A More Civilized Age: Exploring the Star Wars Expanded Universe (Book Review)

This title is a bit of a lie. This isn't a review of the full work but merely to the point where, were I a casual reader, would have given up on this book entirely and moved onto something else. There are a few such novels, textbooks or the like which all accomplish having this; the breaking point at which a reader rolls their eyes and gives up on them. The difference is that, with some examples of staggering incompetence notwithstanding, few books manage to accomplish this within the Introduction.

The blurb behind A More Civilized Age: Exploring the Star Wars Expanded Universe promised just that: A detailed look into the Expanded Universe through a series of viewpoints, discussions and the like. While it wouldn't offer the full detailed breakdown of all the books from start to finish, it was to compile a series of essays, personal thoughts and viewpoints to anyone curious about this. Well, apparently the editor, Rich Handley, decided he would have a go as well and started offering up his own thoughts. These effectively amounted to little more than this:

"The EU was a mistake, it was filled with continuity errors, failings and nothing good besides Thrawn. It was a self-contradictory mess which was bad from start to finish, and you should just be thankful that Disney is recycling EU material, and have no reason to feel sad that it is gone."

That isn't an exact quote, but what you end up with is a (discarding two large photographs) five-page breakdown which reads more like an effort to shout down anyone who wants the Expanded Universe back. You can even read this in full on the Amazon preview, which features nothing but this and the covers. I wouldn't recommend it, as the sneering self-righteous attitude of the writer was enough to put me off giving this one a chance and giving up on it entirely.

The entire segment effectively lists the flaws and only the flaws of the EU, with nothing offered for any of the good it did. The few times it does admit to having anything good are swiftly passed over, or even treated as being outright wrong in many ways. There is such a determined effort here to present it as such a flawed and failing thing, that the very idea that it spearheaded ideas which would flesh out the setting are ignored even as it has ample opportunity to bring them up.

Sadly, much of the criticism keeps coming back to continuity over and over again (To which, given how this writer has a shining view of Disney's revamp, is akin to a kettle noticing that the pot is of a dark shade) toward the end. He keeps citing it as if it's either a complete failure for being so vast that you need detailed knowledge to follow it all, or because it couldn't keep everything 110% interconnected without any contradictions. When more successful alternatives are brought up (Namely Babylon 5, Star Trek and Doctor Who) they are either cited as exemptions or treated as having failed in some way themselves. The way in which each kept going even following a reboot (or revamp) without needing to erase their entire past is conveniently skipped without comment.

Perhaps some of you are feeling that this is being disingenuous, or that it's wrong to judge an entire book by its introduction. However, this introduction is the first impression of the book. It's the bit you read, the tone it sets and the impression which you expect it would follow. Imagine if this same direction had been taken with another work, on any subject.

To offer an entertainment example - Imagine if a book delved into classic Doctor Who, but rather than citing its accomplishments, only brought up the budgetary issues, the behind-the-scenes conflicts and over-emphasised the events which led to its cancellation. Then followed that up by treating the rebooted series as being the "correct" version while the original was a failed experiment.

Imagine if this was done with a historical work - Someone in love with the Byzantine Empire freely admitted to doing so in an introduction to a book on the Roman Empire. Then they spent five pages citing Rome's political shortcomings, mass slaughters and declines with none of its successes. Then end by saying it's fine because it led to Byzantium's existance.

How about with an entire medium - Perhaps an introduction to comic books could treat them as a mild curiosity which should have died long ago, that outlived their value, and whose icons. It could write them off as some failure, but cite that we should all be thankful that so many eventually get made into films.

No matter how you look at it, such an approach is not only offputting, but it's insulting to the very material it looks to cover It doesn't treat the Expanded Universe a worthwhile entity in its own right as a complete failure that we should just accept is dead, and never look back on it with fondness. As such, the impression I was given by the end is that it's really not worth your time or money.

Thankfully, we'll be getting into one which is later on this week.