Saga Clarification on how the Jedi "recruit" other Jedi

Hey everyone - this is a Saga question, and I think I asked this before on this board - however, it was before the transition over to the new board almost two years ago, and I can't find that older thread:

Anyway, here is something I just wanted to clarify with everyone: My understanding from reading the TPM novelization (and possibly other SW books) is that the way Jedi expand their ranks is to search the galaxy for force-sensitive infants?!, and when they find them, conduct tests (as we saw Qui-gon did with Anakin in TPM) to see if they're Jedi material. If so, they will ask the parents/guardians if they can give them the child to raise & train it in the ways of the Jedi. If the parents consent, they take the child away & it doesn't have any contact (or isn't supposed to have any contact) with it's family after that time.

This seems to me somewhat similar as to what happens with certain monks/nuns when they join certain religious orders (though they're typically not recruited as infants in this case). A fictitious example of this are the Shao-lin Monks in the '70's TV series "Kung Fu"...

This is why both Luke in ESB & Anakin in TPM were considered "too old" to train as Jedi.

Anyway, am I remembering/understanding this correctly? It's been a while since I read TPM...

 

Pretty much. Most tie-in material like The Jedi Path supports this - with a few modifications.

Given that "midi-chlorian testing" doesn't require a Jedi - and given that there are so few Jedi (about 10,000) and so many people in the Republic (about 100 quadrillion) - it has the idea of midi-chlorian testing at birth being mandatory in the Republic.

 

Sounds right to me, though the Republic itself probably would have done the testing (a simple blood test at birth), hence Qui-Gon's "had he been born in the Republic we would have identified him early", with the Republic notifying the Jedi of any "positive" results. This is just for efficiency, as it would be very difficult for so few Jedi to find Force-sensitive infants, it would take up all their time and they probably still wouldn't be able to find enough.

I don't buy the Jedi taking people without consent, Qui-Gon doesn't do it to Anakin/Shmi, and Obi-Wan doesn't force Luke. It's just not in keeping with what we see, or what we're meant to think, and for it to be otherwise really hurts the movies, imo.

Indeed it is very similar to real life examples, which is why I find it bizarre that some people are outraged by it. I'd add the example of the Dalai Lama often being identified at an early age, with basically every Jedi meant to be as enlightened.

 

I know it's been said 1.6 trillion times on these boards, but the way the PT portrayed the Jedi was really, really bad. It's not how we all envisioned the Jedi Knights in the OT; after watching TPM for the first time in the cinema, I actually hated the Jedi Order - especially the Council.

CT-867-5309 is so right about the Jedi taking people without consent; really makes them look bad. It's just another example of how badly the Jedi were written and explained in the PT.

 

It would make them look bad, thankfully it's not canon nor do I think it was ever meant to be. Taking without consent certainly isn't in the movies, so that can't be held against the PT, but rather against the trash reference book known as The Jedi Path, which is trash (it's worth repeating).

The Jedi Order and the Jedi Council were one of things I did like about the PT, even though it wasn't at all how I envisioned it.

 

I haven't read "The Jedi Path". But I did read "The Fight For Truth" and it along with the Holocron episodes from season two indicate that the Jedi don't take the children by force. The Order does have a list of children who could be Jedi, but they haven't forced them into service.

 

subverting expectations for what the Jedi should be and daring to show them as pretty goddamn incompetent is one of the PT's better qualities, and is only hindered by ROTS's request that we share empathy for the Order's demise (and that's really only the score's fault [THANKS, John Williams], since the film only really asks that we care for those who aren't incompetent [Portman, McGregor] or puts the surviving incompetent Jedi in his place [Yoda]). basically, ur wrong, Daniel for asking the story to kiss the Order's squeaky clean ass.

 

The view that any culture or religion which places a higher premium on values or goals other than personal liberty must be morally defective is an example of moral ethnocentricism/parochialism, IMO.

 

If testing is mandatory in the Republic, how did Palpatine slip through the cracks?

 

His parents deliberately forged baby Palpatine's test results, IIRC.

 

That was the impression I got in Darth Plagueis, even if it isn't stated outright.

Stover's comments in the Star Wars on Trial book (Opposing Counsel was David Brin), shed some light on the subject.

What I find so astonishing, in fact, in Opposing Counsel's indictment is that he seems to believe that the Saga endorses rule by a secretive unelected elite—and then spends much of his argument showing how the Saga explicitly rejects that very concept.
Yes, Yoda is secretive, and often unhelpful. The Jedi themselves—SURPRISE!—aren't exactly good guys. Perhaps Opposing Counsel never noticed. Let me enlighten him, and the Court.
If you take a close look at the Jedi Order, you find that—in Mr. Lucas's own words—they're a cross between the Texas Rangers and the Mafia. They are a vast organisation of superheroes—real superheroes, with powers right out of Marvel or DC Comics—who wield near-absolute power in secret, without accountability to anyone but themselves and the Office of the Supreme Chancellor. They are the Justice League with interplanetary Licences to Kill.
And guess what?
The Chosen One is chosen to destroy them.
Does Opposing Counsel expect the Court to believe this is an accident?
Everything Opposing Counsel has to say about Yoda actually undermines his own case!
If Mr. Lucas were truly advocating rule by a benevolent despot, wouldn't Yoda have turned out to be always right? Wouldn't Luke's rebellion against him have become a disaster, from which Yoda would have to rescue him, as a father rescues an errant child?
In fact, at every turn in the Saga, when a Figure of Authority speaks out and gives strict orders ... they're wrong.
Except when that order is to trust in the Force.
In other words: trust the voice of the life within you. Trust yourself. Trust love, Trust faith.
Don't trust people who claim they know what's best for you.
The Opposing Counsel makes an eloquent argument on the virtues of questioning authority, calling its efforts "inarguably spectacular, underlying most of the accomplishments of modern-enlightenment civilisation."
What Opposing Counsel doesn't seem to understand is that George Lucas shares this belief in questioning authority, and that the entire Star Wars saga is a brilliant lesson in the virtues of questioning authority.
...

4: One can hardly hold the Saga accountable for teaching that the "skilled and worthy warrior must cut off all attachments, etc." because this is explicitly defined in the Saga as the primary error of the Prequel-Era Jedi.
With apologies to Opposing Counsel, he simply missed the boat here. That's all there is to it. Not only is that "cutting off all attachment" business defined as exactly what drives Anakin Skywalker to become Darth Vader, but it's precisely the error that Yoda is determined to correct by allowing Luke and Leia to be raised by real families, rather than trained as Jedi from infancy by him and Obi-Wan: so that they will know a family's love, and be connected to the reality of society in ways that the Prequel-Era Jedi could never be.
Sorry.
In all fairness, though, Opposing Counsel should have known better. After all, one of the most skilled and effective warriors in the Original Trilogy is Han Solo—who becomes more effective as he allows himself to become more and more emotionally engaged with his companions.
How much more obvious does it have to be?

6: Jedi Hell?
Far from being the fairy-tale Manichaean silliness Opposing Counsel pretends to believe it should be, the redemption at the end of Return of the Jedi is not Vader's, but Luke's—and the Galaxy's. Luke renounced violence in the name of love; it is this which turns the tide, and produces the final victory to save the Galaxy.
That's the true message of Return of the Jedi: renounce violence in the name of love.
...
Anakin Skywalker—Darth Vader—fulfills a distinct mythic role in the Saga: the Scourge of God. When the world (society, whatever) has become so corrupt only destruction can answer, it is the Scourge of God—customarily a tragic character (q.v. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark)—who must carry out that destruction, and in the end by destroyed by his own violence. It's not good vs. evil or black vs. white: Anakin/Vader is in fact wiping out that old Manichaean duality that Opposing Counsel so wistfully pines for. Anakin's (and Vader's) destiny is to bring balance to the Force, remember? To do this, he destroys both the Jedi and the Sith— and, necessarily, himself—and leaves Luke with clean hands and a clear conscience, untainted by the corruption of the past, to be half of, ahem, A New Hope for a better future.
The other half?
His twin sister, just as gifted with Force potential, but not turning toward ascetic contemplation as a Jedi. She's turning instead toward full engagement with the world: marriage, and a family and eventual participation in the government of the New Republic (in later years as its Head of State, in fact).
...
Opposing Counsel's real complaint seems to be that we don't see Anakin burning in Jedi Hell.
Ahem again.
Ain't no such animal as Jedi Hell. Sorry again.
Corellians (Han Solo's people) have a tradition of Hell—nine of 'em, if I recall correctly—but they're virtually alone in the GFFA in even having the notion of an afterlife at all. The "Force-spirit" phenomenon is not an afterlife as we use the term.

 

Uh, or maybe Lucas actually created a multi-layered story that can be examined and interpreted in many different ways and debated instead of a black-and-white moral allegory? Nah, he's not smart enough for that

 

*IF* he did, Disney are probably about to change all that...

 

Some people argue that "Star Wars morality is bad" (David Brin) because it portrays the Jedi as Good Guys and they don't (in his opinion) act good.

Some people argue that this is wrongheaded - and the Jedi were never portrayed as truly Good in the first place (Stover).

(He also points out that they didn't "earn" their fate - it's still tragic - even if their own actions contributed to it.)


However "Star Wars morality" isn't the only subject in the book, theres "Is Star Wars sexist" (arguments for, and against) and quite a few other topics of discussion.

The six "charges" were:

1) The Politics of Star Wars Are Anti-Democratic and Elitist.
2) While Claiming Mythic Significance, Star Wars Portrays No Admirable Religious or Ethical Beliefs.
3) Star Wars Novels Are Poor Substitutes for Real Science Fiction and Are Driving Real SF off the Shelves.
4) Science Fiction Filmmaking Has Been Reduced by Star Wars to Poorly Written Special Effects Extravaganzas.
5) Star Wars Has Dumbed Down the Perception of Science Fiction in the Popular Imagination.
6) Star Wars Pretends to Be Science Fiction, but Is Really Fantasy.
7) Women in Star Wars Are Portrayed as Fundamentally Weak.
8) The Plot Holes and Logical Gaps in Star Wars Make It Ill-Suited for an Intelligent Viewer.

 

Sounds like this guy just doesn't like that Star Wars isn't pure sci-fi.

 

Brin's articles - "the prosecution's case" without defence rebuttals, can be seen online:

http://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/brin_main/

Yes. And according to the "prosecution" and their witnesses, Leia is massively "weakened" in RoTJ and TESB when compared to ANH.

 

I don't take Stover's views to be representative of Lucas's, and even if they were, I think the better way to approach a work of art is to look at it for yourself. Other people's interpretations may merely assist. To be clear, I'm not saying "art is subjective, I can look at something and interpret it however I want". I think educated opinions, from people who have some training in how to look at art or how read literature, are better than uneducated ones. There are "objective" criteria. But in this case, there is no reason to privilege Stover's opinion.

"Chosen to destroy them"? Genocide was a cosmologically good thing, really? That's at least as objectionable as Brin's misinformed and lazy criticisms (which I'm not going to bother with; they're just laughable). Stover puts forward his interpretation of the Prophecy --- that genocide was somehow "right" or "justified", even if only by the metric of the "will" (or tendency, if you like) of a fictitious, non-anthropomorphised and not-necessarily benevolent power --- as though it was the only conclusion which is possible to be rationally drawn. AFAWK there's nothing in the prophecy which says Anakin is to "destroy" anyone.

Where is it ever shown in the movies that the PT Jedi "wield near-absolute power in secret, without accountability to anyone but themselves and the Office of the Supreme Chancellor"? Yes, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan go to Naboo "at the behest of" Valorum, but IIRC, the crawl text implies that this is an exceptional measure in the desperate circumstances of pending invasion, not a matter of course. And in RotS, the Jedi are obviously uncomfortable with their increasingly close/exclusive relationship with the Chancellory. Their "loyalty is the Senate" (As an Obi-Wan fanboy, who wrote the novelisation practically as a paean to Master Kenobi, how can Stover dismiss the significance of these words from Obi-Wan?). There are hints of this even in AotC. Witness Yoda and Mace observing, with clear foreboding and apprehensiveness, Palpatine's acceptance of emergency powers at the Senate session which created the army.

All this implies that the relationship between the Jedi and Chancellory (whereby they're increasingly accountable to and directed by the Chancellor rather than the Senate) is a relatively new development. One which the Order doesn't like, but which they accept as the price of doing their duty to the Republic. Maybe they should've made more of a fuss about it sooner. (Despite being "overwhelmed" and stretched too thin for political battles even before the war started. Because, you know, they're Jedi, so they should be able to foresee the end of that particular slippery slope and do something about it, however full their plates were). Maybe they were complicit to that extent. That doesn't mean they were in any way happy with how things were developing. Much less that they were somehow corruptly (in a loose sense of being non-transparent) engaging in cloak-and-dagger stuff or misusing their powers, as Stover seems to imply.

If anything, the PT seems to suggest that the problem with the Jedi is that their powers are subject to too much democratic/bureaucratic oversight, not too little. Hence even Qui-Gon's reluctance to go in swingin' his 'saber to free slaves: because it would cause too much political difficulty for the Republic. Hence Anakin's frustrations which he expressed in the picnic scene.

(Also, 10,000 Jedi in a galaxy of several quadrillion sentients hardly makes them a "vast" organisation. There are bigger non-denominational churches just in my hometown.)

Firstly, Anakin chose to become Darth Vader, he wasn't "driven" to it. Second, far from the Jedi teaching on non-attachment, it was precisely Anakin's selfish refusal to give up attachment which motivated him to choose the Dark Side.

Me, me, me (also compare Anakin's speech at Shmi's burial, which he also managed to make all about himself). That's attachment, and the Jedi were right to reject it.

IMO the PT's Jedi lesson of non-attachment, and the dangers if a Jedi fails to learn it, is entirely consistent with the OT. Stover would no doubt say that Luke's attachment to his father saved the day, and he could do this because he knew how to love in a way the PT Jedi didn't. But my interpretation is that, at the point when he says to Obi-Wan "I can't kill my own father," it is not selflessness that keeps him from the deed, but an attachment to the idealised father he has always desired, an emotional possession. It is only in the Throne Room that he realises the difference between love and attachment. By tossing aside his lightsaber, he rejects the temptation to take the power to keep the objects of his love (his friends, the success of the Rebels, even the father that until the end existed only in his dreams). That is attachment which he is rejecting. It is entirely consonant with the PT Jedi teaching on it.

I think Stover simply misunderstands what attachment means. He seems to interpret the concept as being interchangeable with "love". A lot of the SW audience does this (did they even watch the AotC scene where it's made clear that Lucas -- and the Jedi -- sharply distinguish them?), but from someone who earns a living from writing SW stuff, it's unpardonable intellectual sloppiness.

As for "know[ing] a family's love" and "be[ing] connected to the reality of society in ways that the Prequel-Era Jedi could never be", again, that's his opinion. In my view, the PT Jedi did feel, and did permit, familial love for each other. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, Obi-Wan and Anakin, Yoda and the younglings. Just because it isn't in a traditional "Western" nuclear family structure, and just because they prioritise other things (such as spiritual self-surrender and public service) over their feelings, doesn't mean they don't know love. And what does "connected to the reality of society" even mean? The PT Jedi travel constantly, on a variety of diplomatic, peacekeeping and investigatory missions; they apparently have friends ranging from greasy diner owners to planetary rulers. I'd say they were more connected to society than someone with a family of their own minding only their own business and being preoccupied with purely parochial concerns. Not sure I understand how having a nuclear family makes a difference to being connected to society. Would Stover say that those in our society who are single by choice, or, like Buddhist clergy, eschew all possessions and attachments and wander around living off alms, are not as connected to society as Homer Simpson is?

Han Solo is hardly a good example of what Jedi should strive for. So what if he's a warrior? When people start talking about combat skill as though it had anything to do with how "worthy" a character is (regardless whether as a person or as a Jedi), I have to wonder if they even watched ESB.

His interpretation that Balance necessarily means destroying both Jedi and Sith is just an interpretation, and one I find simplistic as well as morally repugnant. "Scourge of God"? Please. Leave such catchphrases to videogames and comics.

 

Stover's being the writer of the ROTS novelization, which got a "line by line edit" from Lucas, might privilege his opinion a little - but not as much as Lucas's.

Still, even Lucas himself can have some rather weird ideas about Star Wars - like the notion that Luke redeeming Vader was Ben and Yoda's plan from the beginning.

There is a bit of a debate over this issue in the next part of the book, after Stover's "counterargument".

 

When Qui-Gon says "we", I believe he's referring to the Jedi, not the Republic.

Yeah, I remember Filoni mentioning that Lucas specifically asked to change the dialogue of the season finale in order to not portray the Jedi in a bad light (a sign that he wasn't too confortable with certain decisions? But why let them pass then?). Throughout some episodes, characters "point the finger" at the Jedi and blame them for X and Y without explaining what they should have done. So, they shouldn't have been fighting a war? Okay, then what exactly should they have done? Let the Republic (that they swore to protect) be invaded by Separatist forces? Let the clones fight for themselves when the Jedi could turn the tide of many battles, and therefore avoid more death and destruction? Perhaps they should have discovered that Palpatine is a Sith Lord, because for the omniscient point of view of the audience, it's too obvious. Accept the fact that he covered his tracks well? Heresy...

At least Yoda acknowledges a basic truth in the last season: "it's the only path." And they have to walk through it the best they can.

Exactly. Besides, it's not even "just an interpretation", it's a wrong interpretation, per the movies and the author. The Jedi weren't completely destroyed, the Sith were.

 

From his perspective, the Old Jedi Order were destroyed - Luke and Leia are the first of the "New Jedi Order".

 

But it wasn't, since some of its elements survived. Luke was instructed under the values and teachings of the "old" Jedi Order. And those are the teachings he's going to pass on.

 

That's yet to be seen. The OT didn't really address much of Jedi philosophy beyond the basic individual discipline Luke required for the mission at hand, i.e. remaining calm, not succumbing to anger etc. All the strict Jedi dogma regarding attachment and so on only existed in the PT and wasn't addressed in the OT, despite the occasional traces being hinted at (Yoda telling Luke that he should be prepared to sacrifice his friends). The 'Jedi Order', let alone its specific teachings, wasn't even mentioned to Luke Skywalker once, so it's up in the air as to whether or not he will go back to its traditions, or forge new ones.

My money's on him trying to beat a new path for the Jedi in the ST, while passing on what he learned from his two mentors - both of whom were all too aware of the failures of the old ways, which eventually destroyed the Republic and all but extinguished the Jedi.