Lit SOS: Save Our Skywalker, Luke Skywalker (v3)

It could well be said, unless you class the words Luke says to Sidious, without any sincerity whatsoever, as him "joining" the dark side, Luke didn't do so willingly ever. Sidious certainly wanted that, but the cost spiralled to being far higher than he ever expected so he gave up and mind-frelled Luke into a dark-side zombie with a massive amount of coercion and, even then, Luke wasn't totally broken as he would have killed Leia without question if he was.

It's strange as it's often said that characters who are flawed are wanted, yet when Luke makes the mistake of trying to defeat the Dark Side solo, it's held against him forever, often by those who had no better plan to contribute. He made with the best of intent and had thought about it. That, with Leia's help, he ends up pulling off what numerous Jedi across thousands of years failed to. And how? Because unlike them, at the crux, he was smart enough to ask for help!

 

Jedi Ben who holds Luke's actions in Dark Empire against him? Han and Leia don't ever really bring it up to my knowledge. Really Mara's the only person I can think of and I mean....what does her opinion on the matter even count for?

 

It's more a case of Luke himself (except in Hand of Thrawn) saying that he Fell, and making no mention of how "he was pushed" by Palpatine. For example, when Kyp brings it up, in Edge of Victory: Conquest:

"I would have us emulate you, Master Skywalker—when you were battling the Empire."
Luke sighed. "I was young, then," he pointed out. "There was much I did not understand. Aggression is the way of the dark side."
Kyp rubbed his jaw, then smiled briefly. "And who should know better, Master Skywalker, than one who did turn to the dark side."
"Exactly," Luke replied. "I fell, though I knew better. Like you, Kyp. We both, in our own way, thought we were wise enough and nimble enough to walk on the laser beam and not get burned. We were both wrong."

 

^ and that bugs me, of course NJO was hardly as a whole consistent

 

True, but what's with the half empty cup look there JM ? We finally have material from someone who actually appreciated the OT and one of Luke's original writers from the films.

 

Plus, Luke told Mara in VotF, that he didn't fall to the dark side....

 

Luke did say that- but rather tentatively:

"But I didn't really go over to the dark side," Luke protested, trying to remember those dark days. "At least, I don't think I did."
Mara shook her head. "Debatable; but it almost doesn't matter. One way or the other, you still willingly dabbled in it. And from that point on, it colored everything you did."

My guess is that by NJO, he's decided he did Fall after all.

Jaina also brings the subject up in Ascension when Luke's talking about Vestara:

"She's Sith, Jaina. Not just a dabbler, not a victim, not a fallen Jedi. Born and raised in an entire community of Sith. I'm convinced she's not going to throw that aside and wholeheartedly join us, but I know Ben still thinks she can be redeemed."
"There are those," commented Jaina drily, "who still think you can't be redeemed. Or Grandfather. Or Aunt Mara. Or Kyp Durron, or—"
Luke held up his hand. "Point made. But those were different."
"Were they? Or do you just want to think they're different because you're worried about your son getting hurt?"
Luke opened his mouth to retort, then closed it again. Jaina was right. His very quickness to respond negatively was proof of that. While Jedi did have to make split-second decisions over life-and-death matters, they were also not supposed to react emotionally, or to rush down a path recklessly. And he was doing precisely that.

Given Dark Journey, I wonder if Jaina's statement, had Luke not interrupted, would have ended in: "or me for that matter."

 

This is perhaps one of the big changes since the OT. At the time of the OT, though it was active to a degree, it was still permissible for the hero to foil the villain's plots and that would be deemed sufficient. The dark age of superheroes advanced the idea that if a hero doesn't kill a villain, responsibility for the villain's acts is transferred to the hero! I've never really been convinced of this line of thought save as proof of how stupid people are, in that respect, yeah, it's "realistic".

With the 2001 attack on the Twin Towers, darker heroes like Jack Bauer were in the ascendancy over older, more restrained heroes such as Superman, Cap and Luke and I'm not convinced this has necessarily reversed in the wake of films like the Avengers. Nolan's Batman and Superman both kill, as does Iron Man so it seems likely that SW Ep 7 will need a mini-villain to get offed, even if the boss villain escapes because otherwise the heroes will be deemed weak.

 

That mindset might be a big part of the arguments that:

"Because the Jedi didn't wholeheartedly commit to the Vong War at the very start, some responsibility for the 300 trillion plus deaths in the war, is on their heads."

 

That "who still think you can't" is very subtle. There's no emphasis on it and an average reader who hadn't read DE probably wouldn't even realize what that meant. The "or–" part ending with "me, for that matter" would've been great, and one of a few NJO references we've had since then. It also could've ended with "–Kyle Katarn."

 

Or Kam Solusar.

 

Or Raynar, or even (Force forbid!) Rosh Penin. But I think "–or even myself" would've worked best.

 

Jedi Ben, Man of Steel's mixed reception has me think otherwise. At least in the sense that audiences want more than brooding heroes. You had superman writers even up in arms and even people make a faux video game to show their disdain. In the sense audiences feel an idealistic hero is still a fresh idea.

Also I seem to recall some fans were disappointed that Luke wasn't the one to kill Vader or Sidious the traditional way

 

Which ignores totally that the Jedi did not possess - nor did anyone else - the material resources to stop the Vong dead in their tracks. The blame for the 365 trillion dead lies on the Vong, if you want to be specific - Shimmraa, Lah, Choka and the Warrior Vong. Yes the Chazrach and enslaved races likely killed many, but to be just requires us to recognise the compulsion by the coral slave seeds.

 

True. Still - the argument wasn't that the war would have ended on the spot- but that it would at least have been shorter- with less lives lost- and that every month spent arguing about the morality of the war and not acting, represents a few extra million people dead.

It's not exactly a very fair argument, it must be said- but I've seen it raised a lot.

 

It's one I've made against the way NJO handled the Jedi schism - but, for the Jedi to have had greater impact, they would have needed to be acting with the Republic fleets.

 

Not to mention genuine cooperation between Jedi and the NR wouldn't have hurt

 

Given a 365 trillion being (approximate) death toll (inhabitants of the galaxy)- at the height of the war a few hundred billion would have been dying each day, roughly (with lower rates at the start and finish).

 

Ouch. That's awful; I never really thought about that.

 

Which is why the question can be asked: What price morality? How many must die for it?

 

Looked at another way- since the population of the galaxy, leaving aside the Unknown Regions which the Vong didn't make much of an inroad to anyway, was on the order of 100 quadrillion - it's roughly 1 in 300 Republic citizens that died. Maybe 1 in 200, depending on how much of the population lives in Hutt Space or similar areas.

 

Yow.

 

newdawn12:

I don't see how that can happen unless they recast Luke's character. Even if they use deaging technology, I can't see them taking away about 40 years. Luke was only 23 at the end of RotJ. Mark Hamill is in his early 60's, right? I think that would be far too difficult to make a change of about 40 years seem realistic. Even if they could, would Hamill be able to do all of the physical stuff necessary?

I want to see Luke as an important character throughout the ST, but I also think it's necessary to introduce new young characters to continue the Star Wars story into the future. Why go to tremendous lengths to try to get Luke to do things that Luke's son could easily do with no special efforts? Meanwhile, doing that means that we wouldn't be introduced to new Skywalkers and Solos who would be needed later. I think it would be far better to "meet" these new characters as we see them interacting with characters whom we already know and love.

How would they know at this time what Luke would look like and what he would wear? Doesn't it seem to be a little early in the process to be able to do this?

Now that would be an interesting way to solve the problem of what to do with all of the many years of EU that have been published. Of course, Luke's visions likely wouldn't have been very accurate if they do that!

I have to say that so far, I haven't been all that thrilled with Luke's characterization and role in the Woods comics. I don't think Luke should be just a pilot under Wedge when we know that Luke's squadron leader chose Luke over Wedge for the Death Star run. Plus, the word is that in a future issue, Wedge is going to create Rogue Squadron, but the creations of Rogue Squadron was supposed to be a collaboration between Luke, Wedge, and one other person. Luke was also Rogue Squadron's first Squadron leader, not Wedge. This is definitely an overwrite that I'm not at all happy about.






DigitalMessiah:

I really want Luke to be married and have children of his own in the ST. Not only is it something that I would personally prefer, but I think it would make a better sequel trilogy. The first trilogy had a Skywalker as one of the focus characters. The original trilogy had Luke Skywalker as one of its focus characters. I think there should be a son/daughter of Luke in the sequel trilogy to be one of the focus characters that we will eventually follow into the future.

Obviously!







mattman8907:

According to Leland Chee, Luke didn't fall to the darkside in DE. He just "nearly" fell in DE.







MasterSkywalker86:

I don't know, but it doesn't sound a bit like Luke...

I agree. I don't think Bantam portrayed a Luke who used amazing Force powers very much at all.

It's just a rumor, but the rumor is that Ardnt wanted to focus on one set of characters, while Abrams wanted to focus on another and Abrams won. I hope that this is the true reason as it seems this may give us a more Luke/Skywalker kid focus instead of a Solo kid focus.

That's a good point. I don't think some of the authors ever even read DE, but they keep hearing people talk about Luke falling in DE without even reading the story itself to see that Luke was basically an undercover agent trying to defeat the Emperor.






Iron_lord:

Twice????

I saw it as Luke basically losing hope that he could ever defeat the Emperor after losing to that last clone, and losing hope that he could ever get away from the Emperor. Leia simply restored that hope by telling Luke that she had seen that he was going to train her children and PRESTO: Luke was fine and was able to beat the Emperor, first in the lightsaber duel, and then with the wall of Light with Leia's help.

Luke never committed any evil acts while on Byss, so I don't understand how anyone can think that Luke fell to the dark side.






JediMatteus:

Well, I'm hoping that Luke isn't killed off AND that he isn't "dumbed down" either.







Iron_lord:

I would take what Luke says in this matter with a "grain of salt". Luke has always been harder on himself than anyone else could possibly be. If nothing else, Luke is probably upset with himself for ever trying to defeat the Emperor by himself in the first place. He probably also thinks that if Leia hadn't come to restore his hope, and thus give him the kickstart he needed to defeat the Emperor, he might very well have succumbed and become a monster like his father. He's probably blaming himself for nearly making a massive error.




More another time...

 

In the first Essential Guide to Characters- it states that Luke was already slipping, on Byss, when Leia arrived and shook him out of it. He even tells Leia something along those lines while on Byss- before deceiving them into thinking he's left with them, using the Force to create a doppleganger.

In I, Jedi, Luke talks about the blood of millions being on his hands- the crew of the Death Star (Corran dismisses this as "military installation, and self-defence) and the people who died as a result of his service to the Emperor Reborn (Corran points out that he saved more lives than he killed.)

I could see Palpatine's training of Luke in The Dark Side, as requiring him to do some evil things in the process of mastering his Dark Powers.

 

Question is what did Sidious actually teach Luke ? Doppelgänger and the book of Sith are the only things we have to go on and Sidious was on to Luke's plan to inflitrate from te beginning . Seems to me he had a hands off approach and decided to subtly reel him in the longer he stay.

And as of path of the Jedi, doppelgänger has been corrected to neutral. I never understood why it was exclusive to dark siders since it's basically a Fallanasi illusion

Even when Luke took command of the battle of mon calamari, it was already going on long before he arrive on Byss.