Books Heir to the Jedi by Kevin Hearne

I understand that she's not going to be in ESB. That story has already been told. The question is, why? If she's close to Luke in canon, what happened to her? Why isn't she in his life at these critical junctures? She doesn't need to die, just like Ahsoka didn't. But there had to be a reason that Ahsoka wasn't following Anakin around and helping out as his padawan any longer by RotS, and there needs to be a reason why Nakari isn't holding hands with Luke in ESB. It doesn't make sense that she would just disappear. I don't care if she's dead, or if she and Luke are estranged, or whatever. This is the problem with introducing love interests, specifically.

 

I completely agree. The reason can be anything (as I mentioned). It does not need to be her death, as Ahsoka didn't need to die. It doesn't matter what the reason is, but without giving a reason it is weird that she isn't in the movies. And yes, I get that this book takes place two years before ESB and that anything can happen in two years and that two years while at war is a really long time. And yes, I get that she could just be doing something else during that time. Death does solve the issue, but other explanations can as well.

My point isn't that she needed to die.

My point is that there needs to be an explanation for her absence.

 

So by that measure any living characters who have a friendship with Luke or Han or Leia in the Rebellion have to turn up in ESB or be explained away?

Can't help but feel you're seriously hamstringing our new toddler EU!

 

Well, if Hearne wanted emotional impact and for us to identify with Luke, this thread is evidence he TOTALLY succeeded.

It's not just Luke who is angry, bitter, and sorrowful about her inconvenient and seeming needless death, and who tries to envision a plausible alternate future where she was allow to survive if someone had just done something differently.

Bravo, Hearne. Bravo.

 

Let's just say, Nakari shouldn't be (excluding her death) a once-and-then-gone character. If she gets close to Luke, she should show up again. Maybe there's a new book that takes place between ESB and RotJ, and she's in that and there's an explanation that she's been with her father. We'll never know, I guess, but I would hate to see any character build a relationship with one of our favorites and then just disappear.

 

Not a demand at all, at least not anymore of a demand than the thoughts from the folks who want no character death in Star Wars because it makes it too real for them.

It was never the powers that be that took issue with Ahsoka.

I got the impression that she was a character of some importance based on this thread. I think your creating hyperbole out of my comment here. If she was no more important than Wuhur then disregard my comment

Every last thing doesn't need to be explained, yet it would be nice to know why important characters who were hanging around Luke are not around later on one way or another. Hypothetically, if a female character is a love interest of Luke's - if they have a meaningful relationship - it would be nice to not see that dropped as time goes on. I mean if your happy with "Luke's in danger? Vader is hunting him! Too bad I can't help, I have my dad's birthday party to go to" then thats great." I'd be for something more than that.

All they have done is brag about how coherent this new EU is going to be, lets see them put their money where their mouth is. This character need not be in the film, but yes - if she is important - it would be nice to know why she isn't there. It should never be a plot point left hanging just because some readers would be fine with never knowing why she disappeared.

 

There's no hyperbole here. It's simply that I can't work out neither what people are asking for in this respect Rob nor the practicalities of making it happen.

 

Yeah, discussing the "point" of Nakari's death is fine and all (though I also think a lot of it's missing the point of why people are objecting to it as a fridging), but this thing how characters not in the OT have to be accounted for in some definitive way? That just makes no sense to me.

I mean, where's the objections to the revolving door of Rebel generals? And that's from the movies.

 

I would want her to reappear in another work. That's it. Don't change the movies to include her. If she doesn't die here, she shouldn't just disappear. And assuming that she and Luke reunite after ESB, there should be some explanation of where she was and we should see the two catch up. I don't care what it is, and it's completely irrelevant due to what we got. But I do not want to see, in the future, characters introduced and become really close to the Big Three and then just disappear.

For instance, the Holiday Special introduced Chewbacca's family. It explained why they weren't in ANH (and why they wouldn't be in other movies). But it was still good when they were shown again in A Forest Apart. Chewbacca would not just leave his family forever. On the other hand, I really wonder where Ken went and what happened to him after the Jedi Prince series. He and Luke had built a friendship, and then he just disappeared. That's not cohesive, it's not expanding the universe. It's just weird. Why wouldn't they stay in touch? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The EU was full of people and plotlines disappearing. Some of them came back later when authors remembered about them and threw them into a novel they didn't belong in. Others were simply ignored. If the canon, now, is to be cohesive, we shouldn't be completely ignoring characters who had become important to the lives of the main protagonist of the series. They don't need to always be together, but they should appear again until there's an explanation of why they won't (death, parting ways, etc.)

 

The problem with this is you're resurrecting precisely the reason why Legends got canned! The idea is a simple one: The makers of Eps 7-9 are not to be constrained by anything, that includes the new EU or whatever we call it.

Because of that I can't ever see this continuity operating in such a way pre-movies. Post-movie? Oh, all bets are off and it's then we'll likely see the more interesting and innovative stuff. For right now? Up to December 2015, it'll be cautious and limited.

 

I'm glad she died. I thought she was annoying.

 

Good lord.

 

You–I–just–but–what?

 

So are you saying that it isn't a possibility that this is why she was killed? It really isn't the illogical thought your making it out to be.

We are talking about a franchise that killed Anakin Solo because he had the same first name as another character.

Also, part of this for me is that we have heard the same argument, from similar folks, going all the way back to Chewbacca in Vector Prime. Every death seems to bring out this conversation and claims as to why no character death has ever worked. In this case we can also attach the "fridging" deal to it to make it seem so much worse.

It all sounds suspect to me. People are sad the character died because they liked her. So they then try to create legit reasons as to why it was such a narrative blunder to kill her at all.

Why should an author need a good reason to kill off a character? What defines a good reason? It is all very subjective. If Game of Thrones was Star Wars people would still be mad about Ned Stark.

Yeah, that exactly what they said about the new EU...........

 

...You think they aren't?

 

They shouldn't be. Killing Sean Bean's character was pretty much required.

Yes, I know about the books - I was reading them before the show was even a thing.

 

Some people think any time a character they either like or are part of a percieved or actual minority group is killed, the writer is either being cruel or lazy. Sometimes thats true, sometimes it isnt. Can't win with everyone.

 

Let's be honest, in the case of Martin, you know he's being a bastard to the reader. I mean, when's Book 6 out again? Due this year perhaps?

 

Possible, but more likely 2016.