An explanation for the poor characterizations of the Jedi in LOTF

I got to thinking about the poor decision making by the characters during LOTF. Users on the forum have commented about the poor characterization of Luke, refusing to believe Ben. Mara acted on her own without notifying anyone of her actions and it led to her death. The other Jedi have been less effective than usual. What has caused this oversight by the Jedi?

The rise of the One Sith.

Think about it objectively: the Jedi of the Old Republic were unable to sense the rise of the dark side, and it led them to make poor choices that contributed to the fall of the Republic. They could not sense the rise of Darth Sidious until it was too late. The claim has been made the Shroud of the Dark Side caused this blindness. I think this theory is very plausible and fits into LOTF.

The rise of the One Sith has contributed to the poor actions of Luke and the rest of the Jedi. And since I highly doubt the One Sith issue will be resolved by the end of the series, I think we can continue to count on poor characterizations of Luke and the rest. Only when the One Sith are revealed will Luke and the others be able to react.

However, the issue may be resolved in Invincible. Now that Luke has discovered that Jacen has become Darth Caedus, he may finally spring into action and we'll finally begin to see the Luke we've been waiting for. However, the issue may be resolved in Invincible. Now that Luke has discovered that Jacen has become Darth Caedus, he may finally spring into action and we'll finally begin to see the Luke we've been waiting for.

 

So, wouldn't since the Light Side is not weaker than the Dark Side, the presence of the Jedi screw with the Sith?

The Sith didn't cause the Jedi's power to diminish during their height.

Only Palpatine coming to the Chancellor's throne did that.

 

Well...they've abandoned the GA, for the time being, in order to focus on the big problems neutrally.

What poor characterization?

 

I thought there were comments along the lines of the Force becoming cloudy even before that though. Especially in EU material. You can debate whether it was Palpatine doing something or the Jedi's hubris or the Force turning its back on them, but they had admittedly been having issues prior.

Also, isn't there some mention of the Sith cloaking Korriban in some manner?

 

I've actually felt like they have finally started to get the characterization RIGHT.

"What if the Democracy that we have sworn to serve no longer exists?" - Amidala

In LoTF this has happened and instead of hanging onto the coat tails of a corrupt government the Jedi took off. Assisted at Kashyyk by another corrupt Government they could have taken up with them, as they seem to be friendlier to the Jedi at that time. Nope. They got the heck out of their big Temples and training facilities and shacked up in an abandoned facility in the jungle.

They finally are not allowing themselves to be manipulated by the government. The Jedi (Minus Jacen and Tahiri) all seem to be in agreement instead of in TDN where we saw Kyp and Corran screaming at each other for.....something or other. To

 

Supposedly they did.

 

Nope.

Revan and the Exile seem pretty powerful.

 

What do you think I'm saying?

 

Here's my explanation.

The copy of Sith For Dummies that Lumiya gave Jacen includes a new Force Power: "Lower My Enemies' Intelligence."

 

Under his black suit Jacen is wearing an "I Roll 20's" t-shirt.

 

That is by far the best logical answer yet.

 

Perhaps someone might like to elucidate what this poor Jedi characterization might be?

 

*Suicidal Luke.

*Mara not contacting the Jedi about Caedus

*Ben not telling anyone about Jacen and Lumiya.

*Everyone not believing Ben and thinking the most ludicrous things.

*The Jedi not thinking of intelligent legal ways on bringing down Caedus.

*Luke and Mara leaving Ben with Jacen when they knew something could be wrong with him.

*Zekk acting like a sick lustful puppy.

*Jaina acting like un emotional robot and not caring that she might have to murder the person she's cared about for so many years

*Leia not minding in killing her son

*Leia not minding in killing Tahiri

*Tahiri....nuff said


Should I go on?

 

What's wrong with this?

He's a kid. What's more, that's all the characterization we've gotten about him so far, so how is it poor characterization? Because it wasn't ideal?

What?

Caedus is the law, in case you haven't been following.

It was a bad idea and they were blindsided by their desires for Ben's future, but that doesn't make it poor characterization.

Zekk is a sick lustful puppy.

That's actually not in the text. She has trouble dealing with the fact of her duel with Jacen, and hides behind apparent emotional blankness. It's written fairly well, actually, and is fully fleshed out.

She minds. She mourns it. She just realizes it has to be done.

Leia temporarily lost control of herself and flew off the handle.

I'm confused....she's being manipulated by strong emotion. How does that not make sense?

There's a difference between characters being fallible and bad characterization.

 

Everything is wrong with the Legacy of the Force, the characterization of the jedi is probably one of the better parts of it.

 

^Are you kidding? I think that's the worst part.

 

The huge problem is that they seemingly cannot create a story in which the Jedi are threatened if they don't dumb down the Jedi. Everytime the Jedi get their saber handles handled, it's a combination of these factors:

- the general public doesn't like Jedi because they *know* something, or because they are *better*; essentially Jedi are accused of being elitist

- their adversary controls either the legal government or a huge war engine (which empowers him to "rule by force" - see the Vong or Revan's Sith)

- the Jedi themselves have become complacent and/or arrogant, effectively leaving the Jedi path and thus producing their own adversary in their midst


Recent EU strays away from active non-Skywalker Jedi, so this makes the third scenario a rather important one. Three examples on how the different eras deal with this.

1) KOTOR - we don't know much about the Jedi Order, and there are certain decisions and certain characters that show them as unfavorable. Vandar's deciding character trait is the fact that he looks like Yoda, so we root for him because of that. All the others are rather neutral or negative, especially regarding the Exile story (although a few of the hidden masters seem quite nice).

2) Yoda's Order - this one is said to be flawed, having arrogant Jedi and essentially being blind to what happens around them. They believe in an institution that has already rotten inside. We still get to like the individual Jedi as seen in the comic books. Even if Tholme & co. laugh about Qui-Gon's fashion sense and hygiene, this is presented as an in-joke for the reader to join in, not as a flaw. So we like them because we see them seperated from their shortcomings. I'm actually puzzled why this works so well.

3) Luke's Order - while this order has to fit in with the examples above, it's a bit harder because we already know what the Jedi in this age are capable of - we know who they are. Kyp, Corran, Kyle, Kam - the whole gang is a bunch of heroes. The next generation was presented in children's books and thus didn't get any open negative traits, either.

So, essentially, I think it's harder for most of us to accept when those guys screw up. Because we grew up when they could do better.

With NJO, they needed a (pretty mild) "Jedi schism" with rogue Jedi like Kyp (rogue?), Ganner and that guy who gets killed after four novels. The Order has to overcome this to win in the end. In the final chapters, the Order is supposed to have become better.
In order to keep the story going, the Order actually gets worse with DN. Kyp is still rogue, Corran is boring and all of them together force Luke into becoming a dictator because they need someone to hold their hand.
Then, with LOTF, it's the same as in the PT again, with a touch of Jacen as the Revanchist. Jedi characters are reduced to name dropping, even appearances like Kyp, Kyle and even Jaden Korr could be written for any Jedi. The known names only create more impact with the readers - would Inferno have been so heavy if generic Jedi teachers had been shot to bits instead of the permanent side ornaments of Kam and Tionne? Still, it doesn't factor in that these characters are good at what they do. If the evil guy needs to be stronger, he's stronger. If the evil guy needs to be dealt with, we have the main characters. Mara didn't contact Kyp when she decided to kill Jacen because the whole issue would have become much more complicated.
So I think this is the poor characterization - not following with what has been before. Luke killing Lumiya out of revenge and then brooding one week about it before becoming a really active Jedi isn't in tune with the past, and it's a stretch to say that clouds of the dark side would do that.

But as far as retcons go, I honestly think it's a winner. It totally ties into the PT, and with LOTF, I think that's the best you can expect.

Unfortunately, I'm not the guy for retcons. In the end, for me, I can say that it's only what a certain group of people make up. And sometimes I just disagree. Which, of late, has been mor

 

But that's the thing: The old Jedi knew the Republic was corrupt, but believed that it was better than any alternative and could be saved. It was broken, like any political system, but does that mean they can't love and defend America...um...I mean the Republic?

Luke doesn't kill out of revenge...he kills because he has to, because tolerating her existence was detrimental to the galaxy any more. He becomes depressed because he realizes she wasn't the real threat, and so he acted wrongly and begins to question his own motives.

Most of these "characterization problems" are peoples' own issues with the characters themselves - very often these issues are dealt with directly in the text, but because you've got a preconceived notion of what should happen, when it doesn't the text is ignored.

 

Luke's character only functions effectively when he can be pointed at the bad guy (most always a Sith or Dark Jedi) and fired. When his enemies are political or ambiguous or not Force sensitive he loses his direction and doesn't know what to do. I blame the nature of his training under Yoda and Obi-Wan.

 

My problem with this series, in general, is that the only way the authors have been able to keep this series going for a 9-book arc, is by making certain character choices idiotic. Now, that's not saying that those characters are stupid as a whole, but that over the length of LotF, some of their decisions make absolutely no sense.

They could have stopped Jacen right away, if Mara hadn't gone rogue assassin without even telling anyone. They could have been aware of the Jacen/Lumiya pairing, if Ben had just told his father about it. Yes, you can argue away the stupidity in those, by saying those are "natural reactions" to have made. But it doesn't change the fact they're stupid reactions.

And that's my biggest annoyance with this series. At one point or another, most of the major characters have made "are you kidding me?" type decisions, just so they can push this story along. I'd rather they created a story that didn't require idiotic decisions to drive the story along.

The Jedi seem to be at the forefront of these idiotic decisions (or non-decisions, such as the Mara and Ben examples above).

 

I see it differently, but I don't want to force my perspective on you. It's just a bit convenient that he only realizes that Lumiya's existence is bad for everyone once she's killing his wife instead of starting galactic wars. I think we could continue to debate this, but as we're both adults who already have reasons for their opinions, I don't think that anyone would be able to convince the other.

Of course I evaluate good and bad stories/characterizations/writing based on what I expect. Everyone does. But this doesn't mean that I have one fixed idea of what should happen, and that I can't be pleased because I'm a sci-fi-franchise fan who's always feeling smarter than the creators. It only means that I can divide all the possible alternatives into two groups: those which get along with my general idea [which is based on several factors], and those which absolutely don't work with the way I see the 'world'. Two quick examples:

1) Jacen is the hero of TNJO. This makes sense to me based on Jacen's appearances in previous stories.
2) Jacen was trained as a Sith in Traitor, so he isn't a hero in the remainder of the NJO. Or at least he's got some serious issues. I don't see this in Traitor or the rest of NJO, so it doesn't make sense to me.

When I dislike LOTF, of course it's because I expected something else. It's not that much different from buying a book and then finding out that there isn't anything printed into it. I would dislike that, too. But it's not that I was hard to please with SW literature, it's only that I don't feel that DN/LOTF has any validity to me as the continuation of the previous SW adventures. Opinions based on personal reasons.

I fully agree with that.

But as stated before, I think the thread starter's idea is the best retcon available. It's a carte blanche for every wrong decision the Jedi made, and it certainly mirrors Zahn's "Luke, you've been one dumb son of a Sith ever since the last Zahn novel" retcon at the end of the Bantam run. Maybe they should hold a retcon vote like they did with the Darth name vote next... [the beat-up is for me because they might actually use this idea...]

 

A lot of this may be reashing BobaMatt, but Hey!

1 - Luke. He's grieving heavily. He lost the love of his life and the mother of his child. He made a bad judgement call to follow that up. Luke may be the Grandmaster, but he's still human.
2 - Ben. Ok, Ben is a 14 year old kid any way you slice it. He tells his mom about Jacen and Lumiya. His mom ends up dead. I can see why he's be reluctant to tell others.
3. - Not believing Ben - As I said, he's a 14 year old kid. Next time you have a major crisis in your life don't go to one of your close, wise, older family members....go dig up your 14 year old brother, nephew, cousin, whatever. I'm sure he'll give you some childish ideas. They may make you feel better but you are not likely to act on them.
4. - What is one of these "Legal" ways to bring down Jacen. Technically, most of what he has done is within the law (If it wouldn't be, he just rewrites it. Moral and ethical? No? Legal? Yes...or are you suggesting the Jedi stage a coup, Luke take up the CoS position, and declare the second galactic Empire?
5. - Luke and Mara regarding Ben....That has been covered in great detail and makes decent sense....unless the Jedi were Omnipotent and knew everything from the readers POV.
6 - There is nothing in the Jedi Code now about not pursuing a love interest. Zekk is in Love. He's Human. That's what Humans in love do.
7 - Jaina is turning her emotions "off" because she knows what she has to do and prefers not to think of it on an emotional level.
8 - Leia is the same way
9 - Leia thought her brother had just died, shortly after her sister in law. Tahiri was acting like an idiot. She lost it for a moment. At the risk of sounding repetitive she is, after all, human.
10 - Tahiri's mind is being bent by a Lord of the Sith using one of the most emotional parts of her life.

 

You'd be surprised. I don't disagree about Luke being spurred on by Mara's death, and I don't think he didn't get a certain personal satisfaction from killing her - it's only natural to have that sort of slip; she was the love of his life, after all - but I think the narration makes it fairly clear that he wasn't using the dark side, that he wasn't fueled by rage or anything. I think Mara's death was a wake-up call, a realization that he couldn't play the contemplative Buddha, anymore.

So what you're saying is that you're able to make the differentiation.

Well it doesn't make sense to a lot of other people either, hence the debate about Vergere's status as a Sith Lord.

Well why approach literature with expectations like that anyway? I don't actually see the examples you gave as valid, because it's not the author's job to write your version of their story. An accusation of "bad characterization" can only be made when the characterization doesn't make sense within the context of the story, not when it's just not what you'd prefer. I'll use suicidal Luke as an example: EarthKnight doesn't like that Luke is suicidal, so EarthKnight calls it bad characterization; I think it's sad that Luke ends up a little suicidal, but it's entirely consistent with a man already suffering from self-doubt who's lost the woman he loved more intensely than anything else.

So...what you're saying is that the decisions make sense within character, but they're still stupid decisions.

Welcome to flawed, fully fleshed out characters 101.

 

I'll try to explain my point again...

My expectations are certain limits for the story. They are also limits for the characterization.

This does not mean that I have a certain story in mind and want that story to be fulfilled. Example: The story I had in mind for the Solo kids prior to NJO had them become heroes, having lots of adventures like in the YJK series, but obviusly written for a non-young-readers-audience. In NJO, they killed Anakin. It worked extremely well for me, even though it wasn't the story I would have written. It also worked as good characterization for me, because Anakin died heroically. He didn't die while running away.

What it means is that I give limits to what can possibly happen in the story while still making sense to me. Anakin dying as a hero is possible (but not preferrable), Jacen becoming a Sith in/after Traitor is, again, for me, impossible.

Actually, the "suicidal Luke" example is wonderful proof of this. EK has expectations that make him think that the characterization is bad. You, however, have formed a different opinion and think that the behaviour is in character - and essentialy you state that your expectations were different. Both of you have a certain frame within which "logical" or "good EU" can happen.

Now you might say that you don't have such expectations and therefore can adapt to any product SW literature throws at you. I'll take it to extreme examples again. What if Leia would suddenly build a Death Star? What if Han and Leia divorced? What if Luke decided that he should drop his Jedi heritage, becoming a TIE pilot with the Empire? What if Jaina married Boba Fett? What if Han married Boba's daughter? Are all of these things truly plausible enough within the framework EU has provided up to now so that you could rationalize them, even classify them as good characterization?

I the end, a story in which "overall bad characterization" is actually "excellent in-story characterization" qualifies as a bad story. I've been mixing the concepts up a bit, because I think that story, characterization and lots of oher factors actually play together very closely. If the story forces me to change the character in order to fit the story, it's both a bad story (because it doesn't use the characters the way they should be used) and a bad characterization (because it doesn't fit with previous material).

Another example would be Thrawn. He's a villain at first - brilliant, but ruthless and definitely on the wrong side. Outbound Flight then has him as brilliant, noble, heroic and adorable. This could work for me if either it's a subjective POV (which it partly is, but then the novel doesn't give you anything else, so you get a objective POV) or if it's plausible that OF Thrawn could develop into HTTE Trawn (which isn't, because a man of such intellect as Thrawn wouldn't be swayed about in his integrity so much -