Discussion in 'Literature' started by The Supreme Chancellor, Jun 2, 2013.
So why do people react so violently to it?
Generally, it was the idea that her haters were to be compared to terrorists.
That was bad; no one's arguing with that. She has a temper, and she shouldn't show it towards her readers. And she doesn't read. That's a problem when you're trying to write in someone else's universe. Yes. But I, personally, and many others, do like her writings (most of them, anyways), and there's nothing wrong with that. Now, before I move on, I'll say this: her Republic Commando books are far more enjoyable than her LOTF books because she didn't have to read anything else to write those books properly. LOTF, she should've at least read the latter parts of NJO and DNT. But it's too late now; nothing to do about it. They're written, and try as we might we can't change LOTF. Even though I really wish I could change Denning's.
Change the f for a b and you´ll see.
Or maybe they just hate Tali.
Some of these criticisms could apply to most Star Wars authors. Short sentences creating the impression of action for instance. I think the above it is really an example of holding Traviss to a standard that others are not held to. Character voicing? Yes, she has some issues with that, but go read Jedi done by Aaron Allston, Troy Denning and Christie Golden and show me how those characters are written any differently. Kyp, Corran, Kyle, almost every other Jedi we meet, all interchangable.
What do people not like about Karen Traviss? In my opinion it is her blog comments, her changes to continuity and the fact that she wrote the death of Luke Skywalker's wife. Those of course coupled with her not giving the Jedi a break, but I don't know that any of that would be as relevant without her real world views attached to it. FOTJ made the Jedi look way worse than any POV Karen ever gave to any of her characters, yet most seemed fine with that.
Now if Karen had written part of FOTJ the exact same way, oh boy, we would be hearing about her anti Jedi bias right now.
Well, if she had, she probably would've done the Lecersen Conspiracy better, Belok Rhal wouldn't have been a Pre Vizsla ripoff, and maybe the Jedi wouldn't have gotten away when they took over the government and the Senate blithely followed them.
Don't worry I've been assured by many that the Mandalorian assault on the Jedi Temple, where the Mandalorians get slaughtered and not a single Jedi dies is not an example of writing by a biased author
Battle Droids could kill the odd Jedi, Clone Troopers could slaughter the Jedi, but Mandalorians are not on their level
No, no, no. One Jedi did die. The innocent little girl that Rhal shot in the head. Remember? Traviss at least would've played fair.
She didn't die during the assault though, just the siege. It actually reenforces that a Mandalorian could never kill a Jedi in a fair fight.
I don't think that the Traviss detractors are Denning defenders. I think a lot of the hate toward Traviss has become refocused on Denning.
That's because Mandalorians don't fight fair.
And why should they? If I'm trying to keep myself alive I sure wouldn't hold back!
I agree that the authors you named are also lacking in their character voicing, but with them it's more of a vague shallowness than all the characters being the exact same. Allston has fighter pilots that act like fighter pilots, scoundrels that act like scoundrels, and Jedi that act like Jedi (in terms of samey-ness). Denning is even worse, especially when he mixes his darker/grittier feel into it. Kyp has been kind of bland, but not terrible since NJO, but Corran has just acted very un-Corranlike since Dark Nest (for example, not breaking his kids out of carbonite...). However, part of the problem with Traviss was that not only do her Mandalorians all think in the same gung-ho stereotype, all her Jedi do too, constantly thinking "oh if only I was as awesome as the Mandalorians" (Jaina was the worst recipient of this abuse).
I don't really mind Mara dying it was just the way it was done that bugged me. And I can't speak for anyone else, but her views on Jedi started wearing thin by the time I read True Colors, which was before I discovered TF.N right around the time Revelation was released. So I think that her not giving the Jedi a break was already negatively impacting her work, even for someone that didn't know about all her real-life comments (like I was back then). YMMV of course.
As for FOTJ making the Jedi look worse than Traviss, you'll get no argument from me. When I heard about the Kenth/Saba fight in Vortex I bailed on that series, and I won't be getting any books that Denning has had a hand in anymore either.
Yeah, say what you want about Traviss' books, but at least she never had a feud between Jedi Masters that ended in death. She wrote Arligan Zey and Etain better than Denning wrote Hamner.
Zey was fine, but I'll have to disagree about Etain. Her death in Order 66 was one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a SW book.
I think that is pretty fair. I liked that her characters don't give the Jedi a break, but I also liked that it didn't make any of her characters views a canonical reality(More in RC than LOTF). It was all just fuel to the already existing discussion about Jedi morals.
Jaina's POV's in Revelation aren't the best but do remember that she wrote Luke Skywalker as wanting to save Jacen Solo and had Fett gawking at how impressive Jaina Solo was during the fight on the Bloodfin, so it wasn't all bad imo. Jacen Solo getting kneecapped by Mandalorian # 3 though, that was a scene that didn't work at all for me.
True, her death was bloody awful. Forget your lightsaber's not on your belt, why don't ya? Jump in front of a lightsaber, why don't ya? Forget your son and husband, why don't ya?
I think Denning looks worse in FotJ, but that may simply be due to the fact that the First two authors are not as bad as Travis.
Accrediting Traviss with writing skill, what the hell does that scene even MEAN?
The clone troopers executing Order 66 were the real victims?
Etain was one utterly karked up little Jedi-dalorian.
I mean, the Mandalorians slaughter a bunch of Jedi teenagers after they kill Etain who jumped in their way when they were defending themselves.
I mean....I have no idea what the author is trying to say or what this means for anyone.
She had to die in Order 66 and it sure wasn't going to be at the hands of a clone?
I feel as though there are two very different things happening here, and each should be analyzed on its own.
The first being Etain's intervention. In a certain respect, I find something interesting in this moment, something reminiscent of the conflict of the Clone Wars as a whole: the Jedi entering an unwinnable situation that logically is best left alone, and yet is irresistible due to the ingrained sense of a moral obligation to save and to protect. Etain holds no enmity toward the fleeing Padawans, and doesn't wish any harm to come to them. At the same time, she also does not want them to harm the clones, either, who she knows from experience aren't malicious, but merely carrying out their duty based upon false pretenses of Jedi treason. I assume that, ideally, neither party would have come to serious harm: the Jedi's reactionary defense and counter attack would have been halted, the clones would have been non-lethally incapacitated, and she and the other Jedi would make their escape. Yet this plan relied on the use of a lightsaber, one which Etain was not able to brandish as needed. While virtually unheard of in this type of fiction, sadly, this is not a scenario unknown to real life; several cases have been reported of off-duty or undercover police and servicemen attempting to drawn a weapon they don't actually have on them at the time, to varied but sometimes tragic results. The instinct, the muscle memory, of going for the weapon that an officer, soldier, or Jedi has been made to understand is there and will always be there because that's how you've been trained, is an incredibly strong one. Had things been different, had Etain not already hidden her lightsaber away for fear of her own persecution, it's likely that no one needed to have died on that bridge at that moment.
The second issue is Kal's assault on the Padawans. While related, it's an action unique from Etain's own. And it's far, far less complex in its setup and far less ambiguous in its motivation. A grieving father lashes out at the world, and there's little more to it than that. The simple pain of loss and what it does to a person. Without condoning or condemning, I think it's something that's understandable. For Kal, that it was a Jedi responsible is ultimately immaterial, and had it been a clone that dealt the killing blow, my understanding of the character makes me fairly certain the response would have been the same, and no more or less excusable. An individual killed a man's daughter, for right or wrong, accidentally or intentionally. Grief and anger demand some response, some form of retribution, and from that place of irrational pain, the man lashes out, and more harm is done. Part of the same harm it seemed Etain was intending to avoid. He let himself compound an already terrible situation out of his own personal need to act, itself a reactive response to being unable to contribute positively earlier and save, so he instead destroyed.
Truthfully, I don't know if there's a definitive meaning in all of this, not in a grander or more unified way, anyway. If anything, I see the same thing I saw through most of Republic Commando: a look at humanity, the good and the bad. Good intentions. Flawed actions. People doing the best they can with what they're given, including their imperfections.
Regardless, we're quite off topic now, and should probably steer back to LotF and all that entails.
I dislike talking about LotF and all that entails. It depresses me.
Gee, so cynical.
Soz, low hanging fruit.
So I guess the reason is, bad authors and bad premise?