CT The official Anakin's Spirit poll

Umm…what? How do the women and children (particularly the women) figure here? Are you suggesting that killing women and children suggests a lack of human feelings but killing men does not? I don't agree. Sorry. I think men, women, and children are all equally valuable. I don't think it's worse to kill a woman than a man, for instance.

And he certainly wasn't dispassionate. He was so passionate that Yoda could feel his pain from half a galaxy away.

There's no way that Anakin, after having his mother die in his arms the way she did, would be in a stable frame of mind. He was most certainly being influenced by strong emotion -- otherwise, he wouldn't have killed them in the first place and Yoda wouldn't have felt his emotional pain.

I never said emotion couldn't play a part. I said emotion alone couldn't do it. Are you really telling me that a normal person wouldn't kill someone who was torturing a loved one right in front of them? Do you really think such a person could prevent themselves from feeling rage, anger, and pain? What would a turn to the Dark Side mean then? Yes, emotion can play a part, but one has to be in enough of a stable frame of mind to be able to decide rather than instinctively react.

There was an article a few years back about a man who beat to death a neighbor who he found molesting his daughter. Are you going to tell me he was an "agent of evil"? I disagree. I think that man did what any father might have done in his situation.

Luke was enraged when he shot down stormtroopers in ANH, but he didn't turn to the Dark Side. Clearly, killing in anger isn't enough.

Of course you're not sure. But you also believe that it's possible that Anakin dispassionately killed the Tuskens. Right after he'd held his mother in his arms and saw her die from wounds administered during a prolonged captivity. That says a lot about where your biases lie so we're never going to see eye to eye. If you believe that such a crime could be committed against your loved ones and you could react in a rational and impartial manner, with no influence of strong emotion, then we will never agree because I am precisely the opposite. I am aware now that seeking revenge is wrong -- is an act of evil -- and I condemn violence strongly. But in the moment, if you gave me the means, this knowledge probably wouldn't stop me because I'd be so emotionally overwhelmed. Because the pain of the loss of people I love would trump any abstract notion of morality. It's not right, of course, but I don't think it's abnormal either.

Also, you don't seem to address why Anakin felt the need to tell others. If he's so concerned with how he is perceived, then why admit to Padmé and Palpatine what he had done? It's nonsensical. Furthermore, there would be no reason for him to stare down at his hand in shock, much as Luke did in ROTJ. If he didn't want to better himself, then why say that he's a Jedi and he knows he's better than this? Why cry over something which he did "dispassionately" and which he doesn't regret?

And yes, he should have told the Jedi. I can see why he didn't though. Especially once it's made clear that Palpatine is part of the picture.

 

I took the poll wording quite literally and answered "Hayden" because now that I own the blu-rays, I've seen HC's ghost enough that that's what comes to mind. But if it had been up to me, I would have kept the SS version.

 

I largely agree with what you're saying, but

a) By saying that they deserved whatever Anakin did because they killed his mother you're getting into ideas of retributive punishment, or revenge. Even if we accept that they all deserved it, as we know from it being said everywhere in the movies and EU revenge leads to the dark side.

b) I'm slightly baffled as to why the idea that he was in great pain and shock and just acted on instinct keeps being tendered as a mitigating reason. This isn't a criminal trial, we're looking at his actions from the perspective of the code and conduct of the Jedi, not through the lens of a criminal justice system that recognises such defences.

c) Even if we assume that every single one of the men took part in the torture and deserved it, and that all of the women deserved too for standing by, what about the children?

d) As an aside, and obviously not massively relevant as they're not G-Canon, but there are a bunch of EU sources that suggest that the Tusken raiders are more than mere savages. The most prominent is obviously KOTOR, which admittedly was released a year after AOTC.

Because the women were at best tangentially responsible for the crime through omissions (letting it happen), and the children were not responsible in any way at all.

That is kind of the point though. To quote from the Jedi code "There is no passion, there is serenity".

This goes back to something I think is one of the greater flaws of the PT though. If we for the purposes of this exercise forget the entire tribe/women and children aspect of it, I'm not arguing that you wouldn't or even shouldn't really have in that situation gone and killed a bunch of the Tusken Raiders.

The problem is that it's an understandable impulse for a normal reasonable human being, but all of the primary protagonists of the PT save for Padme are all a part of the highly revered Jedi order and are all subject to the codes, customs and practises the Jedi have to follow. A lot of these practises forbid things that normal people like you and I do more or less every day, like forming attachments to individual people, showing emotion, seeking revenge, showing passion.

What you would do in that situation, or what any other person you know would do in that situation, or what any reasonable person would do in that situation, is not relevant because none of these people are bound by the Jedi code. You can't judge the actions of Anakin (or Obi Wan, or Qui Gon, or Luke in ROTJ) through the same lens you'd judge the actions of Han, Leia, Padme, Jar Jar or any non Jedi character.

On that, while I'd argue that giving in to any of the banned things like passion or emotion doesn't on its own make you dark side, the context and extent of the breach does. Luke was shown to come quite close in ROTJ and compared to Anakin all he did was allow himself to be baited using his sister, then cut Vader's hand off. By way of comparison, at the time your breach of the code manifests in killing an entire tribe, some of whom are responsible, some of whom are tangentially responsible, and some of whom are not responsible at all, I'd argue that you've gone over.

 

The children -- no disagreement there.

But why do the women get special mention? There's never any indication that only males do the fighting or that the males were the ones who tortured Shmi to death. If one isn't willing to extend the benefit of doubt to the males, why do so for the females? Shmi's captors/torturers could easily have been a mix of men and women -- I don't see why special consideration is given to the women.

I just took issue with Samuel_Vimes post because it seemed to be suggesting that killing women and children suggests a lack of human emotion in a way that killing men doesn't. I don't think men deserve to be dehumanized that way. There's the innocent and the guilty, but that doesn't necessarily fall along a gender binary is all I was trying to get across.

In regards to "there is no passion, there is serenity," well, not to be pedantic but that's never brought up in the films.

See, I don't think that the PT forgets about the tribe at all -- it's brought up in ROTS specifically by Palpatine for example.

But I think that the PT is meant to show that there are problems in the Jedi's worldview. Padmé says, for example, in response to Anakin's actions that "to be angry is to be human." I would argue that she's saying that she understands how he could be so angry that he would lose control -- that it's normal to, in the moment, become so overwhelmed that you do things you will later regret. Anakin's response is to say that he's a Jedi and should be better than this -- reflecting exactly what you are saying. The problem is that Anakin is human. He's got emotions and they won't go away just because he wants them to -- stated rather inarticulately when he says "I wish I could wish away my feelings, but I can't."

So while I'd agree that Anakin's actions are against the Jedi Code, I think you're presenting a false dichotomy situation. Just because Anakin is a crappy Jedi doesn't make him a Sith or an "agent of evil." I don't consider his actions a fall to the Dark Side because while emotion can certainly lead you there, I do think it necessitates a decision to embrace it. When Anakin used the Force unconsciously as a child during his pod race for example, he wasn't a Jedi -- he had to choose to consciously embrace that life, to serve the Force. It's the same with the Force where killing or lashing out in anger isn't enough. It will put you on the road there (as it did for Anakin), but it isn't the end-all-be-all.

Or look at it another way -- in ANH, Luke is introduced to the Force by Ben Kenobi, he's given a lightsaber and taught how to access his powers, to the point where he can block shots fired by the remote without seeing it. When Obi-Wan is killed, Luke guns down the stormtroopers who were watching the battle just because they happened to be in the vicinity. He could have left (as his friends were telling him to) but he was angry and in pain and so reacted with, what I'd argue, was a very understandable human emotion given the situation and the stress he'd been placed under.

In ROTJ, I would argue that Luke's turning point came not when he was fighting Vader, but when Palpatine told Luke, as he paused, to strike Vader down with all of his hatred. To decide, in that moment, to act. Luke had to choose and he had to be able to choose for it to constitute a turn. That's what a fall to the Dark Side means (to me at least) -- it means to willingly choose to give into one's worst impulses and choose to serve yourself, regardless of the cost to others.

Now, I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but your original post stated that after the killing of the Tuskens " There's no logical way that anyone can say that he wasn't already dark side by that point and the fact that the rest of the film, the first bit of ROTS, the CW TV series and EU materials pretend otherwise has always annoyed me." I don't agree and a lot of that has to do with the fact that I don't see being a Sith as just about emotion. The slaughter of the Tuskens was an enormous breach in the Jedi Code, no doubt about that, but I don't think that automatically means that Anakin is a Dark sider, either.

 

@ PiettsHat
What? How do the women and children (particularly the women) figure here? Are you suggesting that killing women and children suggests a lack of human feelings but killing men does not? I don't agree. Sorry. I think men, women, and children are all equally valuable. I don't think it's worse to kill a woman than a man, for instance[/QUOTE]

I think the women and children to figure here since the film makes a point of having Anakin mention that he didn't just kill the men but the women and children as well. I think this line was in there for a reason.
With the Tuskens, the men seemed to be the warriors and the hunters, as it often is/was in many primitive tribes. Had Anakin killed the men who were attacking him and stopped at that, it would have been different. He still would have done something that wasn't good and tread very close to the edge of the Dark Side. But that he kept on killing made it worse. To me, a search is implied and it is also implied that he chased after those that tried to run. This suggest a degree of control and not just a kill crazy mad man.

As for what it worse. All Murder is very wrong but in most countries and throughout most of history, killing children IS considered more wrong. Same thing with rape, which is a horrible crime, but those that target children are even more reviled. As for women, again in many countries and in the past, the killing of women has been seen as worse than the killing of men. In the past the men were the warriors, the hunters, while women were at home. NOTE, I am making a very broad generalization here, there are many exceptions. But quite often, women and children were seen as non-combatants and thus to kill them was both wrong and often cowardly. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it very much did.
But take a look at films and see how killings are showed, if a woman is killed it quite often is given more attention. And if a child is killed it very much is given more attention. Take the 3rd Pirates movie. In an effort to show how EEvil the bad guys are, they are shown hanging a kid. Personally I think was distasteful and not needed but it is an example.

In short, I don't think men are less important but that the killing of women and children has been and often still is seen as worse. And I think the line was there for that reason, to show that Anakin did something really bad.
.

And I said it wasn't dispassionate. I am merely suggesting that Anakin was more aware of his actions than some here argue. Some argue that Anakin's mind switched off and he went totally kill crazy for 30 seconds and then Anakin came back and suddenly all around him were dead.
I don't think that is what happened, given what Anakin said he did.
He did feel emotion, rage, sorrow, hatred, bloodlust and vengeance.

That Anakin specifically says that he killed women and children, suggest to me, that he was aware that those he killed were women and children and that didn't stop him.

Any comparisons with our world is a bit flawed because the Force doesn't exist here. The Force is a supernatural and in part external power. It can control your actions and it can also obey your commands. There is an Evil side to this power, that is made very clear in ESB. This Evil is even made manifest in a place. So we are not JUST dealing with normal emotions here, we also have a supernatural power and the use of which is VERY dependent on your emotional state.

The Jedi have access to a power that can they can use but also one that can seduce and corrupt them.
A Jedi must not get so angry and enraged that he or she loose control and strikes out and kills in anger. "Luke don't give in to Hate." Obi-Wan said.

And say that this man went and got a machine gun and then went around every house in the neighborhood and killed all those he came across, men, women and children.
Does this change how you view this person?
Had Anakin killed one or a few Tuskens, say the warriors that attacked him but stopped himself from killing those that ran away or hid, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I already said it wasn't dispassionate, please try and read what I write instead of what you think I am saying.
You said that you are certain that Anakin is remorseful about what he did.
My counter is that I am not sure that Anakin was very sorry about all those Tuskens that he killed.
He hated them still and he never said that he wished he had not done it or that he wanted it undone.
With Dooku he does say that he shouldn't have done that.

The sense I got from Anakin is that he regrets not being able to save his mother, which makes total sense. But he also says that he wants power to stop people from dying. That is a lot more worrying.
And this comes up again at his mothers grave, that he wows that he won't fail again and, to him, the failiure wasn't that he killed so many people but that he let someone that he cared about die.
And this comes back in RotS where Anakin is desperate to find this power and is willing to do anything get it.

But is Luke at that point totally calm and rational? I would say no. He has been through a great deal of emotional torment, he got angry, he felt hate, he let his hate flow through him. He has seen the death of all he has fought for. He very much is emotionally compromised still.
This is the problem I have with your theory. It seemingly requires an arbitrary level of rational thought and if that is not there then go ahead and do as much evil as you want, you still won't fall. How calm and rational do you have to be in order to fall? What is the scale here?
Does it take a Jedi to sit down and ponder for an hour for him/her to decide, "Well I think I am going to be Evil for now on."?
Also it makes Palpatine into a bit of an idiot because if Luke were to kill Vader in a total rage then he wouldn't turn and Palpatine would just have wasted one apprentice.

No, I think that had Luke killed Vader, using his hate, then he would have turned, regardless of circumstances. And how is killing Vader self-serving to Luke? He doesn't want Vader dead and killing him gains him nothing. Maybe a brief satisfaction of sating his bloodlust. But it is quite possible that this happened to Anakin while killing all the Tuskens. That killing them sated his bloodlust and satisfied his need for vengeance.
Satisfying base emotions could be seen as a turn to the Dark Side. You feel pain and the way you cope with that pain is to make others suffer pain as well.

The point is made several times in ESB about CONTROL. In ESB Luke is in a dangerous time because he can feel the Force but can't control it and this makes him vulnerable to the Dark Side.
Giving in to rage, hate, fear or vengeance all means a loss of control. The Force is a power that either you control or the power controls you. And that is what happens when you turn, you let go of your control and the power instead controls you and turns you into an agent of Evil.

Luke didn't turn in ANH because he didn't have near enough of command of the Force like he did in ESB and RotJ. Had Anakin in TPM done something similar, I would not expect him to turn either.
Anakin however had considerable command of the Force in AotC and he murdered in hate again and again. Given what the OT says, Anakin would have turned.

[/QUOTE]


And not telling the Jedi shows me that Anakin isn't taking responsibility for his actions and it makes me question if he really regrets them.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Sure, Anakin mentioned it. But that doesn't indicate that the women's lives were somehow more valuable or innocent. Nor is there ever any evidence in the films that men are exclusively warriors. Nor is a search really implied. He says he killed them all -- all that says is that when he stopped, no one around was left living. But there's no way for him to be sure he got every member of the tribe even if he did search. If some of them were out hunting or on reconnaissance, for instance, he certainly wouldn't have been able to kill them. He doesn't say he hunted them down and made sure all of them were dead, however.

The children, certainly, I have never contested since they were innocent. But the women are equal capable of guilt as the men. I don't think bringing up historical precedent here is necessarily well-founded given that there's a lot of sexism mixed in with those views (about both women and men). Moreover, not all of the men were necessarily warriors. And I agree that films give the killing of women more attention. That doesn't mean that it's worse than killing a man.

And your point is kind of a contradiction -- if killing women and children is worse, then how does that not imply that men are less important?
.

Your post stated that he was lacking in human emotions though. That's basically the definition of dispassionate. Dispassionate means without strong emotion yet you're claiming that he lacked even human emotion. I don't see how these two points can co-exist.

See, I would argue that Anakin killing everyone shows that he wasn't in control. If he had been, he would have targeted those he specifically felt were responsible. That he killed so indiscriminately means he wasn't thinking, wasn't rationalizing, but was in an uncontrolled rage lashing out at those around him.

Seriously, who sounds like they are in control of their faculties here: a sniper who carefully picks his targets or someone who just blindly opens fire with a machine gun? I would suggest the former is more likely to have some control. The latter much less so.

Why would Anakin saying after the fact that he killed women and children suggest he was aware and rational at the time? They would have left bodies that he would have had to look upon when he stopped. They don't disappear as Force ghosts or anything. The fact that Anakin says as much after Padmé specifically asks him "what's wrong" is pretty indicative of this.

But if it's just emotional state, then why didn't Luke fall in ROTJ? Why didn't Obi-Wan fall in TPM? They lashed out in murderous anger with killing blows against their opponents. The only difference is that their opponents were powerful enough to block them. That's it. So you're saying that Anakin would fall because his opponent didn't manage to block his strike in time? That seems really, really arbitrary to me. Had Vader not blocked Luke as Luke swung at him, he would have died during Luke's rage. There's no difference between Anakin and Luke in this scenario except that Luke was lucky enough to be facing a more powerful opponent. You are thus placing the impetus for a fall not on the individual's mental state (rage, anger, intent to kill) or action (lashing out with intent to kill), but on their opponent (whether or not a strike can be blocked).

Yes, the Force is a supernatural power dependent on emotional state, but it alone cannot lead you down that path. You have to choose to -- at least, that's the way I read the films.

You say "a Jedi must not get so angry and enraged that he or she loose control and strike out and kills in anger" -- yet that's exactly what Obi-Wan and Luke did when fighting Maul and Vader. They were angry and enraged, they understandably lost control, they struck out intending to kill in anger, the only thing different from Anakin in AOTC is that Anakin's opponents couldn't block him while Maul and Vader could. But Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Luke's actions were exactly the same. A fall to the Dark Side should, rationally, depend on the actions of the person who is at risk of falling.

That would depend. If the neighbor was part of an isolated cult that kidnapped his daughter and his fellow cult members both killed a party sent to rescue her and did nothing while his daughter was tortured for a month and her screams echoed through the camp, then yes, I can see how the man would (if he were armed) open fire indiscriminately into the campsite. I can understand how he would be so emotionally compromised that he wouldn't even stop to question who was guilty or not. I don't think he would be an "agent of evil" for doing so either. Committing an evil act? Certainly. But actually being an evil person, no.

Without human emotion basically would require that one be in a dispassionate state, though. So I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say.

I said that I was pretty sure he was remorseful because his actions are difficult to explain in another context. If he didn't care, then why would he confess to Padmé (a woman whose esteem he desires)? Why would he stare down at his hand? Why would he cry and believe he needs to be better than this? If he truly felt no remorse then these things don't add up to me. You can hate someone but still regret what you did. It would be impossible for Anakin not to hate them in that moment right after his mother's death. That, in and of itself, does not mean he can't feel guilt about what happened.

And honestly, after admitting to Padmé that what's wrong is that he killed them, I think it's only logical that when faced with his mother's grave, he be focused on how he couldn't save her. It's her funeral so of course he's going to be focused on his failure to keep her from dying. I don't think that in any way makes it impossible for him to feel remorse about his actions at the camp, though.

Luke isn't totally calm and rational. But he's calm enough to not be ruled by his emotions and make choices with an understanding of the consequences in the moment. There's a difference between being so blinded by rage that you lash out and being angry, where you decide you're going to hurt someone and follow through. The Dark Side is the second point. It's taking your emotions and deciding that you don't care if others are hurt. It's not arbitrary so much as it requires that a person not be completely irrational. Otherwise, someone who was schizophrenic could fall to the Dark Side simply due to hallucinations and their mental health issues causing them to become enraged and violent. Which would be problematic, I think you'd agree.

And Palpatine wants Luke as an apprentice -- he wants him to take his father's place. That means getting Vader out of the way. So even if Luke doesn't turn at the moment he kills his father, that's still playing into Palpatine's game. Because Palpatine knows that Luke wants to save his father and knows that he could use Luke's guilt and fear to manipulate him. It's not a waste so much as a necessary sacrifice to win a larger prize.

So you're saying that, in ROTJ, if Vader hadn't managed to block one of Luke's strikes as Luke was charging at him, then Luke would be a Sith? Really? Then what's the difference between the Jedi and the Sith? Luke in ROTJ declares himself a Jedi after he refuses to strike down his father. But according to you, if one of his blows during their earlier fight had gotten through, Luke would be a Sith. So Luke's status as a Jedi is due solely to the fact that Anakin managed to parry his blow and if he had not, Luke would be a Sith?

You're free to interpret it this way. But I choose not to for a variety of reasons.

It makes you vulnerable yes. But vulnerable =/= automatic turn. And letting go of your control is certainly different from being overwhelmed by emotion. In one case, you willingly choose to let your dark impulses guide you. In another, you can't handle them; you're not making a choice -- you're overloaded.

But isn't that rather arbitrary? What makes you say he didn't have near enough command of the Force? He knew what the Force was, knew what the Dark Side and the Light Side were. He could block blaster bolts without even seeing them. Again, he'd opened himself to that world -- he wasn't ignorant of it when he acted aboard the Death Star.

That depends on many factors. If Palpatine told them not to tell them for one. Or he may have suggested that Anakin could redeem himself by fighting in the war to protect others. Not telling the Jedi doesn't mean he doesn't regret his actions. It might be more indicative that he's trusting the wrong person to help him cope.

 

The fact that Anakin/the script makes a point of saying "And not just the Men, but the Women.." I think does matter. If there were no difference at all between the men and the women, why did Anakin make such a specific mention? He could have said "And not just the Adults but the children as well."
But he didn't. So to him, there was a difference. And since we don't see much of the massacre, it becomes important to the audience.

As for what the men do. Are the Tuskens we see in ANH, for ex, men? I am not sure but since one was played by a man, the odds are good that they are men. So that would indicate that those that are out raiding and have weapons are men. We don't know for sure what the women do but give that this is meant to be a primitive tribe, in most cases the men are the hunters/warriors. Thus given the lack of evidence that the women are as much warriors as the men, then odds are that the women aren't warriors in the same way as the men. Again, if they were, what point is served by Anakin making a distinction between them?

A search is implied in my view. We saw the camp and the number of huts there. We also heard Anakin say that he killed ALL of them. For him to say that, he would have to have searched each and every tent. If he saw anyone run away, he must chase after them and kill them. If he just came out, fought those that attacked him and then left, he would have no basis to say he killed them all.
How would he know? That no one is attacking him? Why would scared children be attacking him?
They would either be hiding or trying to run away. And here him saying that he killed children comes in. I do not think for a second that children would have ran and attacked him, they would have run or hid. So for him to kill them ALL, he would have to chase after them and search the tents.
Could others have snuck of while he wasn't looking? Yes. Could others have been away? Yes.
But since he makes a point of saying that he killed ALL of them then until I have reason to think otherwise, I assume that he killed all those that were in that village.

Well you did contest it when you asked how the women AND the children figured into this.
"Umm…what? How do the women and children (particularly the women) figure here?"

If you agree that the killing of the children makes a difference then good, we can agree on that and move on.
You can call it sexism all you want but the simple truth is that during much of history and in many parts of the world, the killing of men and women have not been viewed equally.
And again I think the line is there for a reason. If there is no difference at all then why mention it?

For something to be worse does not mean that the other something is less important.
Ex. person A murders five people, person B murders 50 people. Both have done horrible crimes but person B has killed more people so his crime is worse. That does not mean that those person A killed are less important. I do not want to use the phrase "important" here because "less important" can be made to sound as "not important" which is not my point at all.
Raping a child is worse than raping an adult but that does not mean that the rape of an adult is less important or not horrible in of itself.

Perhaps I was a little unclear. I will not contest that Anakin felt strong emotion, he certainly did.
What I meant but perhaps did not explain well, was that him saying that he killed women and children could indicate that he was aware of this while he was slaughtering the tribe. IF so, then that suggest to me a lack of caring. That he knew he was killing children but he didn't care. Or he was so enraged that he could not stop himself.

But my main point was that I think Anakin was not so out of control mad as other have made him out to be. That he was aware who he killed, the implied search and hunting down those that tried to run, suggest to me a degree of control greater than simple madness.

Or his hatred of the Tuskens was so great that he wanted to kill every last one of them. So he didn't stop once there were no more warriors attacking him, he began to search the tents for others to kill.
Or his bloodlust was so great that it could not be sated by just the adults, he had to kill the children as well.
As have said, a search is implied and this indicate to me a greater degree of control than this.

Interesting that you bring up snipers. I've read in the papers recently a rather horrible story from the civil war in Syira. That some snipers have begun to target women and pregnant women esp. This was given a fair bit of attention, more than the daily killings that happen there. So another, very ugly, example, that killing women can be seen as worse than the killing of men.

It could be that or it could be that he knew he was killing women and children and did not care.
As for bodies, if Anakin had no idea what he did, then the only other way he could say "I killed them ALL.." is for him to have searched the ruins of the camp after his madness passed. And why would he do that? He got Shmi's body yes but why would he look through the tents? To look for survivors?
He hates them, he says this, I don't think he cares very much if anyone of them are alive.

Because to me, intent is only part of it, the end result also matters. Had Luke got in a lucky strike while he was enraged then yes he would have turned. Because Vader would now be dead, killed by Luke's hand. And Luke can not undo it.
If someone plans to kill his wife or boss but never goes through with it, we don't charge him with murder. If someone tries to kill someone and fails, he/she still isn't tried for murder but attempted murder. Also a serious offence don't get me wrong.
Since the Force is create by all Life, the wrongful taking of a life I can see as especially bad in the Force's view. And using the Force to murder in hate is such a violation of what the Force stands for, that this become the Dark Side of the Force.
Luke goes close to the edge and maybe even goes over a little, but since he stops himself in time and doesn't kill he pulls himself back. Same with Obi-Wan, he looses it a bit but calms down.
Anakin did not calm down in the Tusken camp, he killed until there was no one left to kill.
Hurting someone is something that might be healed and undone, death can't be undone, it is permanent.

But giving in to an emotion that is also a choice. If you get angry and decide to act on that anger and smash up a car then that is a choice. A choice made clouded by emotion and perhaps not thinking straight but still a choice. That is why we learn self-control as we grow up. That we don't act on every emotional whim. That we can control ourselves and act more rationally. In some cases that is harder and possibly much harder but still a choice. A choice made in anger or grief can be more understandable than a cold, rational choice that had the same outcome. That is why courts can take into considerations the emotional state of the accused. But while that could reduce the sentence, it often doesn't absolve the accused of wrong doing. He or she still did the act.

But what you are talking about here does require a fair amount of rational thought on the person about to do the deed. That he or she has to think through just how much the others around could have been involved in the act, what they could or could not have done. In short, this requires the person to have a fair amount of control over his/her emotional state and not be out of control mad.
Such a person would not care about guilt or lack there of. He/she would not care if those around had anything to do with the crime or if they could have done anything to stop it. He or she would just kill anyone or anything he/she comes across.

So which is Anakin? Did he think through what the other Tuskens in the camp could have done and weighed their guilt or lack there of? Did he ponder through if the Tusken women or the Tusken children could have stopped this or saved Shmi's life? Or did he just go insane and kill anything in his path? If the latter then what the other Tusken did or didn't do are not really relevant is it?
Anakin would do the same if it was a human gang of raiders or some nasty local farmers.
If the former, then Anakin did think through how guilty the other Tuskens were and decided that they all deserved to die.

I doesn't mean he can't but that is how it came across to me. He knew that he should not have done it. That a Jedi isn't supposed to feel this way. But I didn't get that he was sorry, I just didn't.
A person can be aware that they should not do something but that doesn't have to mean that they are sorry about doing it.
Anakin wants to be better by having power over life and death. He doesn't seem to want to learn to control himself better so that he doesn't react this way again. Or to learn how to cope with death and loss. He wants a power that prevents people he cares about from dying so he doesn't have to. That is not healthy to me.
He doesn't want to change himself, he wants the power to change the world so that he doesn't have to change himself.

Someone with mental illness would be unlikely to have the control of his/her mind that is needed to make use of the Force. A madman can't focus or discipline his/her mind enough to use the Force to any significant extent.
Luke isn't totally calm so it then becomes an arbitrary point whether or not a person falls. X amount of calm says you don't fall, Y amount says you do. A Jedi must learn control, if they don't they will fall because their emotions will rule their actions and the Dark Side will take over.

As for understanding the consequences of their actions. I am not sure but it sounds that if a jedi has never been taught about the Dark Side or the danger of letting their hatred take over. Then since they see no problem with getting really angry and killing in hate then they would not fall. They don't know the consequences of them doing this so it would be safe for them to do it?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but that is not at all the message I got from the OT.
That you must know about the Dark side in order to turn to it? So ignorance of it is a shield?

If Luke kills Vader and doesn't fall then Palpatine has lost everything. He no longer has an apprentice and he just has got a pissed of Luke that wants him dead. Palpatine could probably destroy Luke but then he is left with nothing.
No, Palpatine's plan makes no sense if it relied on Luke getting really boiling mad, mad enough to attack but then suddenly calming down enough for Palpatine to talk to him.
To me, as long as he got Luke angry enough to attack and fight Vader, then if at any point Luke kills Vader in anger then Luke falls.
A Jedi must not kill in Hate, it is as simple as that. If they do, if they loose control to the point that their hate and thus the Dark Side takes over their actions and eventually takes a life, then they are fallen. Now Anakin proved that you could turn back from the Dark side. So this isn't final. You can still make a different choice, it would be very hard but it is possible.

As I said above, it is still a choice. A very hard one but still a choice. Not everyone reacts the same under extreme emotional duress. A Jedi must learn to control the emotions and their power because those two things are so connected. It is easy to get angry or aggressive in a fight but a Jedi must not do it.

He had taken the first step into that world but he could not feel the Force or command it to the extent that he did in ESB. That is what Obi-Wan says in ESB, Luke can feel the Force but can't control it and that is the danger and is when he could be tempted by the Dark Side.

[/QUOTE]


That he never says that he regrets his actions or says that he should not have done it. And that he doesn't tell the people he should have told. This makes me doubt his remorsefulness.
And to me, I found it too disturbing that he killed everyone in that camp. It made it hard for me to have any sympathy for the character. And I think Lucas went too far here. I think it would have been enough for him to start killing but manage to calm himself down before killing the women and the children.

But we have gone over this before and this is quite off-topic so perhaps we'll agree to disagree?

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

This doesn't look very "redeemed" to me. D:

Shaw.

 

Looks pretty redeemed to me.

 

k

 

Samuel Vimes

I will try to keep this a bit briefer than I previously have been...

I don't deny that, historically, it's been looked at as worse to kill women than men. Similarly, I don't deny that Anakin himself may feel this way (hence why he singled them out with the children). I'm simply stating that, in my moral framework, I don't agree -- I think killing a man is equally as bad as killing a woman. No more and no less. In all of Star Wars, we see plenty of female warriors -- fighter pilots, Jedi, and women like Padmé and Leia. The Tuskens never give us any indication that they adhere to strict gender norms. For me, that's not really important since I think it's quite likely that not every single male was a warrior either. You can disagree, but I'm never going to say that Anakin is somehow worse for killing women instead of men. Both are equally terrible.

As for the "implied search" I don't agree. All I think this tells us is that when Anakin finally got a hold of himself, everyone around him was dead. Like I said before, there's no way for Anakin to be sure that he killed every person in the tribe. What if some of them were off on scouting missions, patrolling the edges of their land, or hunting? There would be no way for Anakin to know this. Similarly, I don't think he would have searched all the tents -- rather he'd just crush them outright. They're not buildings that might be difficult to bring down. Anakin shows in the Geonosis factory that he can clearly send many metal hook-things flying at once. A tent is going to be nothing next to that.

I think too that Lucas had Anakin say such things to indicate that he wasn't in control of himself. That he was in a blind rage and attacked without thought until everyone around him was dead. Don't forget, too, that Anakin doesn't know who is responsible -- he wouldn't have an individual to target his rage at in the first place. (In terms of writing the plot, there were logistical reasons as well-- Anakin needed to bring his mother's body back for the funeral (story wise) and he'd have a hell of a time wrapping her up and carrying her back if he were being attacked by Tuskens along the way, following his original outburst. I also think Lucas wanted to avoid making it seem as though Anakin was calm enough to be targeting anyone in particular hence the mass slaughter).

You say that he brings it up "after the fact" because he did not care, but that doesn't really answer my earlier point: if Anakin doesn't care at all -- if he's perfectly fine with what he did -- then why bring then up at all? Why tell Padmé and later Palpatine if it's not weighing on his conscience? Especially because Anakin brings it up specifically after Padmé asks "what's wrong." And again -- you're assuming he searched through the tents looking for survivors. I think that's very unlikely. I think he would have used the Force to crush and destroy them and when he finally came back to his senses, he would have been standing alone in the dark and quiet.


As for your point on the Dark Side. I might agree with you if the Dark Side were purely a supernatural force or a legal matter of some kind. But it's not. It's got a moral component. Yoda says that if Luke falls, he will become an agent of evil. Similarly, Obi-Wan describes Vader as twisted and evil. Falling implies giving oneself to evil. With that in mind, I can't agree with what you say. You're saying that if Person A beats up a Person B and then strings him up to die (and he does) whereas if Person C beats up Person D and then strings him up to die (but he doesn't because Person D manages to free himself), that Person A is morally worse than Person C. I don't understand that. Yes, Person A killed someone whereas Person C did not -- but that's due solely to the fact that Person C's victim managed to free himself whereas A's did not. In this case, Person A and Person C took the exact same actions in the exact same frame of mind. How are they different, then? Legally, yes, they would be different, but morally? That I don't agree with. Person A and Person C are equally horrible people. One of them just had a victim that was more skilled or luckier.

It's not about planning. Both Luke and Anakin are enraged to the point where they lose control and both of them lash out with killing blows that if they hit their targets, would kill them. Vader blocked. The Tuskens didn't (because they couldn't). Vader is Person D -- he managed to get himself out of the way, but that doesn't change the fact that Person C (Luke) struck out to kill him. It's not like Luke just sat down and wrote out a plan to kill Vader -- he did the same thing Anakin did. He was enraged and struck to kill. If Vader hadn't blocked his blows, he would be dead.

You're right that legally Luke would only be charged with attempted murder. But the Force functions as a moral-based system (if the use of the word evil is any indication). Luke eventually does stop himself (as does Obi-Wan when attacking Maul), but striking with a lightsaber is basically guaranteed to kill if the other party doesn't block. That is why I am saying Anakin and Luke's actions are equivalent -- because they are. What isn't equivalent is the response of their victims.

Giving into emotion is not always a choice. That's why temporary insanity and psychotic breaks occur. And are valid legal defenses. There's a difference between being upset or enraged and suffering such severe acute stress that one is no longer able to rationalize. It's the difference between a spouse admitting they cheated on you and seeing your child being molested or attacked. The first scenario, yes, will induce rage that you should be able to control -- and there's no excuse not to. The latter, though, is a point at which I don't think many people would be able to calmly and rationally approach the situation.

I don't think that Anakin gave a lot of thought when he was attacking. I think his response was due, in large part, to the fact that he had no individual to focus his hatred onto. He didn't know who had kidnapped Shmi, he didn't know who had tortured her to death. In that moment, there was no Maul, Vader, or Palpatine for him to focus his rage on so it burst out of him and he attacked. Since there wasn't that one individual onto which he could focus his guilt, it became unfocused. Or it could have simply been a result of the anger he felt that had been building. Because it's not as though Anakin just stumbled onto his mother. He'd been having dreams about her for a while and then had Cliegg Lars describe them and snuck into the camp. He may have had thoughts about who was responsible before then (though one can't say for sure) and when he lost control that might have come into play.

Similarly, knowing you shouldn't do something doesn't mean you won't do it when face-to-face with an emotionally traumatic incident. He doesn't come across to you as sorry is fine -- but I simply can't find another reason for him to tell Padmé and Palpatine if he didn't feel bad about it. I agree that his strategy for coping with it is very unhealthy, but that has more to do with his mother's death than his actions at the camp.

I also think you're incorrect about an insane person not being able to use the Force. Anakin used the Force instinctively as a child without understanding what he was doing. Similarly, a trained person could suffer mental degeneration due to age, disease, or injury. That's not to say that actions don't have consequences -- they do and hence why the Jedi have a Code. But I think that when you're looking at a moral supernatural force (which the Force is), actions taken under extreme emotional stress or duress don't constitute a fall because of how compromised an individual is.

You argue that I'm saying "you must know about the Dark Side in order to turn" -- but that is actually your argument. You've stated that Luke killing those stormtroopers in rage and pain after Obi-Wan was killed, instead of running away as his friends were pleading for him to, does not constitute a turn because Luke had not been trained yet. I, on the other hand, say that Luke did not turn in that scene because, like Anakin, he was too compromised by the death of a loved one to make a rational choice.

More to the point, though, one of the reasons I think that emotion alone isn't enough to turn is that whenever we see a Dark Side user, they are always very calm and in control. Maul, Dooku, Palpatine -- these are coldly rational men who act in full control of their faculties. When Vader chokes the Imperial who insulted him, for example, he may be angry, but he's perfectly in control of his responses. Using the Dark Side is not about loosing control of your emotions -- from every indication we've had, it's about choosing to channel your negative impulses into giving you greater power. Hence why I think choice is such a large component of a turn -- it's about willfully taking those negative emotions and twisting them to manipulate your use of the Force.


As for Luke not killing Vader -- we've seen Palpatine make this gamble before. His overconfidence is his weakness as Luke says. Palpatine is betting that he can turn Luke and even use Vader's death to facilitate that. He's done it before. You're assuming that once Vader is dead, there's no way for Luke to be turned. Not so. Even if Luke had killed Vader and not turned, that doesn't leave Palpatine with nothing. Palpatine knows that Luke wanted to redeem his father -- he can use Luke's own guilt and actions against him. Use his father's death to show him that he's not as much a Jedi as he'd like to believe.

Not everyone reacts the same under extreme emotional duress, true, but I know I would hesitate to call anyone an "agent of evil" after they've just suffered extreme emotional trauma. I think it would be entirely too judgement especially since most of us have (fortunately) never been in a similar frame of mind or faced a similar situation.

I think you also tend to play down the fact that Anakin is being manipulated by Palpatine and that this really complicates his dealings with the Jedi because Palpatine gives him malicious advice that Anakin is inclined to trust and has no reason not to.

 

What to two completely unrelated and entirely dissimilar photos have to do with anything?

 

Force Ghost Chris Hansen: "Why don't you take a seat over there."

 

"Entirely dissimilar?"

You don't see anything remotely similar about their facial expressions?

 

I, for one, do. On top, there's a redeemed man contently smiling at his son. On the bottom, there's some creepy guy with an evil Joker grin that goes across his whole face.

 

Cannot unsee creepy photo of unknown guy

 

"Unknown guy."

 

Mod edit: Not appropriate

 

Pretty much this. You can't force feed prejudice bro

Unknown to everyone who doesn't watch boring, overrated Hitchcock films. So like 90% of teh world.

 

Well, that was far from the most constructive post I've ever read.

FWIW, I don't think Hayden looks as sinister in that shot as is being made out.

 

Shaw

 

EvilQ, thanks for that. The post was amusing, the subsequent responses hilarious!

 

I agree completely. It's a happy smile he's wearing. Maybe there's some roguishness to it, but that's just Anakin being Anakin.





- I will be the most powerful Jedi ever!
- Great kid! Don't get cocky.
/LM

 

Hayden, because it's all a matter of Anakin self-identifying as his 23 year old self, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I feel like the only reason that this is such a big thing is because there's a big generational gap between OT fans and PT fans. You might call that pretentious or whatever but I've read half-a-dozen threads on this topic and what feels like hundreds of blog posts. It always boils down to which trilogy the fan prefers.