Nick Jamilla: My Qualifications:

• 2nd degree (nidan) in Aikikai (Hombu) style aikido. 1st degree awarded by the Aikikai headquarters in Tokyo, Japan. 2nd degree awarded under Mitsugi Saotome Sensei at the Aikido Shobukan Dojo in Washington, DC.
• 2nd degree Kendo Zen- Nihon Renmei (All-Japan Kendo Federation) from Itabashi-ku under Akira Kubo Sensei of the Tokyo Kyumeikan Kendo Dojo.
• 1st degree jodo Zen-Nihon Kendo Renmei from Tokyo under Akira Kubo Sensei.

I have practiced formally in iaido, but have not tested. In addition, I have formally trained in many other styles, and have observed and attended numerous seminars in other styles of sword, long and short staff, and naginata (halberd). I train off and on at the US Naval Academy aikido club in Annapolis, Maryland. On occasion, I teach classes.

Western Fencing
No formal ranks exist, as they do in the Japanese martial arts — though I have won many local tournaments in my early days and participated in National Junior fencing championships. In 1987, I participated in the World Fencing Championships and the World University Games for the Philippines. I subsequently gave up fencing until 1995 when I began teaching fencing to middle school students. In 2001, I began teaching at the Georgetown Fencing Club which practices at Georgetown University.

I have not studied classically reconstructed Western fencing styles, and I have only participated once in a SCA-style (Society for Creative Anachronism) "competition" under Dagohir rules.

I have been active in fencing and Japanese martial arts for over twenty years.

NJ: In all of the movies, I was always impressed with the sword fighting. What I like about Star Wars is that the sword fighting is pretty close to reality — even the wild jumps are logical extensions of telekinetic ability.

I don't care very much for Chinese genre movies where swordsmen fly through the air and exchange half a dozen sword swipes. Even the sword fight on the bamboo boughs in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was too much for my tastes. (This in no way disparages the physical abilities of the actors and stunt doubles, of course.)

Star Wars is not overly acrobatic - which, in my mind, makes it more credible. Acrobatics impresses most people, but I don't consider exaggerated movement martial. Good sword fighting is economic and devastating. Unfortunately, it wouldn't make for a good duel on film.

I never thought much about the sword fighting in the first three films, but I've since concluded that Peter Diamond did incredible justice to Star Wars in the sword fighting choreography.

As a swordsman, I truly enjoy the sword fighting in Star Wars, but if I had my own chance to choreograph the sword fights, it would be different from the movies.

NJ: I would make the sword fights more Japanese. At present, the influences on SW are mostly from Western sabre. I recently interviewed Sean Diamond, and it's clear he's of the Western fencing tradition. Gillard has no apparent fencing background, and Ray Park is Chinese. There are plenty of ways to make two-handed sword fighting more technically realistic without making it overly Japanese.

It's pointless to show what I would improve, though; it's more of what I would focus on. For example, I would show more of the blade striking to real target areas, not just showing clashing swords. There's a lot of subtle taking of the blade and lightning thrusts. I'd also emphasize more of the point being inches away from the target area.

I love the halberd, which is what I envision when I see Maul's lightsaber. Halberd movement is more flowing and smooth — not quick and choppy. I've done Japanese halberd with practice weapons and the large movements are lovely (and deadly). In my Swiss Guard novel, I actually train the guardsmen to use their halberds in formation in the hallways of the Vatican if they found themselves in a situation holding back a large approaching crowd.

But mostly? I'd add on to what's already in the movies. I wouldn't think of changing them, but I might refine them a little... And that's all you're going to get out of me! (laughs) Especially when you talk about another person's work, you have to respect the ability and skill that they bring to their work. If it looks like crap, critique it on technical merits. Otherwise, if you get a good feeling for a sword fight (which is what's important in film) go with it.

NJ: Teach the actors to twist in their wrists when they have a grip on their lightsabers.

Favorite movie as far as the swordfighting goes? Hard to say. They are each so different and can be appreciated each in of itself. The first three never struck me as particularly interesting until I began to research my book. Upon examining the movement and the interspersed dialogue, I now find the choreography extremely satisfying. Peter Diamond gave so much to Star Wars, and it's unfortunate that he and his work, because the PT is so flashy, will largely go unappreciated. Hopefully, my book will address that problem.

I was very much impressed with Darth Maul in TPM. With the many years since ROTJ and the early (and primitive) Internet speculation preceding TPM, I was pleasantly surprised by the double-blade lightsaber. After examining the fight from a technical point of view and its relationship to the story, I'm not as excited — but what truly makes it better than all Star Wars lightsaber fighting is the technical ability of Ray Park. His skill brought the level of fighting to professional martial arts standards. He wanted (because he is young) to incorporate a flashier, Jackie Chan style of fighting... But overall the fight doesn't become too self-indulgent. The criticism in the book I make of the Darth Maul fight being "eye candy" is that there was no dialogue to help carry the story.

Needless to say, the posturing of Yoda into a Bruce Lee stance is cliche to me. (I loved it and thought it was an excellent touch of humor on GL's part — better than burps and stepping in poodoo, anyway.) It's fantastic that Ray Park introduced a Chinese element to the SW universe. As I say in my book, perhaps there is someone of the Chinese martial arts tradition who'll do a book similar to my own.

NJ: The lightsaber fight in AOTC is historically authentic and does great justice to the movie medium. The fights are short, quick, and hard to perceive - that's the way a real duel would be. That's also the reason why Western fencing is not as popular: Unless you know something about fencing, you can't simply watch and understand the first time you see it. It will never become a popular sport because you can't easily compile statistics to compare fencers. (Nor should you.)

The three duels also tell the story of training in a nutshell:

• Anakin's brash dash into the breach is easily thwarted by Dooku. (Lesson 1: don't think with simple emotion.)
• Obi-Wan then goes at it thwarting the Force lightning and dukes it out with Dooku but gets bested. (Lesson 2: Even the level headed and talented fencer will be defeated.)
• And then Yoda goes in and literally runs circles around Dooku's head. (Lesson 3: Wisdom and skill of Yoda will defeat a great swordsman of Dooku.)

The fencing lesson is extremely compact and efficient, which is what fencing is all about.

ES: In The Shimmering Sword, you say that there really is no defense among experienced sword fighters - if you're on the defense, you're losing. To successfully fight, you must constantly be presenting threats to your opponent to overload him. Do you see that difference between experienced and inexperienced students in Star Wars films?

NJ: In ANH, the lightsaber fighting is pretty basic — but I still stand by my assertion in The Shimmering Sword that it is an example of high-level ability. In ESB and in ROTJ, there is an ebb and flow that creates fantastic dramatic moments. I think Luke captures the development of a swordsmen very well.

TPM is more of fight, fight, fight — cool kick; then more fight, fight, fight, force push. Early stills of TPM before the movie was released showed many poor posture in McGregor's stances. In the fencing community, we hoped that this reflected his junior ability to Qui-Gon. In the end, the lightsaber fighting was very good, and the pictures were simply photographic captures of bad postures. No fencer would allow pictures of himself with hunched shoulders, strikes done on tip-toes, or with wrists turned out. The actors in Star Wars quite simply weren't swordsman, so it's inevitable that they'd make those kinds of minor mistakes.

NJ: If there really were lightsabers, the biggest difference would be the weight of the weapon. The sword is top-heavy because of the blade; the lightsaber is bottom-heavy. That would take some getting used to.

Training would always begin with some kind of non-lethal weapon — we use a wooden sword in real life, but apprentices would probably practice with a lightsaber where the blade was harmless. Once a student got used to the safe lightsaber, there would be little fear of using the actual lightsaber. It is simply a question of fear and confidence.

Were I to pick up a lightsaber, I would definitely have to get used to the weight of the weapon — but that would be a pretty easy adjustment. I would have no fear of the blade because with regular swords (and training weapons, for that matter), I never touch the blade. I wouldn't be a master in the weapon when I picked it up; as with any other weapon, I'd have to train with it to perfect my technique. But with my background, I would certainly be ahead of the game.

NJ: A retractable blade would simply be more convenient. With a real blade, swordsmen have to be careful not to accidentally clash scabbards. There's no worry with a lightsaber. In battle, the problem is close quarters, but swordsmen would be trained to deal with that. Anakin's stance found in the Visual Dictionary with the blade back behind his head is preposterous, because you might accidentally hit someone behind you with it. That's why in all samurai films the blade, when held over the head, is at an upward angle.

I'd love to be able to hang my sword from my belt like a dagger. It's not heavy, and it wouldn't be cumbersome.

NJ: Like a boomerang? There actually is a historical precedent for it — though I doubt Zahn knows about it. The Yagyu style of Japanese swordsmanship actually has a kata which ends with one swordsman throwing his sword at his opponent: The defender has to block it in mid-air. This style is very respected and considered traditional. This technique, however, is extremely esoteric — even by Japanese standards.

In the real world, no swordsman would throw away a weapon as precious as his sword unless he had other skills that were as effective in the situation in which he found himself. If you want to include Force powers, then you can do more with it.

Actually, Lucas limits the use of the Force quite a deal: In my fantasy novel The Montani Chronicles, I pay homage to the Jedi by giving the Montani (a tribe of Romans) telekinetic powers. I created a whole rationale to these powers, and had the Montani hide them to preserve its purity and hid the limits of their ability. I love the scene in which Anakin uses the Force to move Padme's food around. It's a very trivial use of his powers, about which Obi-Wan (and rightly so) would chastise Anakin. It's a very sophisticated and subtle abuse of Anakin's training.

As an instructor of martial knowledge, I have to be careful that I explain technique within the context of swordsmanship and honor. I should not teach real techniques without teaching the proper purpose of its use: That's why there is so much emphasis on honor in my book. When I talk about swordfighting at my book signings, I hope it becomes clear that swordsmanship and fencing is a lot more than simply clashing steel swords together, which is what most people think. In actuality, the best swordsmanship never involves the clashing of steel — and that can be taken both practically and metaphysically. The best hit is one were the defender can't even raise a parry; the best use of the sword is convincing without ever resorting to the sword.

This doesn't work for film though, and it's not what some people want to hear when they attend my talks. I think a lot of Sci-Fi editors don't want to hear about good swordsmanship.

It is possible, however, to include good swordsmanship in a fantasy novel. I think that is the appeal of a good sword fight. I had sent a copy of my manuscript to an agent who hired someone else to critique my fantasy novel. That hired reader didn't care much for my story, but he did say that the sword fighting scenes were particularly convincing. And at a book signing by R.A. Salvatore, I gave him a copy of my book and he was very excited. He quipped that that Shimmering Sword would be sword fighting research for him.

So; back to throwing the lightsaber around in a room in the way that Vader threw his lightsaber in ROTJ. I don't have a problem with it, as long as it's done well and used sparingly. Once you throw your lightsaber, you risk losing it - but from a writer's point a view, you don't want to create an all-powerful weapon. If it worked so well in that one instance, why wouldn't you do it all the time? There should be some limit or disadvantage to it. As a fencer, I would be extremely wary of allowing my sword (or lightsaber) to leave my hands.

NJ: I wouldn't say you feel the Force when you fence. I'm more prone to call it "flow" — which is a kind of naturalness of movement. Certainly from all of the endocrinological events happening in your body from adrenalin, cortisol, and testosterone, you get a rush which gives you a sensation of being undefeatable... But that's common to any combative art like boxing and even hunting. It doesn't control your emotions, though you may feel empowered by the euphoria.

Aikido talks about managing your ki (or energy spirit); I can't say for sure that I've felt it. Because of my Western background I'm skeptical of that which I cannot physically see, grasp, and observe. But I do have an open mind, and I do practice during training to harness my energy. That may sound like double-talk, but it makes sense once you learn to become more sensitive to the energy of others. That sensitivity comes from endless practices with training partners.

But is there something controlling my motions? I do react instinctively to what I perceive. In Asian philosophy, it is called emptying your mind. In this sense, there is some "invisible hand" inside of you directing your movement. Training, as I say in my book, is honing the instincts. Natural reactions are not sufficient to defend yourself in a fight against someone with superior ability and skill: You're like an animal. You do what comes naturally and some of the time it is a correct reaction. Animals don't have that luxury, because the moment your instincts are wrong, you're dead. So it has to be superior training that saves a swordsman's life.

I believe Lucas' initial "Luke, use the Force" statement in ANH is simply a statement that you should rely on yourself and your abilities, not technology. In Empire Strikes back, the concept of letting go of your feelings was influenced by the screenplay writers Leigh Bracket and Lawrence Kasdan and the director Kershner. Kershner was very much into Zen philosophy. I'd love to get a look at Laurent Bouzereau's sources for the Annotated Screenplays.

In aikido sword practice, I'm often told to do things in a different manner. Twist your wrist this way; turn the blade that way. I was trained heavily in kendo and kendo kata, which gives me certain pretensions in the way I use my weapons. I do things unconsciously and according to that training. In this sense, there is a "spirit" moving me. Whatever it is, I hope training helps my instincts and will save me in those "theoretical" sword fights. Sparring is a great way to test one's skills, as long as one understands the nature of the competition and its type. I try to do competitive sparring in both Western fencing and kendo with the intention of a real battle; this often means I get hit with quick, light strikes. With a real sword, that strike would probably not have landed, and it certainly wouldn't have killed me.

Getting hit or losing a match because of this doesn't bother me; it's just a sport. What does bother me is allowing my opponent to hit me when I know I could have (or should have) made some kind of counter move: A step back, a feint to throw off my opponent's tempo, a direct attack. And every time a point that would have killed me lands, I thank the maker that it was a competition. I feel very fortunate that I have this luxury. There would be nothing worse than to live in a society where I really had to use my martial skills in walks between home and work.

NJ: If you see the Force as symbolic of power, then there is a Dark Side aspect to swordsmanship. When a person becomes a great fencer, the temptations to use that power are particularly inviting. Having power over others is often self-justifying... But every time your emotions take over, your technique suffers.

Two things are needed for fencing: tenacity and skill. Tenacity is reigning in those emotions of anger or fear. Skill is the developed ability to harness one's emotion.

NJ: I guess my Dark Side is the possibility that I may hurt others unnecessarily in the protection of people I care about. The fights I describe in my book are essentially trials in character similar to those Luke encounters in his journey.

Teaching responsibility is extremely important in educating fencers. That's in essence the idea that the duty of a master swordsman is to teach honor. Honor is public accountability of personal responsibility.

NJ: For myself, it's the kind of focused movement that attracts me. I don't really like games that don't have any real world examples. Facetiously, I like to say that I don't understand the fascination with fighting for a ball and moving it across a field or into a net. In swimming, at least you can keep yourself from drowning — or you can swim away from a shark. I am very much a team player, but I don't like team sports. I prefer individual sports.

In fencing, you can only rely on yourself. You had to coordinate with others on the battlefield, of course — but ultimately, your own personal skill determines whether you survive. I think people are fascinated with the ability to control their own destiny by being able to hold their own with a sword in a fight.

But it's not only the power that attracts people to swordfighting — it's the position in society that's associated with the sword. Believe it or not, while carrying the sword was commonplace in society, people have always been attracted to swordsmen. I don't think anyone wants to kill anyone; they just want to be able to say they know how to defend themselves with a sword.

NJ: I was very familiar with the plot of Attack of the Clones during the six months I was writing my book — so I made sure that my writing did not contradict the lightsaber fighting that would occur in the movie. Regardless, unless Lucas gave the Jedi some new amazing ability not found in other movies, there is only so much Lucas can do with the lightsaber. Ultimately, the Jedi would be swept away because of politics and not because they weren't capable warriors. If part of the problem in EP III is that the Jedi refuse to give up their lightsaber and resort to the use of blaster, that would add an historical subtext to their demise; historical gravy in a work of fiction.

In my mind, it would be absurd to think the Jedi would deny themselves proper weapons to fight whatever army they confront in Episode III simply because they want to cling to a traditional weapon. Like the trench warfare of World War I, the Jedi would — or should — learn that old fighting tactics and weapons have only a limited place on a battlefield with new weapons, if any at all.

Traditional battlefield warfare has always been about the ability to use weapons and skills effectively. Modern wars, however (and the American Civil War is considered by many to be the first "modern" war), depend on better economic strength and the ability to produce weapons and supplies quickly. It's kind of clever how Lucas weaves elements of the military industrial complex, the conflict of muscle power (swordsmen) versus gunpowder (guns and blasters), and power politics. These are timeless themes, really, which is why literature and history still resonate with our modern society.

In response to the idea that perhaps the Jedi are becoming useless: I would say yes. Times and circumstances change. One of the biggest problems with knights, who were idealized as the perfect man, was that they carried their chivalry to the point of absurdity. Don Quixote is the perfect example of the fall of the knight who clung senselessly to tradition. In the eyes of a changing society — one that's becoming more egalitarian and democratic in nature — chivalry and the knights became the purview of old men with power: Our version of Protestant old white men.

On a more practical level, the duels that aristocrats felt were their privilege led to atrocious assassinations that everyone, commoner and aristocrat alike, abhorred. In Japan, a conscious decision was made at the inauguration of the Meiji era (the beginning of their modern era) to disband the privilege of the samurai in favor of a Western-style army: Specifically, the new government banned the carrying of two swords in public and wearing the top knot. Today, only sumo wrestlers are permitted to wear the top knot.

NJ: In resurrecting a new Jedi Order — as Luke does with the Jedi Academy — it's extremely important how the academy is established and for what purpose. Any institution that does not change according to outside circumstances are destined to die from inactivity or to become quaint living statues to the past.

Take the guards of the Tower of London: They're military personel, but they've become tourist guides. The British Life Guard have evolved into a pageantry honor guard - but their regular training is still intact. The honor guard at Arlington is made up of recruits who have a very specific purpose.

The Swiss Guard, my pet interest, is a specific military unit meant to guard the entrances of the Vatican and serve as a military should the Vatican ever be stormed. In my book, I examine this potential role of the Swiss Guard: It looks ornate, but they actually have rifle practice, they know how to use pistols, knives, and pepper spray. Some writing suggests they may even have Stinger missles provided by the CIA at their disposal. I take this one step further by extrapolating what would be needed of Swiss Guardsmen in terms of hand-to-hand combat. The book's finished, but not published. I love it because it examines what real skills an honor guard of a governmental institution like the Vatican would need.

I could easily envisage a role for the New Jedi knights in the New Republic. It might be comprised of dedicated students educated in martial arts and academic formation, much like a modern militiary academy. I'm very familiar with the Naval Academy, and I know what goes into their formation: The real trick is convincing everyone else that such a warrior diplomat would have a credible role in a new government. That's a very difficult trick to pull off — and one that would require a clear focus of purpose.

In my book, I discuss the Jesuit Order as a real world model for the Jedi Knights: They have the strength of a rigorous academic training and religious fervor. Their clear and hierarchical order (like that of the military) is efficient and permits the insitution to adjust to the order's needs. The Jesuits were well respected as priests, they were among the best educated in the world, and they have a direct vow of obedience to the pope. Sound similar to the Jedi Knights of the Republic?

I have only cursory knowledge of the New Jedi Order, and it doesn't seem to have any grounding in real life. The fundamental questions I ask myself include: How does a young boy from a backward planet like Tatooine convince others that he has the ability and competence to reestablish the great Jedi Order? As Han says, he's more familiar with dusting crops. I think the key is honing in on Leia's training as a diplomat and member of a royal family. I mean, Luke is only a boy in a world where humans who run the political order are in their 50's, 60's, 70's, and even 80's.

A great way to re-invent the Jedi Order is to create a following of learned and dedicated individuals who are attracted to a young charismatic Luke. In essence, Luke would then have to become a kind of messianic figure who has standing with the public. Despite his youth, he has a charisma which convinces the wisest people to devote their lives to the ways of the new Jedi Order. Through the hard work and successes of member of this new order, the establishment would then begin to recognize the benefit of having the Jedi serve the New Republic.

The Jesuits weren't simply created by fiat: They proved themselves as dedicicated religious servants of the poor. The establishment then recognized their efforts and their education, and then saw a role for them within the Catholic Church. In fact, they were probably critical to the survival of the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation.

Jesuit history provides for some real-world examples for the Jedi Knights... But so do others. St. Francis de Salles was a swordsman turned priest. I was taught by priests of this order, and I have picked up a subtle pride that the founder of their order was both a capable swordsman and a man who discovered God. The thought that individuals with physical power over others because of their sword might somehow find the inspiration to chose a non-violent path to life is extremely intriguing to me.

Your comparison to the British Royal Family — treasured but powerless — comes from a distict evolution of British society. In many respects, modern liberalism was born in England. It was simply a question of when the monarchy would lose its power. It is an interesting conundrum that the Magna Carta, which guaranteed privileges to the king also spelled the doom of the monarchy. King John knew that by signing the Magna Carta, he gave up any claim to absolute rulership. French kings would take that argument and legitimize their complete autocracy.

In sweeping terms, one could compare the Republic to pre-WW II diplomatic history, the Clone Wars to the fascism of the 20' and 40's, and the New Republic to a post WW II world with the United Nations. You could also make ancient comparisons to the Republican and Imperial Rome as well.

NJ: The best way to create this New Order for a new series of novels is to get a very capable historian who has a love of SW to come up with a far-reaching vision of what will happen to the New Republic. I don't know what Sue Rostoni and Del Ray and LFL have done in this regards. From what I've heard, it seems to be working.

I think the most critical issue is getting extremely competent writers to do the books. The issue of historical context and the obvious need to produce books with basic boilerplate plots could have been easily forseen by those at LFL in their continuity department. I'm sure they have a method to their madness. They haven't divulged it (if they have one) because they don't want to give away plots of upcoming book series. Successful series will have a conclusion in mind. Babylon 5 and Farscape have worked well under this system. Star Trek, to me, seems to endlessly niggle human behavior.

Star Trek episodes tend to tell the audience what is right, not what is right within the context of a historical time continium. Often I don't agree with the conclusions of particular episodes. They discuss issues like abortion (they call it something else), machine rights (slavery), or the prime directive. These are extremely difficult subjects to which lifetimes have been devoted. The ideal is to get experts in the field to bring in such critical human issues as consultants... But that's not the way Hollywood works. You hire writers based on their past writing, not their expertise.

I remember an X-Files episode about the martial arts. It was clear that they found some crackpot website and were suckered into that bizarre world. It made martial artists look like comic book characters — not devoted students who train their entire life in search of some kind of emotional, spiritual, or social enlightenment.

I think it's important not insult the audience by making what is silly (or stupid) into something more profound than it is. Conversely, serious subjects should not be "solved" in a single episode. The audience deserves better than that.

I think that's why there's been so much talk on the Internet about the actual fate of AOTC. It's not the same talk that would have occurred after ESB (had there been an Internet then). Probably the talk about AOTC is more akin to that after ROTJ in that many people weren't completely satisfied with the ewoks. A better way to judge AOTC (as I mentioned before) is within the context of the entire saga — which isn't complete yet.

Lucas, like Tolkien, McCaffrey, and others, has created his own universe with its own unique characteristics and peoples. To me, I think there's a very historical basis on which the Jedi could be founded, and there is a romanticised notion. I prefer the former - which is how I judge the Jedi in my book.

NJ: Training out of the womb is a practice that has happened repeatedly through time and across cultures. It's hard to believe because we live in liberal Western countries... But most cultures enforce very rigid ways of behaving and acting. Training children to be Jedi even before their general awareness of the world is a relatively easy task. If a Jedi life is all they know, it's hard for them to think any other life would be better. The indoctrination of a Jedi's superior upbringing and culture would be hard to break. And the Jedi institution would only encourage this.

Naturally, there would be the occasional upstart who would question the order - but wherever that person was, he would question any institution he found himself in. Asceticism would be indoctrinated from the very beginning as superior to outside life. It therefore follows that most Jedi would not want to give up the privilege of Jedi life for the a less noble one. It's kind of like a duke's son who is almost 100% likely to support and believe that privilege was his inherent right. The Buddha gave up his life in the palace... But most of us are not the Buddha.

NJ: A friend of mine calls the Jedi "baby snatchers" — and to an extent, he is right. We really don't know the circumstances of how a baby become a charge of the Jedi Order.

As I say about the Muslim Janissaries in The Shimmering Sword, the custom was to have children offered up to the sultan. It was a privilege to be chosen; the child was destined to have better life than that of his peasant parents. While we Americans cringe at any thought of slavery, bondage, and servitude, the custom of slavery had been extremely workable for thousands of years.

Did it stifle individual choice and freedom? Yes, but so do many traditional cultures today. In only the last 100 years, with easier travel did it even enter into the minds of most people that individual liberty was even possible. Modern communications accelerated this process.

As an American, I would hate to be brought up in a way that I didn't have a choice over my destiny — but as a historian, I have to look at slavery within the context of the civilization in which it lived. Where there is an overlap of liberty and servitude, a natural selection of economic system will inevitably occur. In the end, it really is a matter of perspective, which is often predetermined by which side of the fence you are born on.

NJ: Comparing the Jedi to any one particular group from human history is particularly difficult. When I describe the knights, samurai, sohei, and Muslim warriors in my book, I pulled characteristics from those groups, never saying that any one in particular was the definitive model for the Jedi.

If Lucas chose one group as has model, he has never shared it with anyone... But from my research, I do think the biggest model for the Japanese was the samurai. On a general level, it seems to me that the Jedi are more a conglomeration of general notions of elite or reclusive monks. I did not make any mention of the wild West constable/sheriff in my book, which is one way Lucas refers to the Jedi. Essentially that explains their jurisdiction — an agent of the law in a vast universe.

The Jedi in AOTC did not seem particularly spiritual in any way; simply extras in the background. It would have been more interesting if a class of adults had been taught. In the better martial arts movie, that kind of training acts as introduction to the real fight found later in the film.

NJ: That's an interesting question — and it's hard to answer it with any clarity at all. Indeed, I do my best to draw examples in my Jedi Precedents chapter from Eastern and Western examples.

I think the underlying issue here is the relationship of a spiritual person with concepts of violence. The concept of warrior-monk from a Western, Christian point of view is ideally an oxymoron — but formal religions are full of contradictions. The Catholic church, for instance, espoused a total love for other humans, but only as long as it meant other Catholics. The formal announcement that all humans were equal under God's eyes didn't happen until Vatican II, when the declaration that all humans, whether Catholic or not, were deserving of salvation. Before that, Church leaders believed that only conversion to the Mother Church (Catholicism) could lead to salvation. That was the impetus for converting the heathen which drove many European monarchies to extend their empires.

I am a Catholic — and I believe it is extremely important that new generations understand their world in a historical context. Among Catholic intellectuals, the description I just gave of the Church is accepted. It is neither a criticism nor apologia, but historical fact bourne out by examining primary sources on the subject. For the defense of the Church, I have never found any document (except anti-Catholic propaganda that states that the papacy is an elitist cabal) that indicates that the concern for human salvation has not been the underlying motivation of the Church. How they accomplish that through proselyting is a different matter. It's a political one.

For Asian religions, there is not the same proscription against taking up arms against the enemies of one's religion. It is factual that the sohei (as well as the Shaolin monks) did use physical violence against enemies of their religious orders. In their defense, they only used this skill when they believed that they confronted the complete annihilation of the their religious order. This is true especially true of the Shaolin temple, where Chinese government forces virtually exterminated its members.

The problem with Asian cultures is that they are extremely sensitive to appearances. Asian politics is a huge face-saving exercise. Insults and slights could become reason for waging war. It's the same dynamic that operated in Europe and their cult for the duel, but on a personal level.

As people, we need to judge religions on their professed intentions and their actions. You may agree with them or not. On an individual, one-on-one level I have never met a cleric who was not kind, even-tempered, caring, and spiritual in the way they carry themselves. They have sacrificed so much in an attempt to become and help others become more spiritual.

So for the Jedi? Well, I can't see the Jedi as particularly Eastern or Western. And from AOTC, I don't see them as particularly spiritual. The scenes where Windu and Yoda are seated Indian-style are not convincing. I also find the Yoda and younglings scene especially juvenile — and it lacks the spiritual words of Yoda in the Empire Strikes Back.

I think, however, than once AOTC is put within its full context (and I'm still mulling over particular aspects of the movie), a lot more will make sense. The fact that Yoda seems wiser and more talented as a teacher of Luke in ESB could easily be defended. Perhaps it was the destruction of the Clone Wars that tempered Yoda's decisions to engage the clone armies. It is commonplace that warriors sometimes become reclusive after suffering the emotional ravages of war: To have endured the death and destruction of war and to have survived cannot help but change a person and his or her whole perspective of life.

The stage is set for this kind of conflict between student and master, which is an eternal one. Yoda taught Dooku, who taught Qui-Gon, who taught Obi-Wan, who taught Anakin. Every teacher does the best they can to bring goodness and effort out of their student. You should judge the student for his or her own actions and behavior. In this sense, Yoda is not complicit in the fall of Dooku to the Dark Side. But the student is a reflection of the master and his teaching. That is why individual mentoring and a strong sense of honor is important in the training of warriors.

NJ: I really liked Yoda, though I would have done him very differently. My Yoda would have toyed with Dooku more, tripping him, knocking him down, employing the force push subtly, allowing Dooku to pick up his sword after being disarmed. Still, Yoda was very effective in AOTC.

But some of my friends still see him as cartoony. Another said he looked like a green sack tied to the end of Dooku's lightsaber. I really enjoyed Yoda as a commander of the clone troopers.

I enjoyed AOTC. I have a balanced perspective — or at least I think I do — of the Star Wars saga. I don't do the costume thing or read all of the novels or play the roleplaying games (I do like Galactic Battlegrounds, especially the Clone version). I'm more of an intellectual and an elitist with more a desire to cerebralize Star Wars. But I also know that SW is just a movie, and it should not be taken out of that context. If you want SW to answer the difficult questions in life, you're setting yourself up for a fall (and I don't mean a fall to the Dark Side).

I truly enjoy Star Wars because I love the characters and the universe with its gizmos, political system, and technologies. I'm an AD&D person: I used to be the Dungeon Master, which meant I used to create entire worlds in which my friends could roleplay. George Lucas is the ultimate Dungeon Master, visually creating that universe of his Mind's Eye.

I'm also doing that with my endeavors in screenplay writing. I have a couple of director friends and we're looking to doing independent films.

What makes AOTC enjoyable for me is that there is so much that I can say about the saga. I'm already gathering ideas for the second edition of my book... And what makes Lucas' films enjoyable for me is the very fact that I can tie in so much of actual history with Star Wars. Star Wars is that universal tale of Man (and Woman)kind. It's about love, hubris, sacrifice, and evil. And we confront those issues on a daily basis. As a writer, I, like Lucas, try to tap these basic human motivations, and the Star Wars saga does that for me.

But to get back to the original question. I enjoyed the developing story, which ends with the ground battle on Geonosis. I didn't care for the romance scenes — too corny for me. (I wrote dialogue like that in my first novel. I'm mostly a romantic, but tempered by my educational training in realism.) I wish the Jedi had been better portrayed (I don't want to see them walking in the background in the Jedi temple - they should be doing real training or attending a philosophical lecture). But I am now a die-hard fan of the clone troopers.

In my second novel, "Bridge Builder," I examined the role of the papal Swiss Guards and the pope. There, like the Jedi, is the whole question of having a military force to protect a person who espouses non-violence. And in my third novel, "The Montani Chronicles," the warriors are essentially guardians of a their Roman culture that survive into the politics of the renaissance. I am endlessly fascinated by that dichotomy between "do not kill" and "training to kill." It's an interesting conundrum that no society advocates killing within its own society (with the exception of the death penalty), but feels that it is perfectly justified to kill others of an enemy society. So I'm quite intrigued with what Lucas did with the clone troopers. I never expected them to be the "good guys."

My book discusses battlefield fighting but not in an academic way (I do hold myself to academic standards in researching and writing). I look at the battle from the perspective of the individual swordsman and how he looked at that environment. I am not a former soldier or ex-cop — but my interpretations come from my research, readings, and, more importantly, my background training in the martial arts. So I loved seeing Lucas' interpretation of a "futuristic" battlefield.

The setting of the Renaissance is very similar to the world of the SW universe: You have the equivalent of cannons and muskets (blasters and "death ray" artillery) and a host of swordsmen (the Jedi.) For hundreds of years the swordsman continued to play a role on the battlefield. Their role was impeded when cannons became accurate enough to strike approaching military formations. The final death knell of the swordsman came with the invention of the machine gun.

So I'm excited with AOTC and what it's set up for EP 3.

NJ: I'd like to say that answering questions about the technicalities of fencing are always my favorite because there's so much skill that cannot be perceived. But my favorite question of all time was, "Don't you think that by simply teaching people how to fight with weapons encourages them to do so?"

At first, I wanted to say that circumstances and self- preservation are reason enough to continue martial training - but a split-second later, I realized that one of the most profound lessons from the SW saga is that Luke becomes a Jedi by throwing aside his lightsaber. The lesson of beating our swords into plowshares had new meaning to me. While I do believe that destroying our weapons is the best way of protecting peace, I only came to that conclusion after having been trained in the military arts. A far superior way of achieving peace is through non-violence and the use of words.

Unfortunately the success of such means is extremely limited. Most authoritative governments, especially with modern weapons and communications, can wipe out millions of lives before the ultimate goal of bringing down that government can be achieved. It all depends on what people are willing to sacrifice.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were men of powerful personalitiES: Their charisma combined with a non-violent mode of protest are examples to any and all who want social change. The problem is that this form of protest only works when the people of the country are sufficiently cultured enough as a society to believe that individuals in of themselves have an ontological right to exist. These two men were only successful because the Americans and British have democratic beliefs that they could not consider themselves justified in beating up people who actually espoused their own beliefs.

When there is no societal acceptance of individual liberty, then suppression and authoritarian rule can succeed — because the people accept it. That's why order is held to a higher level than individual liberty in many Asian countriES: An ordered society by many Oriental definitions of cosmology is superior to one filled with individuals who question authority. European societies had a similar perspective as well — most recently in the rise of fascism in the 20th century. Indeed, Star Wars is a contemporary satire on the human desire for order and freedom.

One of the problems in judging AOTC is in light of itself as a single movie to be compared with all the others. If you look at AOTC in light of the revelation that to become a Jedi has nothing to do with weapons, the whole saga has a greater meaning. I wish it were possible for words to convince others in a public forum (that is the goal of the Galactic Senate). Unfortunately, violence is often the easiest means to affect change. That tells us a lot about ourselves as humans.

As I say in The Shimmering Sword, swordsmen have the means to change the world. And it all depends on how those with physical power and intellect can change the world. Much of my book is premised on the concept of a Pragmatic Struggle. It is up to swordsmen to ally themselves with what is good for society. Key to this, however, is their willingness to bow to the rule of law or to sacrifice themselves to that law. Understanding what is a good law, however, is extremely dependent on one's education.

It goes back to the Master-Apprentice relationship. Luke learned from Yoda (and an older and wiser Kenobi) that sacrifice can be much stronger than raw power. The Star Wars saga is a story and a lesson that a good heart can defeat evil in all its forms.

As I've already mentioned, I'm already planning a 2nd, illustrated edition to be released in anticipation of EP 3. There will be a video with it which will include traditional Eastern and Western fencing. I'm very lucky to have the resources of collaborators and their brains to help me with this endeavor. There are also plans to do a CD-ROM with it. The goal is for the reader to be able to see fencing in an interactive way. If a person wants to know what a parry- riposte is, they'll be able to click on the program and see a real video clip of it. If you like Shimmering Sword, 1st edition, wait until ED 2.

NJ: Great question! I hate video games that have anything to do with swords. Most of them are first-person perspective and as far as I'm concerned, why do something on a TV screen that I can do in real life? The whole attraction to doing swordfighting (kendo or fencing) is perfecting the physical skill to do it. To me, practice in form and movement (or any physical skill) is an attempt to perfection. The thing is that we can't actually reach perfection.

When I watch a video game - especially one made in Japan about samurai - I am initially impressed with the movement of the samurai and his cuts. But what I realized is that every cut is a perfect, textbook cut — and that's not the real world. What makes a martial artist (or any artist) a marvel to watch is their imperfections. It's what makes a human activity human. Even representational art which attempts to capture images of the real world exactly is commentary on the imperfections of reality.

Take a granite ball and a computer generated sphere, and I guarantee that people will unconsciously think the granite ball is far more interesting than the "perfect" sphere. That's what makes SW different from any other Sci-Fi film that came before it; it wasn't a pristine utopia. Buildings and ships were worn, used, and practical. It's more like our own world. That's why I love the scene where Padme's ship lands on Tatooine. It's a sleek chrome ship landing in the gritty sand world.

It's essentially our imperfections that give an individual a particular fencing style. It's the kind of thing that separates art from mass produced creations. There can only be one original. That's why original art costs so much. That's also why a quilt — which is, after all, a very ordinary, everyday thing — is expensive. There is something different from a machine-produced quilt and that made with human hands. Most people are trained to appreciate the humanity of objects. It's easy to be impressed by flashy things.

When I feel quickly impressed by some object or skill, I quickly take a step back and try to examine why I like something. Hopefully, I will realize when it's important to look critically at something (like SW) or to simply let my emotions run wild. There's a benefit in letting go of our intellect. This is the heart of Zen Buddhism. (Which I don't practice, incidentally; I feel much more compelled by my mother religion Roman Catholicism.)

I could even parallel this to the sword fighting in Star Wars. I'm not saying that people simply don't know any better and are less sophisticated for it. What I am saying is that if you're interested, you can learn more about lightsaber fighting if you read The Shimmering Sword.

 Purchase Shimmering Sword from Amazon.com

Discuss this article on our message boards.

(The Ferrett, Echo Station's resident cynic, writes on a variety of topics which will sometimes include Star Wars. He also writes weekly columns on Multiplayer Magic, which can be found here , and updates his own site biweekly. However, the editors of Echo have wisely chosen not to make his site address public, since it generally involves NC-17 topics mixed liberally with blasphemy ... but you can get it if you email him.)