The Parthenon: Home for the Intellectual Discussion Welcome TKL and Art_Of_War, new Thread Hosts!!

The Jedi Council and Old Order thought strictly in terms of black and white

Heh. Oh, do I ever have my own theories about that. In fact, I think I'll pimp the theory here, while we're discussing light and dark:

As written in another forum:
If I had to give it a snazzy name, it might be the Force... in technicolor! See, a lot of people see the Force in black and white. There's light, there's dark, and that's all she wrote. The more liberal-minded crowd will admit to the varied shades of grey in between. That's all fine and good, but I'm an artist, and I tend to see the world in full colour.

Think about it: what are light and dark but the presence or absence of colour? Pure white light is the reflection of all colours, and pure black absorbs all colours. But it seems to me, what with the multitude of Force-users in the galaxy, that we can be more descriptive than the monochrome. In fact, I would think that a pure light or pure dark Jedi would be practically nonexistent.

Colours have meaning. Red is associated with war, power, energy, passion, determination, and love. Blue is associated with trust, loyalty, wisdom, confidence, intelligence, faith, and truth. And so on and so forth. It doesn't take an extensive google search to come up with lists of colour connotations. For example, say there's a Jedi who's vibrant, creative, joyful, energetic, and generally happy. This Jedi might reflect orange into the Force. And I can't imagine anyone's colour would be completely static, though it would center around a certain hue and take up shades around it.

This can make for some interesting interactions. For example, mixing colours can be tricky business. Direct complements don't mix well, they create a sort of muddy colour if you try. But unmixed, they create such a sharp contrast when placed together that the eye is naturally drawn there. So if a purple Jedi and a yellow Jedi were trying to be sneaky about something, they might as well give up the game because any Force user in the vicinity would be naturally drawn to the contrast. Also, with direct complements, it can take some proportion juggling to balance out the intensities, so that one doesn't overwhelm the other.

I can't see any colour that would be inherently bad, though I can see how a lot of the Sith would be red. Red isn't bad in and of itself, unless you're a stodgy old Jedi and think love is a bad thing, but what they usually refer to as a Dark Jedi may be more accurately described as a Red Jedi.

That creates a whole different headache when it comes to the prophecy... though maybe according to this theory, there were too many extremes cropping up, and the full spectrum of colour was lacking. Or maybe one colour was dominating the others. Too many purple Jedi or something, and not enough green Jedi to balance 'em out. I've never attempted to apply this theory outside the KOTOR era, so this is an interesting line of thought. If Anakin is the one who can bring balance to the Force, maybe he is a pure White Jedi- the presence of all colours.


If you were writing the PT, based only on the OT, how would you set up the story?

I have an outline on my hard drive. It's long, so I'm not going to post it here, unless people really want to read the whole thing. But my friends and I drafted an outline for our own version of the prequels about two years ago, and I still have all the notes plus the 20-some pages of script we wrote.

 

Great discussion all! Short on time here, unfortunately...

How does the rule of two explain light side Jedi? There is a difference between Sith and dark Jedi, which is why the rule works - two Sith lords, with dark minions. But there isn't any differences between the Jedi in the order. They're just Jedi. Luke, by his rank, isn't elevated to anything special. He's just a Jedi Master that is in charge of the Jedi Order.


Well, the rule of two applies only to the Sith, right? The Sith created the rule just to minimize the possibility of infighting wiping them out. The Jedi in the PT had a clear division amongst them. You had the masters and then you had everybody else. And even among the masters you had those on the Council and those who were not. As far as the distinction between Jedi and other light-side Jedi, that's a really good point. I'm not heavy on the EU, but I can't recall any other groups out there that used the light side of the Force and were not Jedi. I'm pretty sure there's quite a few groups that used the dark side however.


In one of my stories I've tried to portray Anakin as the Balance of the Force; he delves into the Dark Side occasionally, but he has a complete understanding of it and therefore is able to control it. However, I don't see the Anakin/Vader as portrayed in the movies as being the balance, because his mental state isn't balanced.


You'll get no argument out of me there! Anakin never displays anything that resembles balance in the movies. he's an absolutist in the movies. He picks sides, because he thinks that's the only choice available to him.

A spinning top is a spheroid. It encompasses all it?s facets so well that it has no ?sides.? If it is balanced it is mobile and (in the case of a hurricane) powerful. If someone knocks it off balance, it falls.

Man, Z!! That's deep. I hadn't thought about the old spinning top. I think that's how Anakin managed to stay afloat as long as he did in the PT--he just kept on spinning and spinning.

So why did he choose a prophecy as an element of his story? Why have the prophecy be about balance at all? He could just as well had the prophecy be that Anakin was destined to destroy the Sith. What idea was he trying to convey with that particular wording?

I wonder that all the time. Why did he feel it necessary to make this prophecy so broad? Why did he use those words? You asked how we might write the PT. Great question....I imagine I probably wouldn't have put anything in there are about a prohphecy. I don't think it was necessary. That being said...it makes for great discussion!

Commander-DWH! I love your idea of colors. I explore a similar idea in my work except that there is still a division. In my version of the GFFA, when one opens his eyes in the Force, he sees sort of an aura around others in the Force. If one uses the light side of the Force primarily, then the person shows up as blue and if you use the dark side, you're red. The more powerful the person, the stronger the aura and the more intense it is. It also becomes flames of blue or red as the case may be for really powerful users. I actually had Anakin achieve balance by coming to accept the dark side of the Force as part of him, turning his flames purple in the Force. I hadn't considered any other colors though...

 

DWH- Wow. I really like that and though I have heard something similiar before, that is the first time it has all been wrapped in so pretty a package. This would also explain why Anakin excaped his Masters' notice for so long. I am certain he would have been seen as a brilliant blue since he was so intensely loyal! Right up until the end when his loyalties led him to shed innocent blood and even then, the loyalty was still there... he would have been purple. I think he started out as white and ended as white, though. Just my opinion, of course.

Souderwan- I'm "deep," huh? For some reason I heard a voice in my head as I read that: "This has been another edition of Deep Thoughts by Zonoma." But, yes, Anakin did keep spinning... he was incredibly balanced in his youth until he fell in love and wasn't allowed to acknowledge it or protect her. Bump. Mom dies and he KNOWS he could have prevented it if only he had followed his heart instead of the hidebound Council. Bump. Dreams begin about Padme. Bump. Council asks him to spy on his protector and "friend." Bump. Spheroids may display more Balance than teeter totters but it just doesn't take as much to knock them off their axis!

Prophecy Question: I don't know, but it didn't work. I don't know about you guys but I found it corny and over the top. A "forced" (no pun intended) element of mysticism thrown in at the last minute as a plot device to get Ani in the Temple and trained despite his age and his fears.

 

For example, given the current topic, how do you write the concept of "balance of the Force" in the GFFA? How do you visualize something like that? How do you get the reader to see your point of view without bashing them over the head with it? I hope that makes things a little clearer.

I don?t try to persuade anybody of a specific theory on balance in any of my fics. I have touched on it, but didn?t try to bring any definitive answers. Who was it that said good authors don?t answer questions, only raise them? I think it?s somebody?s sig around here. Maybe not?

I?ve only touched on it really with a villain in Galaxy Noir II: Judge and Jury. I like to give any crazy villains their own twisted logic to justify their actions. Like, in The Flash comics right now, Flash?s archenemy Zoom (yes, Zoom ? writer Geoff Johns can make a great villain out of almost any name or concept) decided that suffering will make Superman and the like better heroes. Rationalization is a very real thing to do, and I like my villains a little more realistic, and a little less Snidely Whiplash-esque.

Anyway, this villain (it?s a mystery that I won?t ruin so no spoiling of the identity) decided that it was his/her duty to upset the supposed balance of good/evil. The killer felt that it wasn?t satisfactory to have both going on at the same time. Too many shades of gray freaked him/her out. Decided to join the winning team and destroy all that is good, starting with a certain protagonist he/she already had a beef with.

This, of course, is bull. But it?s close enough to sense that someone with flawed and broken logic can accept it. This particular villain kind of did bash it over a head, but not the reader?s. He/she was trying to persuade the hero that this was the right thing to do. They promptly shot at each other, as any scene should end.

I?m not sure I buy the two Jedi/two Sith concept of balance. It?s cool and all, but I take a view of the Light and Dark Side affecting all the regular folks who would rather rely on a trusty blaster by their side. Jedi and Sith are, in theory, avatars of good and evil within all people. Of course, things got a little twisted around, but still. Taking that broader vision into mind, the connection with a galactic government may have been the problem.

In the PT, the Jedi had become entwined with the Old Republic. Their temple was right there on Coruscant, they were taking orders from the Senate and Palpatine (for a while). They were pretty much a policing force, and later part of the army. The problem is the Republic. It was rotting from even before TPM. Red tape everywhere, corruption, Palpatine. It diluted the Light Side representatives.

With the Empire, you had a Sith at the top, and another as his Number Two (plus a few backups). Here, however, instead of hindering the work of the Force users, the ones who could choke you from twenty yards were in charge. The government reflected Palpatine?s twisted Sithy will. Tyranny.

Now, if balance means equal bits of good and evil, then the equation is flawed with two Sith ruling the galaxy while the two Jedi hang out in caves. Maybe if they were both running around without connection to the rest of the galaxy, besides helping or hurting people as their codes dictate, things would be balanced by that definition.

Anakin achieved this, to an extent. After the purge, the Jedi sure weren?t in charge. And once Palps and Vader went down, neither were the Sith. Luke could then build a Jedi Order with no attachments. However, he?s still sort of connected, this time with the NR.

This was a view taken by certain mysterious antagonists in the sadly incomplete AU Inheritance by Apocalyptic_Jawa. They decided Luke and Leia (a Jedi in this) were still too involved, and needed a wake-up call. The way they went about it made them villains. I don?t know

 

I'm "deep," huh? For some reason I heard a voice in my head as I read that: "This has been another edition of Deep Thoughts by Zonoma."

My single-most favorite recurring skit on SNL!!

Ok...looks like the conversation has died down. And...it's a new day, so I thought we'd go for a writing question for us intellectuals to discuss.

How important to your writing are "The Rules"? Those of you who know me know that I'm in loved with lists. I think lists are fun. Given that, I copied this list of writing rules from a site I pulled up off Google. How many of them do you follow? How important are they to your writing? This is intended to be kind of a fun excursion, so please have fun with it. I'll post a "deep topic" again tomorrow.

In the interests of full disclosure, here's a link to the site.


The Writing Rules:

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times:
Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

Edit: The_Face, it looks like you posted at the same time as I changed topics. I'm terribly sorry. I'm going to read your comments and respond shortly.


EDIT 2: And, this may be a subject for another time, but Inara mentioned how the post-Sith Dark Jedi have only artifacts and dead people and such to teach them the ways of the Sith. What exactly makes the distinction between a Dark Jedi and a full-fledged Sith? besides the fact that authors can use one easily and the other has to be fit into whatever two are around at the time?

I mean, the Dark Side is supposedly primal emotions at its root. It doesn?t take a genius to tap into fear and anger to lash out with some wicked Force beat-downs ? just a few midichlorians and an attitude. Heck, about every Jedi slips into it at some point or another, it seems. Sith lessons would pretty much consist of how to channel it, build a lightsaber, and wear black. Dark Jedi figure all of that out anyway. Why aren?t they Sith, besides a lack of discipline and organization? Unless there were an agency to officially sanction Dark Lords. Whoa, plot bunny. That?s goin? straight into my next humor fic. It?ll fit perfectly with all the Imperial lawyers.

Indeed, that's a topic for another time--like the very next topic!! Great topic! I have thoughts on this. I'll post it up for discussion tomorrow. Speaking of which, if anyb

 

10. No sentence fragments.

Personally, I live and breathe on sentence fragments.

 

As do I. I believe they add life to the story because it can really add emphasis on the point you're trying to make. Same thing with using a semicolon. (No idea if it's up there, just thought I'd add it. )

These rules really apply to writing a formal paper, though. In fanfiction, it don't matter. It's the be all and end all of writing.

Even when writing a formal paper, I don't pay attention to the rules, I just write. I don't even edit and I get A's on most of my papers.

 

I popped in because of your title. I violate at least 18 of those rules pretty regularly. And enjoy doing it...LOL.

 

At his C3 panel, Stover proclaimed that a writer should know the rules before he/she breaks them. I agree with that one hundred percent. I tend to write by the rules (or at least my beta makes sure I do ) except when I am trying to make a distinct point in the story. Too much rule breaking and people start to wonder if you know how to write and become a distraction.

And I do have a couple distinct writing quirks. I wonder what they might be?

 

Yes, I think it's all about finding a balance between saying what you want to say and how you want to say it, and letting your writing style become a distraction to your reader. If your reader can't identify the story because they are too distracted by how you're telling it, I don't consider that good writing. At least, it's not something I enjoy.

 

The question then becomes who wrote the rules and why should we follow them. For example #2, do not end with a preposition. However, if you want realistic dialogue, people speak with preposition endings at times.

I think you could find exceptions to every one of those rules on the list.

The question then becomes - what is the writer intending and what is the reader perceiving?

 

The question then becomes who wrote the rules and why should we follow them. For example #2, do not end with a preposition. However, if you want realistic dialogue, people speak with preposition endings at times.

I'm inclined to agree, dianethx. My old beta regularly beat me up about rules I was breaking in my first fic. I was a little bothered by the whole thing given that some of these rules were flagrantly violated by some of my favorite authors. But...she convinced me to at least learn the rules so I did that. I think TKL has a great point. You should know the rules before you break them. I don't go out of my way to break a rule, mind you. But...if I'm writing something and I notice I've broken a rule or two, I'll look at it carefully and then make a concious decision. Usually, it's to stick with what I've done.

[Captain Barbosa]Besides, d'ere nat really rulz, per se! D'ere more like guidelines![/Captain Barbosa]

EDIT: I am always violating Rule #17: One word sentences. Eliminate. I think they can be pretty danged powerful and I like 'em. So there!

 

Yes, learn the rules before you break them. You must become a student of the language before you can become the language's Master and make it dance attendance on you.

These rules are helpful in certain dialogue scenes. I find them very useful when writing Tenel Ka and other nobility, especially! IE:

"Jacen Solo, why do you ask questions that you already know the answer to?"

versus

"Jacen Solo, why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer?"

Following one simple rule turned the whole thing around into something that fit her character much more appropriately.

 

For dialogue, I am of the mindset that the rules don't apply. People don't necessarily speak correctly. BUT I may use the correctness of speech to speak for a character. For instance, Padme speaks with more structure than Anakin. Leia talks in proper Basic as opposed to Luke's farmer grammar. I almost always have my Chiss characters speak with little or no contractions. Although as Jag has spent more time in the GFFA, he has assumed a more casual speech pattern.

 

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.

There I have to agree. It's a sign of disregard for your own language to ignore that rule.

2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.

Agreed there too.

3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.

Depends on the context. I believe that in certain types of dialogue or if you're trying to draw attention to something, conjuctions can have their place.

4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.

What? That's the entire premise of Attic Greek!

5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)

Again, they have their place...for humorous purposes, only!

6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.

Alliteration aids and abets aptitude. In other words, do it if you're as good at it as Neal A. Maxwell, but otherwise, don't commit sacrilege!

7. Be more or less specific.

Be descriptive, not necessarily specific. Make your readers feel like they understand.

8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

Absolutely.

9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.

Oh, you're making me gag just looking at that. Obviously a don't.

10. No sentence fragments.

Again, they have their place. You can use them to place emphasis, to draw attention to or away from something, or to show disjointed thought processes for the narrator of the story. But don't use them like they're going out of style!

11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.

I don't like contractions outside of dialogue.

12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.

Not even made-up languages?

13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.

*snrk*

14. One should NEVER generalize.

Can't disagree with that.

15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.

Are we talking about comparisons, analogies, or similes?

16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.

Exactly!

17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.

See my comment on sentence fragments.

18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.

And as annoying as Homer on a power trip.

19. The passive voice is to be ignored.

Unless appropriate in context.

20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.

Yes.

21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.

Unless the big word makes the purpose of the statement much more effective.

22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.

Oh, golly, that's horrible.

23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth-shaking ideas.

Only in snark.

24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

Not to mention, the Archive hates them.

25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times:
Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.

Hyperbole also reduces the effectiveness of the statement.

26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.

EXCUSE ME?!

27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.

Kill yourself with the short end of the stick that you drew before using that.

28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.

I hate mixed metaphors.

29. Who needs rhetorical questions?

Not your supposedly intelligent readers.

30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

see Hyperbole.

 

Lets see...

There are a couple rules on that list that I just would not break. Like number one, Verbs have to agree with their subjects. I can't think of a good reason to break that one, ever.

I like breaking the rules on sentence structure to emphasize something, or give the text a bit of rhythm. I like alliteration, alliteration is good in small doses. Puns are good for comedy and anything by Piers Anthony. Contractions...I'm actually surprised when someone doesn't use a contraction. Unless the someone is British. (Obi-Wan!)

 

Then again, Obi-Wan thinks proper Basic is his spec-i-al-i-ty.

 

I agree that you should know the rules but, if you then break them deliberately and your readers don't know that you've done it deliberately, what is the difference? Will they be less likely to enjoy your story or more? Breaking the rules can make a story much more believable because it's real - it feels real, it sounds real. People in real life play with language all the time.

I don't know if I'm explaining it well.

Another example, alliteration. I use it deliberately because I've noticed that some people subvocalize when they read. So, I add it to give the reader additional ways of enjoying the story, not just in their heads but physical reaction. In fact, a lot of my words are chosen for more than just being the right word but the right-sounding word. But alliteration is against the writing rules.

Perhaps the question should be - how many rules can you break before the reader becomes confused?

 

That's two words, so you're good.

 

dianethx: I don't know if I'm explaining it well.

I got you

Another example, alliteration. I use it deliberately because I've noticed that some people subvocalize when they read. So, I add it to give the reader additional ways of enjoying the story, not just in their heads but physical reaction. In fact, a lot of my words are chosen for more than just being the right word but the right-sounding word. But alliteration is against the writing rules.

I do the exact same thing

 

I agree on all your points, especially the one on breaking deliberately. I'm sure there are a few people out there who look at some of my scenes in The Other Half and go "Has she never heard that you're not supposed to use sentence fragments" instead of looking at how it expresses the confusion in Leia's mind in that scene. And I definitely write so that it can be read out loud. I subvocalize in a lot of instances and I'm obsessed with the way things sound together.

 

Ok, Ish! I'm officially in love! Anyone who addresses a list with such fervor deserves special mention.

 

LOL, thanks, Souderwan. I, personally, had a grammar nazi teacher in high school and then I got to learn Spanish and had a grammar nazi there, too. So now I've got two competing grammar nazis stuck in my head and that's why sometimes, my English makes no sense.

 

Ok, Ish! I'm officially in love! Anyone who addresses a list with such fervor deserves special mention.

In fact, a lot of my words are chosen for more than just being the right word but the right-sounding word. But alliteration is against the writing rules.

I am constantly reading a post out loud to make sure it sounds right. Sometimes, a bigger word works better. Sometimes alliteration is called for. That's just the way I write.

Point.

EDIT: Something wierd just happened with my post. Hmm....

EDIT2: OIC! Somehow I posted half my post before I posted.

 

I do the exact same thing Glad to hear it, TKL. I wonder how many people do on these boards...


What then becomes the rule (or rules) that cannot be broken? Are there any or can they all be broken under specific circumstances? Yes, even the first one! LOL.