Official Traitor thread. (poss. spoilers)

it's an X-Wing

 

Its only purpose is for a silly 'kewl' factor. It suxors.

 

I just finished reading Traitor, and let me say it is one great book! The whole new view on the Force and how it can be felt and used gives us fans something new to look at.

Jacen comes into his own in this novel. I love the portral of his character by Stover and the characters growth in the novel, from the whiny Jedi brat that I disliked in the beginning of the NJO, to this new type of person, who realizes who he is, and doesn try to be who he is not.

Ganner, also proved this in a very short amount of time. His realization that you cant change who you are, gave him the strength and power to achieve what he did in fighting and defeating the YV warriors.

I dont want to give too much away, but I loved the book, and would recommend it to anyone who is into Star Wars, and especially the New Jedi Order.

 

I?m talking about the seductive powers of the Force. A Jedi must fortify himself against being seduced by the Force, and the best way to do that is to keep one?s judgment unclouded and to not give into passion while using the Force?s power.

Hrm... but what are the dangers of being "seduced" by the Force itself? If the Force is one, the Force is life, does the Force, in and of itself, pose any danger to the wielder? Vergere hinted that it's dark desires within that lead to tragedy, not the Force.

But then we run into the other tricky question raised by Traitor: what *is* "dark"? Murder without purpose? Hurting the innocent? Allowing some people to die to save others? Is the gardener's choice fundamentally evil? Even Jacen's decision to save as many as possible led to him deciding (only Vergere stopped him) to kill his friend, the future World Brain. Jacen didn't seem to come to an answer to this question in Traitor either, merely echoing Potter Stewart's infamous quote concerning obscenity ("I know it when I see it").

Did Jacen use the dark side in making the beast vomit up the squatters, leaving them to face the elements of the Vong homeworld unprotected ("Your dark isn't so dark")?

I'm still pondering these questions and others, so expect more posts

 

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Force is the absolute power in the universe.

The Force can corrupt absolutely.

 

Genghis, did the dark side *make* Anakin slaughter the Tuskens, or did Anakin's *already-corrupted* anger abuse the Force?

Edit: Just to clarify, one of the things I took away from Traitor is that the term "dark side" can be used to shirk responsibility ("The dark side seduced me, it made me do it") for one's actions. Redefining the Force as an indivisible entity puts more of the onus on the Jedi to examine their motives and role in a Galaxy at war (and later, at peace).

 

Implicit in your statement is the belief that the slaughtering of Tuskens was an abuse. This is a whole debate in itself.

Also implicit in your statement is the belief that the use of a lightsaber means use of the Force. This is also a whole debate in itself (as related to this situation).

As I see both of these as doing nothing but complicating the issue, I don't necessarily accept the example you gave in your terms - there's some problems with comparing it to Jacen's newfound views.

A better question is whether the lure of being the most powerful Jedi ever - the power over the Force to stop death itself drove Anakin to do what he did.

He was after absolute power. And was absolutely corrupted because of it.

 

Implicit in your statement is the belief that the slaughtering of Tuskens was an abuse.

Good, you're learning When is an action evil?

Re: the Force, the novelization depicts Anakin use the Force extensively in his massacre.

Does the Force give the wielder absolute power? Are the Jedi Knights invincible?

Moreover, will the strongest Force users always fall to the dark side if absolute power corrupts absolutely *all the time*?

My other question to you is: Was Anakin corrupt before he openly stated his desire to be all-powerful, or after?

 

<<Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.>>

G12: That's not a fact. It's a slogan. It's never been shown that old Acton knew what he was talking about.

With an invalid premise, your syllogism fails.

Let me counter with another quote:

"Power doesn't corrupt. Fear corrupts -- perhaps fear of a loss of power."
-- John Steinbeck

And another:

"Power corrupts, but lack of power corrupts absolutely."
-- Adlai Stevenson

And another:

"Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many."
-- Eric Hoffer

Wanna go on? I can play dueling quotes all day long.

 

Anakin himself was corrupted. The Force wasn't "forcing" (har har) him to do anything evil. Hence why Anakin was also able to save himself and his son in the end.

Jedi use the Force as a tool. A tool is not corrupting; the hand that wields it bears the corruption. I believe the hammer analogy in Traitor exemplifies this.

edit:
Err, Genghis, if Anakin Skywalker was corrupted absolutely, then why did the throw the Emperor down the shaft to save his son's life?

 

Matt. Tie those back to Anakin Skywalker and we can talk.

Granted it's an oft-used slogan. But no less accurate in terms of the key "Darksider" examples we have in Star Wars.

With such examples the premise is not invalid.

And it is Star Wars characters we are talking about.

 

I'm not sure if anyone remembers, but I wrote those exact words about corruption in an essay awhile back. It went along the lines of: "imbalanced power corrupts." And I drew examples from LOTR, SW, etc.

For the life of me, I can't help but wonder why I said that now. And where does passion and emotion fit in here? Aren't these characteristics "power" in and of themselves?

Even in Star Wars power doesn't always have to corrupt. In fact, Kyp tends to be very passionate about saving the galaxy. Is he really corrupted though? Are the Jedi who follow him [corrupted]?

 

-Do you feel sufficient to the task of ruling?
-No
-Good, if you had felt sufficient to the task it would have been proof that you were not.
-- Power with no fear can corrupt, too.


EDIT: *smacks self on forehead for forgetting to site quote* Its C.S. Lewis.

 

If you have never had true power, what than can you say of it. I have held power and I know that the temptations are HUGE. Without a moral absolute it could be disastrous. We can be selfish creatures, dedication to a higher power or goal is a necessity IMHO to avoid corrutption
Reb

 

First, I think we have to realise that there can be differing standards of corruption.
( I think that is fairly obvious)

For example, In the SW RPG, a wookiee jedi character does not recieve any darkside points for following their natural tendency for "wookiee Rage." For a wookiee, this rage is an instictive ability, so no conflict arises from it. A human jedi would suffer a tremendous darkside pull from loosing control in a similar manner.

This is what happened to Anakin. By allowing his anger to overcome his being, he became corrupted. I don't think it was the slaughter of the Tuskin's that was itself evil, but how Anakin went about it.

Here, his use of the "ultimate power" resulted from his own imbalance. As a result, he was corrupted absolutely.

Normally, I don't think emotion and passion ALONE would result in any corruption. It's only when these factors override who you are that damage is done.

Rapist=imbalance and moral corruption.
pasionate love between husband and wife=natural instinct.

It isn't the tool that is intrinsically evil, but how you use it.

EDIT: Reb, what example of true power have you held?

 

Normally, I don't think emotion and passion ALONE would result in any corruption. It's only when these factors override who you are that damage is done.

Which, in Jacen's case, they never do [override who he is]. And it doesn't always have to, unless that's who you really are.

I think to say that power and emotions tempts Jedi always absolves the Jedi of what they do and what they did. And of course after their brush with the "dark side" we welcome them back in open arms as if that person was possessed through no fault of their own.

Am I the only who finds some of these ideas absolutely garbage?

 

Caine, i think what you're describing there is forgiveness, and how is that a bad thing? Welcoming back former darksiders like kyp or mara is an addmission on the welcomer's part that they should not judge another person whos whole motive they may not see.

 

Caine,
are you commenting on redemption as a literary device intsead of a moral concept?

Because, yes, I agree that as a plot device, it has become rather weak.

Kyp killed billions, including his brother, faced off with Han and the New Republic, and what happened. Zippo.

Oh, wait, you were possesed by the spirit of a long lost Sith? I guess that's just the darkside. Let's go grab a beer...

It does get rather tedious seeing the darkside used as an excuse every time some one pulls a major boo-boo.

 

I actually agree with Mr44, i was viewing forgiveness as a concept.

 

IMO, the whole NJO series has been a pretty mediocre series with a few books that really stood out, like Hero's Trial, Rebel Dream, and Rebel Stand.

But now... Traitor.

All I can say is wow.

I could not put this book down from start to finish. This is by far the best NJO order book. Shoot, it might even be the best Star Wars book period.

Just like some people say that Ep. II made Ep I a better movie, I can honestly say that this book even validates and enhances all the books before it.

M.W. Stover, (do you prefer being call Matt, Matthew, Mr. Stover or what?) congratulations on a job well done. I am planning on finding and reading every book you have published.

Thank you much for rekindling my interest in Star Wars!

 

As a literary device. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

What? You electrocuted some people? Don't worry about it, it wasn't really you anyway. The Dark Side is so tempting like that. Its powers so corrupting. I can't help but hear Vergere: "Don't make excuses!"

You would think that after 28 some standard years after ANH something would evolve, something would change about this dichotomous view to make things interesting. Because essentially, that's what it is: a view.

 

Personally, I view Anakin's corruption as stemming from the DESIRE for power: to wield power for its own sake. This leads him into emotional instability. Which he then indulges, as he enjoys the power it brings him.

The seeking and use of power for its own sake -- THAT I would agree is corrupting -- and a pretty fair definition of the type of corruption we SW fans like to talk about as the dark side.

As far as Jacen's vision goes: no comment. I'll discuss philosophical issues till we're all blue in the face, but specifics of events and interpretations and origins of ideas and that kind of thing -- well, you'll have to decide for yourself.

I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it?

 

As far as Jacen's vision goes: no comment. I'll discuss philosophical issues till we're all blue in the face, but specifics of events and interpretations and origins of ideas and that kind of thing -- well, you'll have to decide for yourself.

I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it?

LOL!

That is so TRUE.