BOOK REVIEW: Star Wars: Kenobi (repost)

Apologies for the dearth of posts, political science here on Earth is taking more of my time recently. I did want to post a reminder that Star Wars: Kenobi officially comes out this Tuesday, August 27. While I read it a few weeks ago, I definitely plan on picking up the audiobook. In the meantime, I thought I'd repost my original review. Enjoy!

P.S. - Razor's Edge review is coming soon...

* * * * * 

Ever wonder what would happen if George Lucas and Joss Whedon combined forces to make a Star Wars—Firefly crossover?

Apparently, John Jackson Miller (JJM) did because Star Wars: Kenobi is a bona fide Star Wars Western novel. Del Rey Publishing has been taking the Star Wars franchise into new genres in recent years, from horror (Red Harvest) to detective stories (Shadow Games). Kenobi is probably one of the better results of this effort. It certainly reads unlike any other Star Wars book in recent memory. So, does it live up to the hype? Will this transform our image of Obi-Wan Kenobi the way Plagueis transformed our image of Sidious? Find out below:

Tell or Show?

io9 has an article claiming that A New Hope engages in better world-building than The Phantom Menace. While it does get into some of the usual Prequel-bashing, it does raise a serious question. In the Original Trilogy, we never saw the halls of political power on-camera. They were always off-camera and related by third parties, such as when Tarkin infamously tells the Death Star Committee* that the Emperor had disbanded the Senate. By contrast, with the Prequels, we see the Galactic Senate and we see major events transpire in the Senate, such as when Palpatine introduces the New Order.

Typically, English professors will generally advise that artists and authors should "show, not tell" important events. However, many Star Wars fans feel that the Senate scenes are amongst the weakest in the Prequels. So what's wrong with showing in this case?