Books A/V DARK DISCIPLE (Ventress/Vos novel) (spoilers)

I suspect the reason she changed her opinion on the "no families" rule was because she found out about a sect of the Jedi who allowed them and no one had written about before, which meant she could then retcon them into serving as her mouthpiece on reciting her rote anti-Orthodox Jedi screeds, and then say, "I'm not anti-Jedi! See? I have Jedi (whose viewpoints I completely made up in contrast to what they were depicted as before) who hate the regular Jedi too, so it's really fair!"

The Etain Order 66 scene makes sense when you consider Traviss's stated opinions that Jedi = Nazis and clones = chattel slaves. Order 66 isn't the Night of Long Knives, it's the Warsaw Uprising (with a different ending). Order 66 therefore isn't the authoritarian Empire wiping out the galactic protectors of peace and justice but rather a spontaneous uprising in the manner of Frantz Fanon liberation theory, meeting violence with violence, in which the oppressor regained her humanity and sided with the oppressed. And to take the Fanon analogy further, the Empire then "taking over" was the sort of leadership cult that Fanon warned could pervert the liberation struggle (and conversely, the clones' Mandalorian worship reflects his other warning, the fetishization of indigenous culture by the liberation movement).

 

Even in the Republic Commando series, I can't recall any Jedi saying that, by virtue of their genetic heritage, they were superior to ordinary people, or to clones.

The notorious "Nazi-think" quote referred to the (in her opinion) belief of some fans that clones were inferior to ordinary people and that Jedi were superior:

http://www.karentraviss.com/page22/files/Is_it_true_you_hate_Jedi_.html

But this is a bit of a derail - shouldn't we return to Ventress and Vos?

 

I don't really understand the "ivory tower Jedi" ide, at least for the movie era. After all every time we see a jedi s/he is either out on the street/out in the galaxy working or in the temple between missions or researching.

Also Mon Mothma how do you mean that jedi should be “ordinary folks”? Also what count as “ordinary” in the GFFA?

 

In this context - the Temple could be (after the fact) said to be another ivory tower - with the Imperial Palace being the main one. (Remember that this was written before the PT - Palpatine isolates himself from the population, and is sometimes called a Dark Jedi in older works).

The idea seems to be that "Jedi" should be like a religion (or a martial arts discipline) - something they do, but something that's secondary rather than primary.

 

I have not read the Corellia trilogy and my "ivory tower" comment was only focused on the movie era. What kind of "ivory tower" tendecies did Luke's order have by the Corellia trilogy?

Is not that a bit like saying that you should be a police officer secondary rather than primary?

 

Yes - and police officers have "off-duty hours", are allowed to marry, are required to retire once they get past a certain age, etc.

None yet - but she was worried that if Luke "retreated to brood on mountaintops" this would inspire his followers to do so.

And he does basically do this in the Black Fleet Crisis trilogy, written after this but set before - building himself a fortress and retreating into it before being encouraged out.

 

And?

Okey, I see.

 

And it grounds them - a normal police officer is probably going to understand the life and concerns of an ordinary person, more than someone who's "raised from birth" in a police station, and treated as "on duty all the time" (except to sleep).

 

Really? Going by how police officers have acted through history so do they have a tendency to be rather self-righteous people more concern with their own lives and the wellfair of the well to do then the “ordinary” people. And were/when was it stated that the jedi can not take some free time?

Also once again what is considered “ordinary” people in the GFFA?

 

"Ordinary" is a little hard to define - but "not a member of a government agency" may play a part.

 

Similar logic could be applied to almost anybody with "special powers" - telepathic aliens, shapeshifters, etc.

 

What do you think about water-breather, IR-vision, air-breather, sonar, 20/20 sight, natural armour, fire breath, big natural weapons, etc., etc.?

 

That they shouldn't necessarily have to become government officers merely because they have "powers".

There's a certain amount of historical context to the adoption of the non-attachment rules (in the EU):

 

IMO, saying that Anakin turned because "attachments lead to the dark side" is running away from the fact that Anakin is an evil person who chose to do evil things. Furthermore, Palpatine and Dooku didn't have any attachments.

 

Good point. But I'm not satisfied with he's evil, so he does evil things. That works for Palps, but not Anakin, IMO. I think both trilogies go out of their way to point out upbringing plays a role in our choices. Luke, with similar genetic predispositions, made different choices. So there is a bit of a nature-nurture thing going on. I think attachments are an issue, but there are other issues too. And that in no way lets Anakin off the hook. He doesn't get to blame what he did on the Jedi or Obi-Wan. "You have done that yourself," and all that. But the Jedi did make mistakes, so they don't get a get out of jail free card either.

I think an alcoholic analogy may help. There is a genetic component involved, which makes an alchy more prone to making bad choices. But choice is still there. Environment is also important. An alchy brought up in an alchy home is in a double whammy situation.

Like most nature-nurture issues, it's hard to see which has most influence. But they definitely both do. As an uber Jedi, Ani was at risk from the start, which the council seemed to recognize. I always think of Yoda's advice to let go of those you care about as indicative of the mishandling of Anakin. It's sound philosophy but hard in practice and a total misunderstanding of who Ani is. It's like telling an alchy to just not drink because it's addictive. How do you not drink? Anakin was practically begging to figure out how. He knew what he shouldn't do. He just didn't know how to not do it. That's part of the tragedy.

 

Do you know what's really evil? Off-topic threads.

 

I always thought Anakin fell to the dark side because he was a complete moron. Or maybe it was just Hayden Christensen's acting that gave this impression.

 

On Ventress & Vos - I'm wondering if Golden will pull a Luceno and recanonise some of their EU backstory.

It would be interesting to have her recall her duel with Anakin on Yavin IV, or Vos recall his efforts to play Dark Jedi and infiltrate Dooku's organization.

Ventress's character arc continuation would also be worth thinking about - taught by a Jedi Master - blames the Order for his death - joins Dooku - is betrayed by Dooku - becomes a bounty hunter.

And Then What?

Could she end up deciding that her rage against the Jedi was unfounded?

 

I don't completely disagree, but when did Arligan Zey admit how wrong the Jedi were? What was he admitting they were wrong about? I'm really into the quotes when folks are making these claims otherwise we end up with a lot of misinformation colored by fictional quotations that don't actually appear in the text.

I think there is something to having the Jedi admit they made mistakes as an organization - I think Lucas meant to show them as flawed and aloof and that those errors were meant to be highlighted as a big reason why Palpatine could accomplish his goals. At the same time they were victims and were trying to do what was right, but based upon what was presented in the films they seem to go against their own beliefs to do that. "We are keepers of the peace, not soldiers" or "I can only protect you, I can't fight a war for you" illustrate this. The Jedi shift in approach I think is clearly meant to highlight that they did go wrong, and played right into Palpatine's hands.

One could even argue that they were wrong to try and arrest Palpatine the way they did - even though the action at its core was a righteous one. They should have been much more careful, Mace Windu was wrong to think he could fix the situation himself.

I wonder what would have happened if the Jedi didn't put themselves in a position to be destroyed by comprising some of their beliefs? It is being a Monday morning quarterback of course, but I think it is a question Luke would have to ask himself when deciding to set up a new Jedi Order.

 

I'm still not certain if Ventress ever had something like romantic affair in her whole life. Just flirting with Obi-Wan doesn't count. And if she ever mated Savage Opress nobody really knows.

To much time and information gaps. Let's see what this book will draw to the light.

 

The time in particular I'm thinking of is when Zey was on Mandalore in 501st, when talking to Kina Ha about how scared Etain was about the Jedi taking Kad from her. I could be exaggerating–he could've been wondering what the Jedi did wrong rather than admitting they did. I see your point, though. They did change dramatically in the three years from AOTC to ROTS especially.

Good question. Of course Palpatine had already backed them into a corner where they were unlikely to succeed in any case, but what if they could've first found evidence that Palpatine had orchestrated the war that they could present to the Senate? But then, the Senate was pretty much in Palpy's pockets at that point ("I am the Senate!"), so I'm not sure how much good it would've done. I guess we'll never know what would've happened if they'd tried a different course of action, but it's an interesting point to raise, for sure.