The Part Where We Talk About Star Wars (Kerblam!)

Commissioned by Friendly Neighborhood Comics, who just asked for “!” and this is what I interpreted that to mean.

Note: In the original article, I conflated Richard Spencer with Milo Yiannopoulos. This has since been rectified.

With thanks to Clara Laherty.

A few months back, I pitched a series of articles on the Eruditorum Press Discord wherein the episodes of Series 11 of Doctor Who would be contrasted with works created the same year (examples include (but don’t have to be) Rosa/BlackkKlansman, Demons of the Punjab/Ghoul, and Resolution/Watchmen (2019)). It was meant to be a multi author project akin to Shelfdust’s analysis of Watchmen or the Outside In book line, and this would be mine. If anyone else would like to write something in this structure, by all means do as thou wilt. And don’t be restricted by my recommendations. If you find a better fit than Demons/Ghoul, do so. Or, for that matter, how I approach Kerblam!

Even though you're fakin' it, nobody's gonna know.

There are many things wrong with Lily Orchard’s Steven Universe is Garbage, and Here’s Why, most of them rather banal. Some range from general misunderstandings of how the animation industry works (assuming the definition of filler used in the video [episodes that aren’t directly tied to the plot of the show and focus on more periphery characters that are used to give Rebecca Sugar {and Rebecca Sugar alone, which is a whole rabbit hole in and of itself} time to rush out animating the next “plot” episode] is correct, 1. Structuring an arc such that you open with three “plot” episodes and then have the “filler” follow after it is a terrible way to structure an arc, 2. The nature of some of the arcs are more character based than plot based, such that the cluster arc wasn’t so much about the cluster, but of Peridot’s development as a character, and 3. In the words of Sam Keeper, “YOU STILL HAVE TO ANIMATE THE FUCKING "FILLER" EPISODES YOU JACKASS”) to mistaking aesthetic disagreements for objective issues (Steven Universe is a first person narrative or, as many a critic of the show has put it, is shackled by the Steven only perspective) to flat out lies (there’s no way in hell the Homeworld Arc doesn’t end with the episode where Steven leaves Homeworld or, for that matter, “Reunited” is by any definition a filler episode). But the most interesting and wrongly discussed is that of Orchard’s 11-minute tangent about why she loves the Sith Campaign of Star Wars: The Old Republic.

It’s certainly easy to see why many would disregard this aspect of Orchard’s critique. It is, after all, a long digression that could have been said in a more succinct manner. Additionally, it’s a tangent that exists near the end of the video and is the sole tangent of its kind. There are points within it where Orchard makes the common mistake many a video essayist makes in repeating information with voiceover/captions and clips rather than using the clips to speak for themselves. And, of course, there’s the fact that she blatantly contradicts her point of the value of the light side Sith (hereon referred to as “The Good Sith”) by having her character flagrantly choose two dark side choices in a row that allow her character to punch and extrajudicially murder a dictator and not showing the light side choice as a contrast. One could easily make the point of the tangent (i.e. Rose Quartz would’ve been a better character if she was a neoliberal) without invoking Star Wars: The Old Republic. But she did, so we have to deal with the implications.

Let’s start with that pithy parenthetical. Though the phrase “neoliberal” has been tossed around a lot to the point of meaninglessness, there is still some value to it. For the purposes of this article, the term neoliberal will refer to one who will work to defend the system of late stage capitalism. In practice, the term is usually applied to those who align with nominally liberal/leftist organizations, but still believe in the benefits of the system, still wish to see it upholded, albeit running more smoothly and with the premises smelling sweet (see: Hillary Clinton). Likewise, the Good Sith sees and exists within the fascist system of the Sith Empire and finds it wanting. There’s too much obsession with blood purity and racial intolerance. The actions of racist Sith are ultimately harming the Empire and its goals because of their desire for power. The problem for the Good Sith is… individual actors within the system.

One might quibble with the use of neoliberal considering the Good Sith uses techniques of violence and coercion to get their way. However, the system of the Sith is ultimately one that, as with all systems of fascism, values action for action’s sake and the Good Sith ultimately believes in the Empire and its imperialistic ambitions, for an individual who grew up in a fascist system would ultimately still be a fascist. To claim otherwise would be to woobify the fascist. There is so much wrong with this sentiment. To start with, woobification is not simply making a fascist have a heel face turn. Rather, it involves showing the fascist as ineffectual in a way that makes them look cute. Furthermore, one could point out how people within the system of the American Slave Trade didn’t keep their slaves when they realized the system was bullshit and self-defeating and worked to fight against it. 

But perhaps the most relevant issue for the purposes of this article is the notion that the problem of the Empire is racism. While racism is ultimately a part of a fascist worldview, it’s not as key a part of the worldview as Orchard would argue. As Umberto Eco wrote in Ur-Fascism, while the Ur-fascist is by default a racist, “the first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders.” These intruders do not necessarily have to be people of non-Sith/impure blood. Consider the case of noted fascist Milo Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos is a homosexual man who fucks a black guy. Both of those qualities would get Yiannopoulos sent to Auschwitz in the age of the Nazi regime.

However, fascism has a tendency of, how should I put it… moving the goal posts when it’s convenient. As such, an individual such as Yiannopoulos is allowed an acceptance within the fascist system. The same is true of aliens within the Sith, as there’s another invader on the horizon, one that’s on the cusp of being more mainstream: The Jedi. Orchard herself makes the fascist argument against the Jedi quite clear: “When you do encounter Jedi as a Sith character, they’re really fucking snotty to you, even to the point of talking to you like you’re not even really there. The Jedi have gotten comfortable with the idea that they will always win against the Sith because Good will always triumph over Evil. But the Jedi are not the good guys in Star Wars. They never have been. They only beat the Sith so often because the Sith do most of the work for them.” The Jedi are at once powerful and weak, elitist in their view of the Good Sith because they see the system of the Sith as corrupt, inhumane, and incapable of redemption. And so, the Sith must make allies with the alien, those they once deemed “other” so that these others, the Republic and their Jedi allies, will be overthrown and exterminated. Once that is done, as Ian Danskin notes, they will turn on the alien, the homosexual fucking the black man, the new other. The problem isn’t that racism is a bug of the system of fascism that can be stamped out in order to make a stronger, better fascism. The cruelty is part of the point. And, much as neoliberalism tries to stamp out the “bugs” of capitalism to make a kinder, gentler capitalism, that cruelty will always exist within the system.

Let us now turn our gaze to Rose Quartz. Orchard’s video argues, after going through the Sith storyline at length, that Rose Quartz would have been a better character is she was more akin to the Sith, as that would mean Rebecca Sugar would recognize the sheer awfulness of Pink Diamond as a character for a reason that has, frankly, little to do with the tangent about Star Wars. Orchard’s ultimate argument that existing in a system of cruelty must make one cruel is an… interesting one. For starters, there’s a long history of people who grew up in a system of cruelty and fighting back against it without they themselves being cruel. (To give one example, Walter Morrison was a World War II veteran who served in India and, over the course of the war, realized the futility and inherent cruelty of war and opted to become a pacifist war protestor and father of a noted magician.)

Indeed, there is a trope of fictional nobles who see the cruelty of the world and seek to stop it from occurring. Characters such as Robin Hood, Batman, or Doctor Who that, much like Rose Quartz, take on different names in order to combat the cruelty of the system. For unlike the Good Sith who works within the system, they see such actions as folly. Indeed, the story of Rose Quartz explicitly has her try to deal with the issue of their system actively killing people within and beneath it through working within the system as the Good Sith does. (That the system of the Sith is one of backstabbing, betrayal, and chronic treachery is irrelevant to methodology. The system of the Diamonds is not the same as that of the Sith and would thus not produce the same normal.) However, what ultimately happens is that she is turned down with only the token amount of work done. Production will continue, but the Human Zoo will be opened to let a small smattering of humans run free. As such, Rose Quartz rebels against a system she sees as fundamentally broken and incapable of being redeemed.

Of course, this isn’t a perfect rebellion as Rose Quartz isn’t a perfect person. Despite Orchard’s claims to the contrary, Rebecca Sugar (and the subsequent other writers, artists, and creators of Steven Universe) are aware of the flaws the kind of person like Rose Quartz would have. They’re just not flaws that can be valorized in the way Orchard does with the Good Sith. They aren’t bloodthirsty, cruel, manipulative, and willing to do what needs to be done. Rather, the flaws in Rose Quartz lie in her tendency of not seeing people as people. The environment of a system that views individuals, with some exceptions, as disposable is one that does not value empathy. Empathy is the skill of seeing things from other people’s perspectives. This can be hard for people on the autism spectrum like myself, but it is ultimately antithetical to the fascist system. The system hinges on there being a person who deserves to die for no other reason than for their biology and/or their beliefs.

It is at this point that I should deconstruct the obvious rebuke that fascists make and neoliberals perpetuate: the violence perpetrated against fascists is akin to fascists because both seek to silence groups with views that disagree with theirs. The ultimate difference between the two is that one can actually stop being a fascist without dying whereas the fascist views the Jew, the Homosexual, and the Black Man as inherently defective and in need of being destroyed to keep the empire afloat. Anti-fascist action, meanwhile, does not seek to destroy the fascist physically but to take away their power.

Consider Richard Spencer. A good majority of people who are aware of Spencer first learned about him through a video such as this one. Or this one. Or this one. For those of you who didn’t click those links (and don’t know who Richard Spencer is beyond “fascist”), they present a video of Spencer being punched in the face by an anti-fascist. This has led him to go through a downward spiral where the fascists denounced him; not because he had some turn away from the fascist party because he was punched in the face, but rather because the fascist system hinges on being seen as strong. As such, a fascist can be taken down not simply by killing them (for that, ultimately fits into the fascist narrative that they, whoever “they” are, want to kill us), but by doing things that will cause the system that has the security of a Jenga tower to collapse, like throwing milkshakes at politicians or refusing to serve politicians food because they support locking children in cages.

This is, ultimately, the position Steven takes. Unlike his mother, Steven has both grown up in a world where his empathy can flourish and, perhaps more importantly, one that does not view the individual as the ultimate problem of the cruelties of the system. Rather, it is the system itself that is chaining the people. This is explicit within the text of Steven Universe as Pearl notes, “Humans just lead short, boring, insignificant lives, so they make up stories to feel like they're a part of something bigger. They want to blame all the world's problems on some single enemy they can fight, instead of a complex network of interrelated forces beyond anyone's control.”

But perhaps what’s most interesting about Steven’s perspective is that he views everyone as capable of being better people. Not that he views himself as the one to bring about such character arcs in people. Typically, he will only make the effort when they have something he needs (such as the ocean, a method to uncorrupt all those hurt by the war, a barn where his friends live, a bag of potato chips) or if he genuinely likes them (Lars, Lapis, Onion). (This is made explicit and responded to within “Steven Universe: The Movie,” a text that will not be discussed further due to not being within Lily Orchard’s circle of reference when making Steven Universe is Garbage and Here’s Why.) Sure, he will try to alleviate suffering in people like Jasper and, to a lesser extent, Kevin. But he doesn’t ever try to make them into better people if it’s clear they’re aren’t willing to try or are a clear and present danger to those he cares about.

What’s typically ignored in critiques of Steven’s methodology is that he does view violence as a tool. (Steven Universeis, after all, a hybrid of slice of life and action/adventure in the vein of Shortpackedor Homestuck.) The thing about Steven’s methodology, however, is that he doesn’t view it as the ultimate solution to all of life’s problems. Furthermore, Steven’s methods are shown to be harmful, even (to some extent) deadly. It’s not easy to fight against the systems of power that control you. You have to constantly check yourself and those you fight alongside from falling into the same behaviors that the systems have you trapped in.

This is the ultimate distinction between Orchard and Sugar: Orchard believes that no matter what you do, you can not escape your upbringing. You will, to some extent, be forever trapped within the worldview of your parents and, no matter your best intentions, you will bring cruelty to the world. Whereas Sugar believes we are capable of checking ourselves, of being better than the people we were when we were younger and better than our parents and the system we live in.

I would like to present a hypothetical situation and how the three characters described would react to it. Imagine, if you will, a world. It is a cruel and unjust world, one of pointless violence and cruelty. One where the workers are treated and tagged like cattle, where the world is constantly surveyed by soulless machines who kill at a moment’s notice. Imagine a girl, a poor girl whose life is so miserable that she never once even received something as small as a parcel. She works day in and day out in a soul-sucking factory with just one dream: to open a package.

One day, that dream comes true. A package comes to her from a source unknown to her. She is so happy that the day has finally come, that she could at long last receive a gift. And when she opens the box… nothing. Not a toy or a book or even hand-me-down socks. There is nothing in the box, but bubble wrap. To say such a prank is cruel and unusual would be an understatement. All her dreams turned to ash in her mouth. All she can do now is play with the bubble wrap. The first bubble she pops causes an explosion that kills her.

The package, it is later discovered, was sent by the system. A boy who was close to the girl wanted to destroy the system and everything it stood for. The boy saw the system as cruel and unjust and in need of a revolution. How, then, would our three characters respond to such a system?

Rose Quartz would most likely see the cruelty and unjustness of the system, but not necessarily those who are suffering—at first. In time, she would see them in pain and anguish like a deer trapped in a bear trap. She would seek to destroy the system through a war. She would recruit those who feel their place in the system is wrong and liberate them. She might not necessarily see them as people, even to the point of falling back into objectification, but she will fight for their beauty, their potential, their freedom. She has “a duty of care,” to use someone else’s words, ones that would fit coming out of Rose’s mouth.

Steven Universe would see those suffering within the system, those who are broken by its cruelty, those who are hurt and are hurting even if it seems like they are in a state of strength, he will try to alleviate that hurt if it means everyone else is hurt. Sometimes, that means punching a robot in the face. Sometimes, that means dismantling the system to build something better. But what’s important, what’s key in understanding Steven Universe (and, indeed, Steven Universe), is that anyone can change if they allow themselves to. “Whatever’s holding you down,” Steven could say but didn’t explicitly, “wherever you are, however hard it seems… How about you and me escape together?”

A Good Sith, one raised within the system, would do none of these things. Ultimately, for all that Orchard claims a Good Sith cares about those downtrodden by the Republic, a Good Sith does not. While the poor parents of the Jedi were ultimately given a better life in exchange for helping the Good Sith, a Good Sith typically does not care for the poor, the downtrodden. A Good Sith does not go to the cages where the slaves are kept and set them free. A Good Sith does not reject the system of the Sith in favor of something less cruel. A Good Sith is a neoliberal within the system of the Sith. And at the end of the day, a Good Sith would respond to such pointless cruelty with, “The systems aren't the problem. How people use and exploit the system, that's the problem.”