It's the heroes that count, not the endless patterns of zeroes.

I think David Brin does an excellent job of contrasting George Lucas' style of fiction with David Brin's style of fiction. There is a lot of validity to his observations about the differences between a hero story and an everyman story. However, unlike (apparently) David Brin I think there is a place for both in our popular mythology. Now, when an author contrasts his own point of view with someone else's it would be unrealistic to expect him to present a perfectly balanced view; however, I think Brin goes overboard in these articles. The Godwin's Law implications of his Nazi allusions have been mentioned by others, but what I notice is that his treatment of Star Wars is both uncharitable and unfaithful to Lucas' films.

By ``uncharitable,'' I mean that given two or more ways to interpret a passage from the film, Brin invariably chooses the most harmful. For example, the scene: a dysfunctional Senate divided by its internal politics and unable to act decisively in the face of an incipient crisis. Brin interprets this as an indictment of our democratic institutions and a glorification of autocracy. But is it really? Lucas' portrayal of the Senate would be viewed as a cautionary tale about what happens when we allow our democratic institutions to drift too far out of touch with the people they government, perhaps something along the lines of ``Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.''

Another example: Brin interprets Lucas' larger than life heroes as ``demigods.'' The heroes greatness (Brin claims) suggests that we ordinary mortals need not concern ourselves with great matters; we lack the wit and the strength. Okay, but isn't it possible that Lucas (and Homer, and all the rest) meant for us to aspire to be like their heroes. Of course, we will fall short of their greatness, but the only way for us to reach our maximal potential is to aim higher than any mortal could achieve, lest we set our goals too low. I can't say for certain the either of these two interpretations is what Lucas had in mind, but I can't believe that they didn't at least cross Brin's mind; yet, he dismisses them without mention.

Brin is also unfaithful to Lucas' films. That is, he invents specious objections that are not supported by the films themselves. For instance, he lowers Anakin's age, objections to Darth Vader not recognizing C3PO (if they ever met face to face I don't remember it, and protocol droids all look pretty much alike), ascribing the decision to allow Obi-Wan to train Anakin to Yoda (Yoda was against it; he goes along with the council's wishes despite his misgivings--so much for autocracy), and so on. In fact, almost everything beyond Brin's analysis of the hero story vs. the everyman story is based on one sort of strained interpretation of the action on the screen. It says to me that either he did not watch the movies particularly carefully, or that he's digging up mud to create a mood which makes his readers more antagonistic toward Lucas' films, and therefore more receptive toward Brin's own theses.

Now, look, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that TPM was a perfect film, nor that Star Wars is a perfect saga. I cringed at the ``medichlorians'' and the virgin birth mumbo-jumbo just like everyone else. I do, however, think it was a fine film, and it deserved better than Brin was giving it here. But, more than that, in what is essentially a political debate over ``elitism'' vs. ``egalitarianism'' I want to see an honest assessment of the two sides. In this respect Brin fails miserably, and I think that such overt proselytizing is far more harmful than whatever message ``the children'' (somehow it's always about protecting the children, isn't it?) may have gotten from TPM.