Lit Why all the LOTF hate?

Hooray, all of you woke me up during my attempts at reading Kenobi (review forthcoming) to edify the conversation. Plus the appearance of Charles always piques my interest.

My continual observance of the message boards leads me to one continual fact, a term I shall self-character masturbation. Any apparent change in characterization or lack of action illustrates a flaccidity in the reader. How so? Let us begin.

The main creaking error is the assumption that dead Lekauf must equate to Ben regurgitating on the memories of his dead friend. "He blew himself up. That's a fantastic." Why must a neophyte going through a traumatic portion of his life assume his fellow soldier is a dirt ball? No, the logical question is aimed at the reader. We as readers will naturally bring our own lives, experiences, and beliefs to the text.

Another point of ill-thought out stupidity in YodaKenobi's review is that Ben and Jacen's respect of Shevu is another platform of disrespect towards the Jedi status quo. Yes, the commander is deferring his opinion to someone who has greater law enforcement experience, and Ben is looking up to someone outside of his cloister. I must inquire on the double standard giving here by people claiming Ben is some social degenerate for lacking a close cadre of comrade in arms, yet when Ben is presented with drinking buddies he looks up to the crackpot wing declares this to be an abomination. John Updike, when asked about his criteria for judging novels, mentioned "Try to understand the failure. Sure it's his or not yours?" If intelligent reasoning is placed behind criticism of a novel then perhaps the forum will have something of superior merit than this cheap sensationalism paraded around as profound literary criticism instead of a cut and paste attempt at sounding profound.


Here in lies the self-character masturbation. The core thesis is that the characters must plainly follow your preordained path for gradification. This did not happen. Ice cold water happened. Why is this so distasteful for you?

Charles, I've found your previous debate over the past few pages interesting. You mention that despite an admiration for Denning you find his handling of Luke distasteful, namely Luke's greater manipulation. I'm interested in your extrapolation on his aspect of characterization since I found this a logical and interesting flow of the grand master's action in Legacy of the Force.

 

My primary issue with this is that Luke Skywalker as a manipulative and edgy character is kind of a weird divergence from what makes the character iconic. Luke Skywalker doesn't play the role of the Trickster, he plays the role of the hero who brings the justice to the Light.

For example, during the final battle, Boba Fett is going to send a bunch of Jedi to die but Luke reverses it so a bunch of Mandalorians die instead. This is very clever of Luke and shows he's smarter than Boba Fett but it also shows he's not more MORAL than him. He's stooped to Boba Fett's level and the Mandalorians have more reason to believe the Jedi Knights are a bunch of barves who will see them all killed.

There's also the issue of killing Darth Caedus. Luke is justifiably concerned that if Jaina holds back fighting Jacen Solo, he's going to kill her. This is fine. However, rather than talk about the issue as mature adults--Luke more or less orders a hit on Darth Caedus. This is a direct call-back to Obi Wan and Yoda saying the same for Darth Vader. Except, well, we KNOW that was a mistake.

Worse, Denning twists the knife by having Jacen Solo have a moment of repentence right before he's summarily killed by his sister. It makes Luke Skywalker's character development in ROTJ something which has been eroded by the sands of time. Instead of being a better Jedi than Obi Wan and Yoda--he's just as good as them now.

Which is good, but not AWESOME anymore.

I was reasonably okay with Luke killing Lumiya but even that was a serious degradation of his character because the primary aspect of him is his inability to believe anyone is beyond redemption. He even attempted to take Palpatine prisoner.

Luke shouldn't be the Chessmaster. The Chessmaster manipulates.

Luke leads by example.

 

So, continuing through Revelation, I have a few problems, and most of them start with "Ta" and end with "hiri". The girl is totally OOC in this book. I can't explain it; she just...is. Traviss goes to great lengths to mention a few times her torture from the Vong (from several different POVs, even), but she doesn't write her anything like she was written in NJO. Or even Inferno. I can't put my finger on it, though. Maybe it's because I doubt Tahiri would ever enlist in the military, even if Caedus (I refuse to call him Jacen from hereon out) told her to.

On the bright side, I love Captain Shevu. He's a great character. Reminds me of Traviss' own Jaller Obrim from the RC books, except...I don't know, less hardcore, I think. When I read him, I get the image of a late-30s/early-40s man, but Luke calls him "young man" in a way that would suggest he's late-20s/early-30s. I also like Ben getting to see Mara's spirit (though it's a total cop-out that she didn't get to talk; what, she was out of Force minutes?). Also...does Luke have any POV in this book? So far, it's just Ben, Caedus, Niathal, Pellaeon, Jaina, and Boba. And too much of it is Niathal. Don't get me wrong, I like the woman, but it gets annoying when every other line break is from her POV.

As to the Mandalore scenes (which seem to annoy people the most out of anything), I haven't had a huge problem with them yet–though Traviss is taking the Jedi-bashing way too far in this one. Bathrobe brigade, ha-ha-ha. Very funny. But other than that I like most of the Mandalore scenes, and I actually don't have a problem with Boba nailing Jaina in the gut, because he has a point. Jedi danger sense can't protect you if the supposed enemy isn't exuding any threat. Boba probably wasn't even thinking about it so she wouldn't pick up on it. Same thing worked on Alema back in Fury, except Jag couldn't quite control his thoughts before the blaster blew up. Alema didn't sense it coming until the last second. It doesn't surprise me that Boba, a 70-year-old man who had no actual desire to hurt his target, can control his thoughts more than a 30-something young man who was eager to kill his opponent.

Anyways, this book is definitely off–especially for a Traviss' book, in my opinion. But it's not terrible–yet–and I do remember there being at least one compliment toward the Jedi–from Boba, no less–during the Battle of Fondor. So it's not completely anti-Jedi. One more thing that bothered me; why the kark would Caedus tell Niathal he was a Sith?

 

I've long disagreed with this interpretation, even though it's quite probably the intended one.

Obi-Wan and Yoda simply tell Luke that he must face Darth Vader. They don't order a hit.

At this point, people say, "But, Ulicus, what about this exchange:"

Luke: I can't do it, Ben. I can't kill my own father.
Ben: Then the Emperor has already won. You were our only hope.

The thing about the above, though, is that there Luke is insisting that he can't kill Vader not because of any good he feels in him, but because he's his father. And that is a terrible, terrible reason to hold back in their confrontation. Vader being Luke's father should have absolutely nothing to do with his decision to save him.

So Obi-Wan isn't telling Luke that he HAS to kill Vader, despite the good in him, but that he must be able to kill him, if he's wrong about that.

And, besides, it's only if Luke can kill Vader that he can then choose to spare him.

 

The reason you see Shevu as a 30-or-40-something is that almost every character Traviss writes in a military setting projects the same age. That "capable and strong, but still experienced and a bit world-weary" voice she has. She does it well, the problem is that she does it too often. Pretty much every character she does sounds like that. That's why Tahiri seems off, because Traviss is trying to write her as a mix of that personality and the one Tahiri should actually have, and fails.

Traviss has the same issue as Denning, only in reverse. Denning can't envision a character apart from the ones in the Jedi Order, and Traviss has a hard time with any outside of the military (or the Mandalorians). Not to say that she can't, she does, and in some books she even manages to do it well. But by this point in LotF, she and Denning were at loggerheads, and she saw no reason to humor him. That's probably why her work got so progressively anti-Jedi; if Denning is the Jedi apologist you work with most, wouldn't you have a low opinion of them as well?

 

It's kind of funny when you put it that way, because Denning's done more than anyone to blur the lines between Jedi and military special forces. You'll notice that his Jedi don't consider blasters clumsy or random, they use them all the time. If Traviss resented that take on the Jedi, then I'm guessing it has to do with them getting all their commando gear and acting like Delta Force despite not having any real training for it. I can almost sympathize with that, and I don't even have a military background. It certainly explains Traviss' complete failure to understand that Jedi are warrior-monks and not pampered Air Force pilots or whatever; they don't look like monks with an unlimited budget for high-end weaponry, there's no denying that.

 

She doesn't talk because if she did, the book would be over in one sentence and thirteen-year-old Ben wouldn't be able to do his best impersonation of Horatio Caine in CSI: Coruscant (I've decided Caine makes more sense than Grissom, since both Caine and Ben are redheads).

Sloppy writing, even sloppier editing. Whoever thought hiring a "writer" who refuses to read is a good idea -- oh, but wait, I forgot this is the Del Rey Star Wars where it only matters how much money can be squeezed out of fans. So why hire a real author?

 

I'm not even fully convinced that Karen Traviss ever watched the OT - I'm pretty sure there are things from there she's contradicted, on top of everything else.

 

They destroyed Tahiri's character for me so much. Can't stand it.
Shevu and Jori Lekauf are the 2 best new characters in the series imo. I like them a lot.
Cha Niathal, Beviin (or however you spell it) and Mirta Gev round out the Top 5.
The whole Mara death scene and aftermath is the most appalling plot point in the entire EU imo more so the death in Vector Prime.
The Mando's don't bother me that much but there is something about them that I can't put my finger on.

 

They attempt to carry one out in Revenge of the Sith, and I don't see what in the following twenty-three years would have changed their minds about it. In the Return of the Jedi novelization (and script, but not the film), Obi-Wan says "I also thought he could be turned back to the good side. It couldn't be done. He is more machine now than man. Twisted and evil." When Return of the Jedi was written, Obi-Wan was very much telling Luke he had to kill Darth Vader. And I'm perfectly fine with that. Redemption is the boon of Luke's hero's journey, and it was something only he was capable of achieving because he was the only one that believed he could achieve it.

 

"A great Jedi Master, you have become, Qui-Gon Jinn. Your apprentice, I gratefully become."

And, by this point, Obi-Wan has achieved enlightenment, what with the shiny blue glow.

 

Obi-Wan had already been Qui-Gon's apprentice.

Edit: Besides we already established Force ghosts were inherently selfish beings defying the WILL OF THE FORCE in this thread!

 

The apprentice of the mortal Qui-Gon. Not the apprentice of the avatar of the Force sharing in the accidental properties of Qui-Gon.

But at this point I'm imposing my own understanding of Force ghosts on things. Like I said, I'm quite aware that I'm most likely reading against authorial intent in this matter... but when the authorial intent is lame, and diminishes Luke's Jedi teachers immensely, I really don't care.

 

The being known as Qui-Gon was always the avatar of the Force.

You don't think it's better that it's Luke's discovery (or rediscovery) rather than something he was told to do?

 

I'm not saying he was told to redeem Vader. I'm saying he wasn't told not to.

 

He wasn't told "destroy the Sith, we must."

Obi-Wan opens things up with his "a certain point of view" talk which he received from the avatar of the Force. But like I said, when ROTJ was written, there was intent on the writers -- Obi-Wan's pathological lying gives us maneuvering room to interpret it differently.

The Jedi Path says Jedi relativists are wrong wrong wrong.

p. 150: The section detailing Treats to Jedi Teachings leans heavily on "relativists" who see things in shades of gray. The Jedi of the Temple are largely an orthodoxy that doesn't tolerate dissent -- remember the Temple librarian. At the same time, Jedi like Qui-Gon say things like "your focus determines your reality" and Qui-Gon's pupil Obi-Wan believes that truth depends on a "certain point of view." I view this as evidence of an underlying philosophical debate within the order. The writers of a textbook would naturally want to present their side of the debate in the best light.


Put Qui-Gon's ghost in your pipe and smoke it, Fae!

In other words I agree with you. I don't have an appropriate Conan or Kull or Bran Mak Morn or El Borak quote on hand though.

(I think we know who is also a Jedi relativist)

 

Speaking only with regards to the films, I don't see why the following...

...translates into Ben not ordering a hit on Vader when the rest of that conversation goes to show that he has no hopes for Vader's redemption.

Obi-Wan at this point in time clearly believes that

1. Anakin Skywalker is gone and he isn't coming back. "...the good man who was your father was destroyed." Past tense, strong choice of word in "destroyed", etc.

2. Vader is too far gone. He does not deny the good in Vader, but rather attempts to refute Luke's argument by pointing out that the bad outweighs the good.

Mind you, this is after Ben's supposed "enlightenment" (not that I believe joining with the Force amounts to that, but that's neither here nor there). So if Ben wants Luke to "face Darth Vader again", what does he expect Luke to accomplish? There are only two possibilities so far as I can see. Ben either expects Luke to take out Vader and Palpatine, or else he hopes Luke will redeem Vader and they'll take out Palpatine together.

Any expectation on Ben's part that Luke would face Vader, not strike him down, not redeem him, and still somehow manage to wrest the galaxy free from Palpatine is nonsensical at best. Given that his dialogue in the films suggests that he believes or that he's trying to convince himself that Vader is irredeemable, I can't interpret Ben's imperative as anything but a hit.

 

I believe that Obi-Wan wanted Luke to be utterly resigned to the fact that Vader was beyond saving, and then do it anyway.

But that's because I'm a massive Kierkegaard fanboy, and like interpreting Luke as a knight of faith.

 

The dialogue would have been better if it was like Qui-Gon's dialogue to Anakin in Ghosts of Mortis, in which Anakin is sort of in a similar situation.

"And this creature of the dark side? Do I leave, or do I stay and kill him?"

"Neither. Look deeper. You will find another way."

But like I said, there was clearly some intent on the part of the writers that Obi-Wan wanted Luke to kill Vader when the script was written. He says that Anakin can't be saved -- but this is fortuitously not in the film, but we are on the Lit forum.

Luke succeeded where Anakin failed. I suppose it's debatable whether Son could have been saved, though Father certainly hoped so. I don't think the other way Qui-Gon was talking about was joining Son, but who knows?!

 

You can interpret Luke that way without making more of a compulsive liar out of Guiness' Obi-Wan than he already is.

 

I'm a middle path fanboy and look where that's gotten me here.

Edit: I like the interpret the "point of view" "your focus determines your reality" stuff as being Chan/Zen -- or, as one wise Jedi relativist once put it (and absolved Obi-Wan): "See, the thing is, everything everyone tells you is a lie. The truth is always bigger than the words we use to describe it."

 

But that's his best quality!!!!

Well, besides the alcoholism.

"It couldn't be done" isn't the same as "it can't be done". Wiggle room, wiggle room, wiggle room.

I mean, Obi-Wan's like: "Trust me, dude, your father can't come back. BTW I'm super economical with the truth and I've been wrong before. But, lol, yeah, trust me."

 

I'm agreeing with you -- I'm just pointing out that my interpretation has been influenced by original intent -- and I like the idea of the student surpassing the teacher. "See, the thing is, everything everyone tells you is a lie. The truth is always bigger than the words we use to describe it."


It doesn't matter either way!

 

Okay.

*sigh*

I've totally derailed the topic, haven't I?

Worst. Moderator. Ever.

 

Don't worry I managed to bring Traitor into the derailment.