So
That's How It Really Works!! |
 Photo copyright 1998 Laurie Stuart. |
Star Wars fans are a fickle bunch when it comes to SW literature, but most
will find Jeanne Cavelos’ "The Science of Star Wars"
thought provoking and fascinating. In an adventurous undertaking that spans Episodes IV,
V, and VI of George Lucas’ universe, former NASA scientist Cavelos pulls no punches.
Instead she tempts and teases us with an underlying foundation of how the things we see in
the films could exist in our universe.
If an author writing in the Star Wars galaxy doesn’t pay suitable attention to maintaining continuity with existing works, readers will focus on the discrepancies in a hurry. Mistakenly describing a Wookiee as originating from Endor’s forest moon and the book will soon be in a bargain bin at your local Barnes & Noble. Yet here is where Cavelos seeks to tread. With an astrophysicist's ability to delve into superstring theory, a biologist's affinity for the incredible series of evolutionary accidents, and a robotocist's knack for tackling immense engineering projects, Cavelos wraps a scientific mantle around some of the most fascinating concepts arising from the trilogy of movies.
Yet this book is not for the faint of heart. Indeed, it is intended for those who love what Lucas has wrought and those with a strong interest in what makes things tick. I found some elements a bit too deep for casual perusal and instead found that each section deserved a great deal of serious contemplation.
Cavelos does an excellent job of providing down-to-earth examples for the concepts she discusses. Many times I found myself making a mental note to learn more about each field after reading one of the book’s sections. Her elegant explanation of superstring theory made such a deep concept almost child’s play. Other theories gave me headaches as I tried to wrap my brain around them.
This isn’t to say that "The Science of Star Wars" was completely satisfying. I would have liked to see coverage of Mynocks, Ugnaughts, and bears oh my! But the end result would have been tedious and long-winded. Cavelos has wisely chosen to engage our minds, and raise as many questions as she provided answers.
Author Jeanne Cavelos was kind enough to answer a great many questions regarding her latest book, "The Science of Star Wars" in an interview with me. As thought provoking as her book is, I found her affection for all things Star Wars to be refreshing in spite of a brutal schedule to bring this book to press.
ES: "The Science of Star Wars" is clearly aimed at the adult audience. Did you worry that this would limit the sales of the book?
JC: No, that really wasn't a factor I thought about much as I wrote the book. I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and I know many other Star Wars fans, so I tried to write the book that all of us would like to read, a book that explores all the fascinating aspects of the Star Wars universe from a scientific perspective without requiring any special science background. That's the same technique I used to write "The Science Of The X-Files". I never even imagined anyone under 18 would want to read that book. Yet I've had many teenage X-Files fans contact me and say they loved the book--kids even as young as 13 and 14. They have an interest in science and love reading about issues related to their favorite show. I was quite surprised that people so young could follow and enjoy the book. That's terrific. I wouldn't set out to write a book of this type for children, though, since I'm not an expert at teaching children. I leave that to someone else.
ES: In your research, what was the most surprising discovery during your research of the Star Wars universe?
JC: I was 17 when the first Star Wars movie came out in 1977. My college years and early professional years were filled with discussions of the Star Wars films. What I came up against again and again from first teachers, and later colleagues in science, was how scientifically unbelievable the films were. I was told alien life, if it exists at all, must be very rare. Robots will not have human personalities and emotions. Space ships will not be able to zip rapidly from star to star. And The Force is impossible. My biggest surprise in writing the book was the overall realization that in the 22 years since the movies began coming out, science has really been catching up with George Lucas. Planets around other stars now seem fairly common, and many scientists believe alien life may be fairly common as well. Some robotocists now believe robots require emotions to be truly intelligent. Physicists have discovered theoretical means by which a space ship might travel rapidly across the galaxy. And theories of quantum mechanics explore the possibility that the mind may have an effect on matter. So calling the Star Wars films scientifically unbelievable in 1998 is simply not realistic. That's a fascinating development.
ES: What did you find to be the most unlikely component of the Star Wars universe?
JC: I guess I have to say The Force. I do believe it quite possible that there is a force that simultaneously connects all things, as The Force does. But the ability of the mind to use this force to move objects or communicate telepathically with others, in my opinion, remains unproven. George Lucas designed The Force to be outside the realm of science, and I think for the most part it remains that way. I found that chapter of the book the most fascinating to write, because it examines reality at the most fundamental level, at the tiny, tiny quantum level, where our very notions of time and space break down, where science meets religion and mysticism. On that level, we have a long way to go to understand the nature of the universe. We have scientific theories that will allow us to predict what we'll measure under various circumstances, but we don't know what causes that measurement. We don't know exactly what's going on. So far scientists have imagined a couple of possibilities, but the knowing which one is correct is impossible so far, which leaves a lot of room open. Some scientists believe that includes room for the mind itself to affect events on the quantum level.
ES: Have you ever tried to levitate an object?
JC: No, but I have tried to telepathically communicate with animals. When I was younger, my cat...these days, my iguana. Sometimes I think he might be hearing me, but just ignoring me. After all, that's what he does when I speak aloud.
ES: Are you worried that the release of "The Phantom Menace" will invalidate some of your explanations and explorations?
JC: Of course. I gathered as much information about the new movie as I could, from a variety of sources. The book includes discussions of scientific issues raised in "The Phantom Menace", including the unusual structure of the planet Naboo, the physiology of Jar Jar Binks, the two-bladed light saber of Darth Maul, and more. But I haven't seen the movie itself, so there's always the chance that it will include something that won't be compatible with what I've written. On the other hand, the first trilogy is pretty consistent with the universe it presents, so I think I've got a pretty good chance of having the book be compatible with the new movie. Just wish I'd gotten a chance to see "The Phantom Menace" ahead of time. Who cares about the book--just to see the movie earlier!
ES: Has your research hindered your enjoyment of the saga in any way?
JC: I was afraid it might turn the movies into work, but it hasn't at all. I actually enjoy watching the movies more now, because the experience has become so much richer. As I was working on the book, I kept going back to the movies and studying them for various things (oh, what suffering!). It was an incredible experience to discover that within these movies that I'd seen--well, more times than you can imagine--was this incredible treasure trove of material I hadn't really noticed or focused on before. Just comparing the actions of R2-D2 and C-3PO with the latest theories of artificial intelligence was completely fascinating. And it was still a great adventure story at the same time!
ES: What was the overall response from your fellow scientists to your research?
JC: I've only gotten limited response thus far, since the book isn't out yet, but I interviewed many scientists for the book, and after the interviews those scientists would read the chapters of the book in which their comments appeared. Their responses have all been overwhelmingly enthusiastic. One actually called my chapter on The Force "brilliant," which was just amazing to me. In my interviews, what I found was that many of these scientists--pioneers in the fields of astronomy, physics, robotics, biology--are huge Star Wars fans. Most of them put their scientific hats in their back pockets while watching the movies, as they do with all science fiction, to avoid ruining their enjoyment. Yet as I discussed the possibilities with them, many of them realized that Star Wars actually does reflect our understanding of the universe in many ways.
ES: Do you consider Star Wars science fiction, fantasy, or myth?
JC: I think it's a mixture of all these, and of several other influences George Lucas felt growing up (a fascination with fast cars, a love of movie serials). I think it's this mixture of elements that makes Star Wars so strong and so timeless.
ES: What motivated your choice of subjects? (such as the Space slug and not Mynocks)
JC: I started out wanting to cover everything, and doing preliminary research on everything. But to keep the length of the book reasonable, I had to eliminate a few of the less interesting or less important subjects. I eliminated the ones that didn't play a terribly important role in the films, or that didn't seem to strike a strong chord with fans, or that didn't really lead to an interesting scientific issue. For example, I felt I had to discuss the space slug, since he's one of the creatures many fans point to as being completely scientifically impossible. Yet when I then got into the Mynocks living inside the slug, the discussion seemed to become less about science and more about plot nitpicking. And I don't know anyone who's really deeply emotionally attached to the Mynocks (though I'm sure there's someone out there who is). As it was, I came in 20,000 words over what the publisher would have preferred, but I knew that many fans would be disappointed if I didn't include certain topics, so I fought to keep them in.
ES: How much of a challenge was it to incorporate elements and sources from the Expanded Universe of material? (Anything other than the films, such as the SW Encyclopedia.)
JC: I wanted to focus mainly on the films, since they are the basic Star Wars elements we all have in common. I don't think most fans have read all the books, so I didn't want to get too much into specifics raised in one book or another (and besides, I had no room left). What I mainly wanted to do was to bring the books and comics into the discussion when they had information that added something important to my discussion. So occasionally I bring a book into the discussion. Most of the Star Wars novels I've read are the early ones, so I depended on my panel of "Star Wars experts" to alert me if a book or comic had valuable information I should include. One book I refer to constantly is the "Star Wars Encyclopedia", which provides all the major points established in the movies, books, and comics in one place. I used that a lot to get the official description of various people, places, and things, which added some valuable detail to the scientific discussions.
ES: Which film (so far) do you find most plausible in scientific terms?
JC: The films have many elements in common, so it's hard to separate them scientifically. That's an interesting question. I want to say "A New Hope", but I don't know if there's a strong reason behind that. I think it's just that the more George Lucas shows us, the better the chance that we can find something implausible in the films. I really think they're about equal. In "A New Hope", we have Obi-Wan instantaneously sensing the death of all the people on Alderaan, light years away. According to all we know, this should be impossible. In "The Empire Strikes Back", Luke sees Han and Leia being tortured in the future. This too would be considered impossible by many scientists. And in "Return Of The Jedi", living in the trees are Ewoks with arms much too small to wrap around a trunk, and fingers much too small to grasp a branch. That's suspicious, at best.
ES: Which film is your favorite?
JC: I love them all, so that's a hard question. "The Empire Strikes Back" became my favorite as soon as it came out. I was really taken by how dark and serious it was. Now that I've gotten a bit older, though, "A New Hope" really feels the most powerful and emotionally affecting for me.
ES: How long did you conduct research for the book? How long did the writing take?
JC: I did the writing and the research simultaneously, so I'll answer these two questions as one. My process was to watch the movies yet more times, write up notes about scientific issues in the movies, and then form these into scientific questions raised by the movies. I had about ten pages of questions when I was done with this stage. I gave these questions to my research assistant, who went to the library and came back with armloads of books, journal articles, internet printouts, and leads on recent research. I'd read everything on a particular issue, then send my research assistant back for more. I'd write a rough draft of the section, then interview a top researcher in that field to give his own view on the issue. Then I'd read the second round of research, make revisions to my rough draft, and answer any remaining questions. When I finished a chapter, I'd have a bunch of scientists and Star Wars fans read it and give their comments, and then I'd make any necessary changes. That whole process took five months, working pretty much 16 hours a day, because that's all the publisher would give me. It was very fun and fascinating work, but I was completely exhausted by the end.
ES: Do you find the books to be more accurate than the movies?
JC: As I said, most of the books I've read are the early ones--"Splinter of the Mind's Eye", the early Han Solo and Lando Calrissian books, the novelizations, and others. As I recall, those were mainly adventure stories and so not particularly more scientific than the movies. Some of the more recent books seem to be making more of an effort to include scientific explanations, such as the A.C. Crispin Han Solo Trilogy, for example. I don't think I'd call any of the books more "accurate" though. The same basic types of things are happening in the books and the movies; a book may provide an explanation for something while the movie doesn't--but since we don't understand exactly how these things might work yet, the explanation can get you in trouble too.
ES: What do you find easier to write, fiction or non-fiction?
JC: Writing of any type is very, very hard. I find fiction a bit easier, though, because it involves less research. It still involves some research, if you are to do a good job, but not at the intense level required to write a book like "The Science Of Star Wars".
ES: What has been the biggest obstacle you faced in the creation of this book?
JC: Time, really. I have never worked as hard in my life as I did to finish this book by deadline. If you imagine five months worth of finals' weeks running one after the next, that's what writing the book was like. I pulled three all-nighters in a row at the end to make sure everything was the way it should be. I was a zombie for about a month after that.
ES: Your literary success has covered science, science fiction, fantasy, and horror. What elements draw you to a project?
JC: I have to feel a real excitement and enthusiasm for the project, some way in which I can relate emotionally to the material. Ever since I was small I've been drawn to this sort of "weird" subject matter. I've always loved horror, fantasy, and science fiction. And I've always wanted answers to the big questions...questions like "Where did the universe come from? Will it keep expanding or someday collapse? Does alien life exist? What will we do when the sun burns out?" I've also always been way too obsessed with movies and television. I decided to study astrophysics because I wanted to be an astronaut like Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes". I remember when I was about 8 years old, realizing that I had to make a decision. Either I would stay home and spend my life watching TV, or I would go to school and learn things. It was a very tough decision. Finally I decided to go to school, so I could make a significant contribution with my life. What I didn't realize was that a major part of that contribution would involve writing about television shows and movies. There's a certain irony in that.
ES: Do you ever find yourself picking apart a movie because it contradicts too much of our knowledge of science?
JC: Very seldom. I try to give myself over to a movie and feel what it wants me to feel and think what it wants me to think. I don't like standing apart from it and picking it apart. So it's only when a movie is so horrible that I can't give myself over to it that I find myself nitpicking it. I was quite surprised that many other scientists feel the same way. The last thing they want to think about at the movies is science.
ES: If you could bring back one scientific discovery from the films, what would it be?
JC: One would do a lot. If I
could bring back the key to manipulating gravitational fields, then we could create
wormholes at will or warp space to travel quickly across the galaxy. We could create
artificial gravity on our spaceships. And once we can manipulate gravity, we can
also manipulate inertia, the force that throws you back against your car seat when you
step on the gas. If we're at the mercy of inertia, we could accelerate our space
ships only very slowly. It would take months to accelerate safely to near the speed
of light. If we can manipulate or temporarily eliminate inertia, we could accelerate
as fast as we want, and it would require minimal energy to do so. With the secret to
manipulating gravitational fields, we could also create negative gravity, or antigravity,
which would allow us to build speeders of the various kinds in the movies. We might
even be able to levitate a droid.
Click here to read the transcript of the chat
with Jeanne Cavelos hosted by Echo Station for much more interesting information.
Visit Jeanne Cavelos' website at http://www.sff.net/people/jcavelos/sw.htp
Echo
Station Web Store
Buy The Books
"The Science of Star Wars" |
 "The Science of The X-Files" |
Fetching Results...
