much non-stop since yesterday.

At times it makes me angry, at other times I find myself laughing. But! that's a good thing. I definitely plan on writing about this and it might become the subject of my very first podcast. heh.

[Cydon]

I agree with your above statement, on both points. At the same time, this book is almost annoyingly addictive. I've been reading it pretty much non-stop since yesterday.

At times it makes me angry, at other times I find myself laughing. But! that's a good thing. I definitely plan on writing about this and it might become the subject of my very first podcast. heh.
So did I! Maybe everyone that reads it feels the same way.

[huttslime]

What exactly is this book about, I saw it at a book store a while ago...

[Cydon]

Go to www.starwarsontrial.com

[Ripley]

Ordered it off Amazon today. I'm eager to start reading it.

[DarthSolo]

Go to www.starwarsontrial.com
Just clicked on that link. It's pretty cool. They've set up a discussion board based on all the charges levelled. I think I'll get this book eventually.

[Cydon]

Its a good book. Really enjoyable and I couldn't put it down.

[Konig15]

How bout we discuss plot holes? There part of the book. For example:

If Sidious didn't want to be discovered untill the last minute, why did he send Darth Maul to find Amidala. She came to Corusacnt, thats EXACTLY what he wanted her to do. To cast the vote of no confidence on Valorum.

I think that was a move to put the blame off him. If Sidious makes everytone think Maal is in ca-hoots with the Trade Federation by attacking Padme, it makes it harder to suspect lil ol Palpy of being the Sith Lord. At least that's my take on it.

[Cydon]

Good points, but the Council was already dead in the water, so would it have mattered??

[Ripley]

Started reading this yesterday. I've lost a bit of respect for Stover in reading it because he frankly comes off as immature at times compared to Brin. Most of his counterpoints are snarky retorts instead of actual well thought out and written rebuttals. Also notced that Stover's writing style seems to be his own speech as his essays and his writings are structured the same way.

[TuskenRaider1]

Will have to pick this up....stover vs brin sounds kinda fun to read. I actually like the stream of conciousness writing, it makes it feel more real to me, since when you have a train of thought about a situation, its never point A to point B in its path .

[Ripley]

Will have to pick this up....stover vs brin sounds kinda fun to read. I actually like the stream of conciousness writing, it makes it feel more real to me, since when you have a train of thought about a situation, its never point A to point B in its path .
I enjoy stream of consciousness myself, but Stover is not that at all. His writing resembles the sometimes lamblasted Bill Shatner form of talking. The pure number of times Stover uses one sentence paragraphs and one word sentences can make the novel a bit halting at time along with the loss of the impact of it.

[bluemilk]

I do agree that Stover tends to come off childish and bratty. He does explain why he does this with his closing arguements. There were, however, some of the witnesses that came off worse or else completely out of touch with reality and made Stover seem refreshing.

[Konig15]

Stover's point, that he makes at the end, is basicly that we shouldn't take Star Wars seriously to ask big questions about it. That's why he's snarky, as far as he's concerned we're debating Curious George.

[Cydon]

Exactly Koing15. I actually enjoyed Stover's writing...

[Ripley]

I do agree that Stover tends to come off childish and bratty. He does explain why he does this with his closing arguements. There were, however, some of the witnesses that came off worse or else completely out of touch with reality and made Stover seem refreshing.
Speaking as a four year debater who have been with some really out of touch people (would you believe that adding a couple hundred thousand troops to our military would cause nuclear war?), and a judge who uses presentation as my paradigm, the Prosecution utterly and completely crused the Defense. Take the charge about EU novel quality. Only Traviss' essay touched upon the actual quality argument when the other two essays virtually focussed on the sales argument, which plays into the hands of the Prosecution in regards to there being little
quality (along the massive irony in Traviss never finishing a single EU novel). The
cross ex on page two-hundred and thirty really torpedoed the Defense in regards to EU novels even though the cross ex dealt with another charge. Miss Huff's remarks about the novel quality in regards to the strict deadlines, strict parameters, and the borrowed celeberity status is the strongest point the Prosecution made about lack of quality. Typically Stover sidelined it with more pithy comments.

In regards to charge six the Defense lacked heavily when the second essay relegated the actual rebuttal to a mere paragraph. While the essay itself was interesting it had no relevance to charge itself. The whole attitude of sidestepping the arguments instead of actual counterpoints showed the Defense was all style and no substance. Many of the remarks made the Defense look like idiots. Stover casually remarking about other films in his diatribes, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Dark City, as crap really gives credibility to the Prosecution in saying that Star Wars is poorly written (dismissing two critically acclaimed and beloved films without any evidence makes Stover appear as if he cannot comphrend the films).

The most comical Stover ranting was the one against the editor, which is probably because he needs one. The constant testerone filled remarks, the belittling without any real meat to his arguments, the arrogant attitude with equally arrogant writing, and the overusage of those one sentence paragraphs have really destroyed any desire to read or reread any of his novels. I know I'm not exactly the biggest Stackpole fan, but what happend to the "oh I know I'll be forever known as an EU writer and I'm fine with it" attitude.


Stover's point, that he makes at the end, is basicly that we shouldn't take Star Wars seriously to ask big questions about it. That's why he's snarky, as far as he's concerned we're debating Curious George.


That whole attitude in regards to entertainment, along with the major proponets, are begging to be mocked. There is much more to reading a book, watching a movie, etc. than just the surface level. Knowing a bit of history gives an added depth to Star Wars gives the films more substance- besides proving how true Lucas' statement that he based his governments off "the empire of empires and the republic of republics." However, at the same time, it makes one see how really bad bad material is.

Overall I'd advise to library the novel instead of a purchase due to the utter one-sided nature of the arguments.

[Cydon]

[/quote]
Overall I'd advise to library the novel instead of a purchase due to the utter one-sided nature of the arguments.

Thats what I did.

[Ripley]

Stover seems immature. I don't know if that's his style, he's trying to make fun of the proceeding.

However:
REGARDLESS OF HOW TECHNOLOGY IS TREATED, STAR WARS IS SCIOENCE FICTION! That's it

If you treat magic as a science, when the dude in the funny hat shoots fire from his fingertips at the army of moving skeletons, that is fantasy. Subject matter matters, how it is treated is not.

Saying Star Wars isn't at least scifi/fantasy is like saying Final Fantasy VI is an adventure game. It makes you sound like a pretentious dumbkopf, and you're just plain wrong. Wrong. Not everything goes up to the 'purist' standard nor should it. There's a great cartoon called Exosquad that can be called sci-fi, soft sci-fi or fantasy depending on your standards, and it'd be a damn shame if Exosquad were tossed in the fantasy bin because it looks sci-fi but "the technology isn't questioned."

The discussion is asinine; i'd rather have my teeth cleaned than read "hard sci-fi" but I have better things to do than read about men in pointy hats fighting tolltaking trolls who live under the bridge. I need my hardware and I need my heart; can't have one without the other.

Is there any reason in your post about why Star Wars is science fiction? All I'm seeing is a rant that makes it sound like your dog was raped by someone who does not consider Star Wars sci-fi.

I hate how many people equate fantasy with Tolkienesque writing- which is stagnating the entire genre. Star Wars falls under space fantasy subgenre. Star Wars does incorporate motifs and outward sci-fi trappings, yet the heart is fantasy. Luke's quest is not all that different from various forms of the hero's journey scattered across history, except Luke has a magic glowing phallic object instead of a sword. His merry band of sidekicks and magical wizard mentors are common in the fantasy genre. Simply saying spaceships and lasers makes a piece of entertainment science fiction is a gross oversimplification of the various genres.

[Konig15]

Is there any reason in your post about why Star Wars is science fiction? All I'm seeing is a rant that makes it sound like your dog was raped by someone who does not consider Star Wars sci-fi.

I hate how many people equate fantasy with Tolkienesque writing- which is stagnating the entire genre. Star Wars falls under space fantasy subgenre. Star Wars does incorporate motifs and outward sci-fi trappings, yet the heart is fantasy. Luke's quest is not all that different from various forms of the hero's journey scattered across history, except Luke has a magic glowing phallic object instead of a sword. His merry band of sidekicks and magical wizard mentors are common in the fantasy genre. Simply saying spaceships and lasers makes a piece of entertainment science fiction is a gross oversimplification of the various genres.

Fair enough Ripley. Can you link a page with definitions of the subgenres? That way I can edumacate myself.

[Cydon]

Indeed. "Educate" "Ripley"

[Konig15]

Indeed. "Educate" "Ripley"

So I forgot the p is Ripley, coulda happened to anyone. Edumatcate was deliberate.

[AnaSkywalker]

I just bought the book yesterday(yes, i actually paid for it) and so far i've read the intro and the opening statements. I must say I find it extremely amusing how the defense and prosecution continue to 'attack' each other. the pop culture references are also very interesting(i've found some new reading material). What's amazing is that I've been trying to get my dad to like star wars and the reasoning he uses to attack star wars is exactly the same as what the prosecution in the book says. All the arguments are my dad's exactly(minus the literary and pop culture references, he doesn't even know the names of the 3 lord of the rings books). So now I have material to use to argue against him!!

[thepepgal]

I just bought the book yesterday(yes, i actually paid for it) and so far i've read the intro and the opening statements. I must say I find it extremely amusing how the defense and prosecution continue to 'attack' each other. the pop culture references are also very interesting(i've found some new reading material). What's amazing is that I've been trying to get my dad to like star wars and the reasoning he uses to attack star wars is exactly the same as what the prosecution in the book says. All the arguments are my dad's exactly(minus the literary and pop culture references, he doesn't even know the names of the 3 lord of the rings books). So now I have material to use to argue against him!!

Good luck and make sure you quote people correctly, before he throws that book out on you. :wink:

[AnaSkywalker]

whenever I say good luck to people, i always say 'you're gonna need it' just like han solo in episode 6. your phrase made me think of that..

and i'l make him watch all the movies and then read the book, so we can have a serious debate.

[Luvinna]

So do we have a final verdict on this book yet? I've read a lot of luke-warm reviews. Should I spend the money on it or just skip it?

[AnaSkywalker]

I'd say definately read it, if not buying it you can get it from the library or a friend. I find the book extremely entertaining, and although sometime prosecutors/defenders tend to adress a different side of the argument and don't defend themselves very well, the book has a lot of good argumetts. Especially useful if you're on the EUDF. Everything is put forth in a way that laughs at everything and makes even the most simple statemnts amusing while being serious at the same time.

[Cydon]

I recommend library unless you want it as a reference.

[AnaSkywalker]

I'm using it as a reference simply because there's so many references to movies and literature that I want to check out. The book's definately made me want to watch Firefly and Star Trek.

[thepepgal]

I'm using it as a reference simply because there's so many references to movies and literature that I want to check out. The book's definately made me want to watch Firefly and Star Trek.

I like Star Trek but don't like Firefly (too western for me).

[Cydon]

Not Treasure of the Sierra Madre? Truly, a shame. :wink: