How does one define Star Wars? How does one explain the genre, or perhaps the nature thereof? Most people, if asked, would classify Star Wars as pure science fiction. If asked to compare it to another similar franchise, they would likely choose Star Trek. After all, on the surface, Star Wars is science fiction, and Star Trek is the most similar competing franchise. From just looking at the spaceships, aliens, and high-tech gizmos and gadgets, anyone could tell you as much.

Digging deeper, though, the precise nature of Star Wars is nigh-indefinable. It's a combination of many things, and does everything well. It includes as much philosophy as The Matrix, as much fantasy as Lord of the Rings, and as much magic as Harry Potter. It's an epic, mythological battle of good versus evil placed in a "futuristic" setting; although, as we all know, it takes place many years in the past. It is unique in that way. Half the time it's pure fun; the other half, it's a serious story. It's a fascinating duality, and it exists everywhere. Many people, I think, miss a lot of the meaning of the movies; they don't give it enough consideration. Yet, we also shouldn't lose sight of the fun side. Star Wars is not dependent on any one viewpoint. Keep in mind this omnipresent duality and mhi ven cuyi briikase vode -- we'll all be "happy brothers." (If I knew the Mando'a word for "camper," I'd use it. )


Look at General Grievous. He's a cool guy. He has four arms, more lightsabers than you can possibly imagine, and this weird cough thing. He can walk like a crab or even hover. And some say that he's not important to the story of Star Wars -- he's just there for show. Or just for fun. Or even just to sell that many more action figures. Maybe that's so. But then, isn't fun and spectacle what Star Wars was really all about, way back in 1977? (See janlomona's blog here.) Star Wars' fun side is the most apparent to the first-time viewer, yet it is also almost frowned upon in today's fan base. "It can be fun, but everything needs deep meaning and must be integral to the story." I, too, lean towards that side of the fence, but remember: Star Wars spans... well, everything. It straddles most every fence in the world.

It may take many more than one viewing to see the more "serious" side -- that Star Wars is not just about spaceships flying around shooting things. There are important morals in it, as well as themes that have pervaded in storytelling since stories began. It is the tale of the hero's journey; that is the "true" focus, or at least the one more fans seem to gravitate towards.

Most every modern blockbuster runs into this. There's the fun, and there's the story. As it is such a recent example, I will cite Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, which jumps from fun and flying, joking and laughing, to the resurrection of a long-dead mortal enemy. There is a certain balance to be found, and Star Wars has done that well, I think.

Just as that fun/serious duality exists, so exists a mythical/realistic duality within Star Wars; a philosophical/technical duality; a character/detail duality. The mythical/philosophical side seems to be a complement to the serious side; the realistic/technical side seems a natural complement to the fun side. The story of Star Wars is debated philosophically; the battles and spectacles are debated technically. Yet, in spirit the two sides don't always align as such - technical comparisons may be much more serious than fun discussions, or vice versa.

The movies are, in general, more mythical, more philosophical, and less technical. It's alright if the exact time period remains undefined, or if there's sound in space, or if Palpatine can get from Coruscant to Mustafar in the time it takes Anakin to crawl a couple inches. Myths generally aren't completely realistic. Epics don't get caught up in logistics. In many excellent, well-renowned literary masterpieces, characters are very clear-cut and almost caricaturized. They are eternal archetypes who show prowess, wisdom, prescience, heroics, arrogance, or corruption beyond what is plausible in "real life." Star Wars is like that. Is there anyone in the world who is as evil as Palpatine or as wise as Yoda? Nope. In Star Wars, though, there is.

The Expanded Universe, on the other hand, furthers the story in what is generally a much more "down-to-earth" format. We get to enjoy all sorts of fun technical data, numbers, fleet maneuvers, tactics, and so on that are never touched upon in the "big picture" movies. Now, I love all the neat little details of Star Wars. I'm happy to know the armament of an UT-AT, the number of moons of Coruscant, the manufacturer of the E-Wing or the reason why both the Chiss Clawcraft and the TIE Defender seem so heavily inspired by the tri-fighter. We know the system and sector of every world, and the flora and fauna that live there. We know just how fast an X-wing is. We know how long every ship is... okay, bad example. The point is: I love that stuff. It's fun. And yet, Star Wars does not depend on those details. Star Wars spans a whole galaxy of creative styles.

This duality - yes, that's a fun word - also exists in fandom. We have people to only like the fun, and some who just like the story; we have fans who debate philosophically, and fans who debate technically. And then we have all sorts of combinations, hybrids, and so on. Occasionally these groups clash somewhat... but, for the most part, I think we all get along quite cordially.

Still, there has recently been a spurt of debate over the improbability of the clones' ability to hold off six billion times as many battle droids. The issue is tough to mentally reconcile when presented in so blunt and clear a manner, as done well by Nex: The T is Hott!! here. In my comments there, I feel I may have looked for the easy way out. Instead of working with what we had - with what we had to work with - I suggested a quick note in the next Insider revising the numbers. There, problem solved. Balance could be brought to Star Wars continuity as easy as that.

The problem with that, though, is twofold: one, dramatically increasing clone output brings up problems of its own, and two, we can't just go around changing whatever we think doesn't make sense. I'm usually fine with such apparent impossibilities - I'm glad there's sound in space, and it'd get awfully boring waiting around for years and years as Palpatine's shuttle crawls through space at some more reasonable speed. I suppose I was just thrown off by the sheer immensity of the droids' advantage.

But, as The Dark Moose points out, I just needed to use my imagination. So let's say that the clones knocked out a lot of Confederacy factories, blockaded a lot of hyperspace routes, and generally got more bang for the buck. And let's say there were still tons of droids left throughout the galaxy at the end of Episode III, and that maybe, if not for the Confederacy's surrender, they could have outlasted the clones through sheer numbers. Now everything makes sense, and nothing in the continuity had to be changed. It doesn't matter if some of the numbers don't add up; explain it for yourself or just let it be.


Unfortunately, it seems that Karen Traviss and Ryan Kaufman have recently been flamed somewhat over this very issue. That just seems unfair. They have a whole lot of restrictions that they had to work within: three decades of stories, all capable of conflicting with each other. As a fan, I know it can be almost impossible to keep up - I'm gone for a week and suddenly The Unseen Queen has come out, not to mention a new round of What's the Story winners, some new Hyperspace fiction, and maybe a comic or two.

So just imagine how hard it would be if your job depended on getting this stuff right. They may have the Holocron (lucky... ), but they also have deadlines, publishing lead times (or whatever it's called), editorial revisions and cuts (or last-minute additions), and half a dozen other stories overlapping with theirs that come out at the same time. And they have to get it all right before it's all published - we get to just look at the finished product. And, if you're interested in numerical advantages, there are millions more of us. It's the advantage of distributed computing and Wikipedia; it's the reason the Web will never go offline; it's the reason for redundancy; it's the power of the masses - the reason bloggers will pick up on news stories that the major outlets can't. If one of us doesn't catch something, there will be ten more who do. Or, if ten of us don't catch something, there'll still be that one who does. We can't get caught up in the details.


Yet, we can't get caught up in ignoring the details, either - if that makes any sense. It's all right that we have people who care more about droid foundry output, and it's all right that we have people who care more about why Anakin fell to the Dark Side. We can coexist! Woohoo! Don't worry; ke'cuyi briikase! If we let ourselves get caught up in petty... I'll say it one more time... dualities, we're letting Star Wars move away from its epic underpinnings and towards a meaningless, simple-minded, philosophically-hollow science-fiction action flick. It would be like jumping over to one side of that metaphorical fence instead of straddling it; committing to only one aspect of something much larger. We can't just go around giving everything a nice neat definition. Where's the mystery if we go and spell out Yoda's childhood or the history of the Whills? Some things are fun to answer; some things don't need to be answered; and some things just shouldn't be answered.

Coming back to the original question, I, if asked, would not be able to readily define the genre of Star Wars. I would probably jump into this sort of lengthy discussion and bore the person to death. "Space opera" comes to mind as a possibility, but most people would probably just look at you strangely if you said that. Perhaps Star Wars defies classification; perhaps it's a genre itself; or perhaps that's just one more question best left unanswered, but rather simply debated endlessly in blogs like this.

I feel silly saying much of this, because all I'm saying is that one can't say anything definitively. There is no one "true" side to anything. It is an essay of nothingness and everything... ness... if that makes any sense. The original version of this entry leaned towards the less technical side; the second leaned back towards the middle. And now I've taken a step back and revised it into a huge bloated rambling statement for all sides.

The deeper one digs into Star Wars, the more one finds. It's huge; in fact, I daresay it's infinite. One can dig into morality, one can dig into technical specifications, and one can dig into everything in between. Star Wars spans that whole range of fun, engaging content. I catch something new every single time I see one of the movies, read one of the books, or ponder some concept. It is endlessly compelling, and could teach a good many people some very important lessons. And it can also just be fun. The point is, one can't define Star Wars in a word, or a sentence, or even a paragraph. It is a universe, and that is why I love it.