#supposing that instead of defending a movie Stover was defending a man who shot and killed Hitler

[david-talks-sw]

I'm reading through the book Star Wars on Trial and it's interesting. I completely disagree with almost everything I've read in it so far, but at least it's well-argued and written light-heartedly, it doesn't take itself that seriously.

The book is framed as a court hearing in which the prosecutor and defense attorney - both hilariously pompous and petty - debate their points and hear from witnesses. David Brin speaks for the prosecution, and Matthew Stover (author of the Revenge of the Sith novelization) speaks for the defense...

... and the thing is, I find myself disagreeing with both of them.

Example: Brin doesn't like or get the Jedi's rule of non-attachment, sees it as cutting off any and all relationships or emotions.

"In order to be a skilled and good and worthy warrior, you must cut yourself off from the very attachments that make a decent coworker, lover, spouse, parent and citizen. [...] One can understand demanding that a young adept avoid undue distraction while focusing hard on his training. But to cut off all thought of loved ones, even when they are suffering? Where is the "wisdom" in that?"

But when you look at his whole argument, at least it's clear that his real issue is with the narrative itself, he's disagreeing with (what he thinks is) Lucas' message regarding attachments.

What really surprises me, however, is Stover's response:

"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."

His argument is "you misunderstood the narrative, the 'no attachment' rule is intentionally framed as bad."

I mean... no? It's not.

And, like... you know this @Matthew Stover. I know for a fact that you get what the whole "no attachments" deal is about and what the intended narrative is (not just because you spent an afternoon talking to George Lucas), because I've seen you explain it:

What he says in the above video perfectly aligns with the many comments Lucas made on the subject of attachment.

So what's with the 180° in Star Wars on Trial?

And, btw, that's how the whole book goes, so far.

First, the prosecution will nitpick by ignoring or misinterpreting the intended narrative, and point out something they don't like about the Prequels, eg: the Jedi as retroactively reframed by the Prequels, heartless, detached and callous.

The defense (who should know the narrative) will counter with "you're missing the point, it's supposed to be perceived badly because:

the Prequels are actually this subversive commentary about how the good guys are actually not that good,

Anakin was destined to wipe the Jedi out and the Sith to bring Balance to the Force

the Jedi's rules are dogmatic and Luke triumphs because he rejects them."

Instead of defending the message of the movies and standing up for it, he clearly implicitly agrees with the prosecution's argument and thus reframes the message by stating that the films actually agree with what the prosecution is saying.

Again, the arguments are interesting and well-researched in some cases, and I get that the whole book is playful in tone (the judge is a friggin' droid for crying out loud 😆) but I feel like if you're gonna defend your client, defend the damn client, right?

#best analogy I can come up with is: #supposing that instead of defending a movie Stover was defending a man who shot and killed Hitler #the prosecution is saying ‘killing is bad!’ and the defense is arguing ‘my client knows and he’s sorry’ #‘he did it to save lives’ #when he SHOULD be saying ‘it may have been illegal but there’s no fucking way that killing Hitler is bad’ #dunno if this makes sense #the Prequels are indie movies made by an experimental filmmaker… you can like or dislike them #you can call them unconventional #but calling them ‘bad’ doesn’t apply because they don’t adhere to the general audience’s standards of quality in the first place #they’re not meant to be blockbusters they’re myths reintroduced to an audience of 8-12 year olds #attachment #revenge of the sith #matthew stover #star wars #anakin skywaker #jedi order