A collection of various meta posts I've written, mostly so they're easier for me to find when I want to reference them! At the moment, it's mostly Star Wars content, but I've also transferred over a lot of my old commentaries from other fandoms and any of my original works where the content is on tumblr.
Mostly about Claudia, and kind of in response to a specific post about TV!Claudia but also not really?
So, first, some background--I came into this show as primarily a fan of the books. I read them possibly too young lol (got the first four as a box set as either a birthday or holiday present from my aunt when I was...like...ten or twelve maybe? I don't remember specifically but definitely at least a couple years before high school) and yeah that was it. I saw the movie a couple years later, discovered the musical either while it was on Broadway or just after it closed (which catapulted me back into the fandom for a while), and of course when the TV series was announced I was There. My precious murder kitten/poor little meow meow Armand has been my favorite for...if not since the very beginning definitely from pretty early on (to the point where a self-indulgent freeform RP OC who was supposed to be someone else's love interest Immediately glommed on to him; I was like maybe fifteen at the time so like. Judge me for the right reasons if you wanna judge me for that lol)
And let me be clear. I love all three adaptations. They all bring different things to the table, as different forms of media with different points of view (on both a Watsonian and a Doylistic level).
Talking about the TV show specifically, I think it's done some really cool things with the updated setting; the frame story and what it's done with Daniel is amazing; this is the first version of Louis I've actually found engaging as a character/protagonist; Assad Zaman is beautiful and perfect, as are both Delainey Hayles and Bailey Bass. Honestly all of the casting is phenomenal, and the chance to explore the years that Louis and Armand spent together has been really interesting (since neither the books nor the film really go into that period at all and it would be out of scope for the musical).
But there is an issue I keep coming back to, and the post that this is kind of sort of in response to is tangentially related to it/crystalized some of my thoughts on it.
And that is Claudia's age.
So, first of all, I am Fully Aware that Claudia was aged up to fourteen for practical/logistical reasons--legally, they needed to cast someone over eighteen, and fourteen is probably the youngest they could get away with in a filmed medium in terms of casting down under those circumstances (you can get away with a little more on stage, where a sixteen-year-old actress played ten-year-old Claudia). It is also about the oldest you can go and still have the essential beats of Claudia's story make any kind of sense. And in principle, this is not a bad thing; I am definitely not opposed to stricter child labor protections in the entertainment industry! And, of course, the film and musical both also aged Claudia up, because lbr there is no way a live action adaptation of any kind is going to keep her at six.
But the other adaptations aged her up to ten. And there is a world of difference between ten and fourteen.
So, bearing all of that in mind, I've always felt kind of...meh at best about this change. I understand it was necessary, and I do genuinely like some of what they've done with it (though Very Much Not Everything, but that's an annoyed ramble for another time), in particular the way it impacts her dynamic with Madeleine, and again the two actresses have been Phenomenal and I'm glad they had this role to play.
But I've always felt like her story kind of loses something when you age her up that far. And today when I was drifting around on tumblr, as one does, I came across a post that sort of clarified why.
The post in question was complaining about the idea that Claudia is doomed by the narrative, and the overtones/impact/intersection of fandom misogynoir that come into play with that reading in this particular adaptation.
And I'm making my own post because, yeah, in this specific context, I get where they're coming from, and I don't want to derail with a tangent, but...
The thing is, in the books, Claudia is absolutely 100000% unequivocally doomed by the narrative.
The novel was written, at least in part, to help process grief over a dead child*. Claudia was always going to die because Claudia has always been dead; and this is, to an extent, one of her parents telling the story of that loss. The fact that her mind grows into a clever and assertive and passionate adult woman doesn't change the fact that she is and always was a dead child.
And...okay, that specific thing isn't exactly the issue? Which is also part of why I'm making my own post, haha. Because there is, of course, a lot more to Claudia's story and her tragedy than her eventual death. Even in the books. (Whether or not you believe what Armand says in his book, that after everything exploded he attempted to help transplant her into an adult body before she was burned, with the idea that if it worked she would have a better life and if it failed, well, she was dead anyway; and that process did in fact fail. ...sorry, tangent, lol).
But that doomed-by-the-narrative question did highlight the issue for me, which is that--the story of Claudia frozen at fourteen is fundamentally different from the story of Claudia frozen at six, or even ten. And, like, yes, the very significant changes to Louis' background very much impact his story, but it's still...like it doesn't have the same impact on the core of who he is and what his story is about?
Don't get me wrong, there are very few ages I would less want to be stuck at than fourteen (and not...or at least not entirely because of the kind of uncomfortable behind-the-scenes discussion of Perpetual Puberty Hormones Leading To Instability). But that being on the cusp of adulthood, or at least only a couple years away from being able to convincingly fake it on occasion (the way book!Armand, at seventeen, is able to do; and even in the show, in season 1, she's able to convincingly blend in on a college campus, at least for short periods), is a very different set of stresses and tragedy than being an Actual Child.
(And like, let me be clear, from my perspective as an Actual Trufax Adult In Her Thirties, yes, fourteen is still a Child but--then there's ten. Or six. It's different)
Aging her up that far changes the way the dichotomy between her mind and body impacts her and the people around her. It changes her relationship to her various companions as she mentally-but-not-physically matures. It changes the entire family dynamic she, Louis, and Lestat have while they are a family, before it falls apart.
(Another tangent--but the show is actually, despite everything, quite possibly the most sympathetic-to-Lestat version of Claudia's creation? Which I find fascinating, given that, in a lot of other ways, this is the least sympathetic version of Lestat overall.)
I'm not saying the story that the show is telling is a bad one. It's not! And she does still fit into the essential beats/outline. But...I don't know. It's different, and--again, probably because I'm coming to the show as a books fan first--I feel like something about Claudia got a little bit lost in translation.
It's kind of like how--okay, so Samuel Beckett (I swear this is relevant lol) wrote in both French and English. And there's a poem that he originally wrote in French, that he then translated himself into English in a couple different ways, searching for the right way to say it but not quite finding it. It's...kind of like that? Like yes, the words and the sense and the structure are technically mostly the same, translating from French to English (book to screen; six to fourteen), and the translation is a lovely poem in and of itself, and yet...and yet.
...that metaphor doesn't exactly work, it's not quite what I mean, but...IDK, it's something in the ballpark? So I'm not gonna delete it from this semi-organized ramble, haha.
I'm not even sure where I'm going with this, exactly, lol. Other than--I do feel like a little bit of her story got lost when Claudia became a teenager. And a little means a lot. (if you get that song lyric reference i love you lol) I do like what we gained in exchange, for the most part, but that difference is still something that sticks out to me.
I want to reiterate--I love this adaptation. Especially the frame story/everything to do with Daniel. I love that he and Armand (as the Devil and his minion--or, well, the reverse of that lol) maybe have a chance in this timeline. I can't wait to meet the show's version of Gabrielle. Jacob Anderson is my favorite incarnation of Louis full stop. And I do genuinely love a lot of what they do with Claudia--for the most part, when I'm actively watching, that lost-in-translation feeling doesn't come up. It's mostly when I'm thinking about it after.
And yet. It's there. So...yeah.
(As for the other timeline changes--I think moving the story to the 20th century is an interesting choice; I was admittedly kind of ? about it when it was first announced, but once I started watching, I was 100% sold on it. They did really, really well with that particular translation. I am curious about how this impacts Lestat's 19th century; does he just...wander for a lot longer before meeting Marius? How long does Nicki hold on? How long does Gabrielle stay with him? Does that timeline shift change the impact losing Nicki has on the beginning of his relationship with Louis? Also I find it frankly hilarious that Armand's timeline gets randomly shifted by like 30-50 years. No explanation, no real impact at least in the time periods the show is interested in thus far, just. 1520s Venice instead of 1490s Venice. ...aging him up to compensate for aging Claudia up is...again, it has an impact, but not really at the Core of who he is/what his story is; I think it would have been better to age him to early twenties instead of late twenties, and I am curious to see how this plays out when we get to him and Marius (and the circumstances of Marius finally turning him), but even so it's not the same Fundamental Shift for him than it is for her.
But hey, hopefully this means Benji will not be fucking TWELVE! ...oh man, having a stable(ish) Daniel thrown into that dynamic, I can't wait)
*Full disclosure: I can't find any reference to Anne Rice explicitly confirming this in her own words, but it is mentioned a lot in the background of interviews with her, etc.
Note: I wrote this essay a while ago--several months ago--and then just kind of sat on it; but the quote it focuses on has been crossing my dash again the last day or so and it popped back into my head and I decided to go ahead and share.
So. There is a George Lucas quote, I believe from the Attack of the Clones commentary. And I have. Extremely Strong Negative Feelings About It.
The quote in question:
ā[The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that he canāt hold onto things, which is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isnāt willing to accept emotionally] and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If heād have been taken in his first years and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldnāt have this particular connection as strong as it is and heād have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them.ā
Okay. To be clear, my problem here is not with the attachment definition/philosophy thatās being posited here, nor with the description of Anakinās attitude towards it. The first half of the first sentence, the part thatās bracketed--thatās all completely reasonable/true enough and I donāt have a problem with it.
Itās everythingĀ afterĀ that.
TL;DR: I think it undermines other key themes and conflicts with certain story/dialogue points in the rest of the saga (meaning episodes I-VI); and I feel like it says some pretty uncomfortable and/or negative things about emotional growth, childhood trauma, Shmi, and the Jedi Order.
Letās break it down.
First, this only works if you look at the PT trilogy, Anakinās fall from grace, in a complete vacuum, and ignore the OT andĀ LukeāsĀ journey. Because guess what? Luke wasĀ alsoĀ raised outside the Order, to an even older age than Anakin, and while he struggled in ESB and he did in fact have to learn the hard way, heĀ did learn.Ā (Also, I havenāt rewatched ANH recently, and it doesnāt tend to get referenced much in these discussions, but I think itās worth nothing that--yes, everything in that movie takes place over like three days and he doesnāt have a lot of time to think/process/start wallowing in his grief; but when you compare the way he handles things there with the way Anakin reacts in similar situations, and heās already working from a more solid foundation, one that had nothing to do with being raised by the Jedi.)
Second, itās aā¦weirdly deterministic take for a series that otherwise places aĀ lotĀ of emphasis onĀ choice.Ā On peopleĀ choosingĀ to do better (or toĀ notĀ do better). Again, thatās all over the OT, particularly with Luke and Han and again with theĀ secondĀ half of Anakin/Vaderās journey. So this particular quote undermines that broader theme/message in a big way.
Third, it completely ignores the fact that this concept, about change being inevitable and you have to be able to move on and let go? Is articulated first and (arguably) most clearlyĀ by Shmi.Ā Right there. In the movie just prior to this. That this manĀ also wrote.Ā (āYou canāt stop the change, any more than you can stop the suns from setting.ā That entire scene.) The mother whose parenting Lucas is essentially blaming for Anakinās tendency to codependency/unhealthy obsession in relationships.
I am.Ā ReallyĀ not okayĀ with Shmi being thrown under the bus like this. And, like, thereās probably a broader cultural whatever about how motherhood is simultaneously idealized and ignored in modern (Western) culture and art, and how that influences the way Shmi is portrayed and used and eventually fridged, let alone how sheās talked about outside the text itself. But like. She did in fact say this. The fact that Anakin didnāt grasp it and internalize it isĀ not her fault.
Which is sort of tangentially related to a sort ofā¦broader issue I have with the worldbuilding, especially when it comes to this idealized philosophy, which is thatā¦yes, of course the Jedi are the Good Guys, and the philosophy they live by is a good one (and also acknowledging its real-world Buddhist roots). I am not in any way disputing either of those points. But the idea thatĀ onlyĀ the Jedi, andĀ onlyĀ by accessing Jedi training/philosophy/etc. through this pretty narrow set of idealized circumstances, can allow you to be a good person in this specific idealized way/to follow this philosophy of non-attachment and learn how to love without codependency, leaves aĀ reallyĀ bad taste in my mouth. Especially when you have the same lesson/philosophy/ideal coming from a completely different angle inĀ the same goddamn film.Ā In short, the Jedi arenāt wrong, but theyĀ donāt have a monopoly on being right.
Okay. Uh. So those are (that last tangent aside) the writing/structure problems I have with this quote. Namely, it doesnāt entirely line up with the themes and storyline of the six films as a whole, and it doesnāt even mesh with the prior movie in this same trilogy.
But there are other issues here, too.
For one thing, this isā¦this really doesnāt paint the Jedi or their teachings in a very positive light.
Likeā¦this is basically saying, āof course the Jedi can teach people how to love appropriately and avoid attachment/codependency/obsession/dangerous emotional tangles, thatās What They Do, after all--butĀ onlyĀ if the student starts as essentially a blank slate and has nothing to unlearn.ā Thatāsā¦not a good look.
Also, itās kind of a shitty take on childhood trauma? Yes, itās hard to learn and grow past these things, but the idea that itāsĀ not possible,Ā aside from the implications about the Jedi Orderās pedagogical abilities, is super discouraging for people who come to this path/philosophy later in life than the Ideal. It implies that emotional growth and healing arenāt really feasible and, again, the only way to be capable of this kind of nonattachment is to start from a blank slate. Which a) I donāt think thatās how people or emotions work; and b) again, a super shitty and discouraging thing to say to anyone who might want to try.
(And before anyone comes at me with āthere is no try,ā that quote taken at face value has the same issue; but if you look at it in context, itās about committing to a course of action and knowing what youāre capable of, especially in a fairly simple situation/when faced with a fairly straightforward problem. When you also take into account the later conversation about trying to reach Vader, thereās also an acceptance of the fact that there are other factors that are completely out of Lukeās control here, that all he can do is put his commitment and genuine good faith effort and make the attempt to the best of his abilities, but he canāt simply ādoā without the other party meeting him halfway. But thatās another essay for another time.)
Lastly, and this is a much moreā¦it has as much to do with modern fandom discussions as with what Lucas specifically said twenty years ago. But thereās this tendency to use entry into the Jedi Order as analogous to adoption. And thatās not wrong! Itās in fact a pretty good analogy! Even before it got reinforced by certain conversations in the Obi-Wan series! But quotes like this highlight theĀ problemĀ with that analogy, especially when coupled with the age restriction on entry into the Order.
Look. There are a lot of issues with the modern adoption system. Iām not nearly qualified to comment on all of them, beyond acknowledging that Some Shitās Fucked Up. (Not all of it! But Some.) And one of those issues is that, unless the child in question is a [healthy, white] infant, the chances of them getting adopted areĀ extremelyĀ slim. Because thereās this attitude that they wonātĀ reallyĀ belong, they wonātĀ reallyĀ be a part of their new family, they wonātĀ reallyĀ bond/bond properly with their new parents, unless theyāre brought in as a blank slate. That the (perceived) greater Difficulties in taking in an older child are Too Much/Not Worth Itā¦that kind of attitude.
And, I mean, Iām not a parent, adoptive or otherwise. Iāve never been fully responsible for raising a child (or for any other human being), and I know that itās a complicated and difficult decision/task even under the most ideal of circumstances. But the idea that older kids arenāt good enough/donāt count/will neverĀ reallyĀ be the children of their new parents is something I know Iāve seen broken down as a toxic mentality before.
Especially in a culture (fandom) that places such aĀ hugeĀ emphasis on found family/family of choice and the bonds that grow from there (aka, theĀ refutationĀ of that idea), why is it that, in certain Jedi-positive circles and when looking at quotes like this one from Lucas, itās just accepted at face value when it comes to the Jedi Order and their adoption/recruitment practices?
Full disclosure, the age limit is basically The Problem I have with the PT-era Jedi Orderās general practices and the one thing that I genuinely think does at least as much harm as good (or the harm it does is significant enough) and should be re-evaluated when Luke (or Rey, or whoever) rebuilds; Iāve written about this before, but, among other things, this idea tends to become a feedback loop which sets the few exceptions up for failure, which then reinforces the idea that older students will fail, and on and on*; this aside from the issues it presents to the people whoĀ arenātĀ lucky enough to be found in the right age bracket or have the combination of Circumstances working for them that Anakin did to become one of the exceptions; the fact that there are no viable alternatives for training and/or support for said potential latecomers is also a huge part of the problem. Anyway, thatās definitely coloring my views here, especially when we look at the Implications rather than the parts where itās contradicted by other points in the text itself.
Iām going to sort of wind up here by saying thatā¦after all of that, I donāt think that this quote is entirelyĀ wrong,Ā exactly. Iāve written about this before (although maybe not posted it, haha), but I do think that the Orderās habit/background of generally not accepting latecomers, combined with Anakinās particular background and issues, mean that the Order as it stands in the twilight of the Republic was not necessarily a good fit for him when he was brought to their attention, and that heĀ mightĀ have been more stable/successful if heād been brought in earlier, or if the initial refusal had stood and heād found a different path for himself.
But boiling that down to, essentially, āAnakin Wasnāt Raised Right,ā and in so doing a) ignoring the entire other half of this saga/some of the key themes of this saga as a whole; b) forgetting what Shmi said in the last movie/throwing her under the bus; and c) makingĀ everyone involvedĀ in this situation look badā¦I donāt know, thatās really not the way to do it.
*To avoid yet another long tangentā¦there is an interesting essay that could be teased out about that one line in the mantra, āthere is no ignorance; there is knowledge,ā and how it relates to the idea of preconceptions. We see this in this particular discussion, both in a sort of positive light (when someone with no preconceptions approaches the Jedi path/philosophy, there is a strong tendency for them to succeed at it), and in a negative light (the feedback loop re: nontraditional students I mentioned). But it also comes up in other areas--look at how Force Ghosts are handled, for example. How much effort it takes for Qui-Gon to connect with Yoda; how the first assumption is that Yoda is hallucinating. Compare that to Luke, who has absolutely zero preconceptions/prior knowledge about how the Force works and how it relates to death, so that when he starts hearing (and later seeing) Ben, his response is āthis makes as much sense as anything else Iāve learned in the last week sure letās go with it.ā And, of course, Yoda that line about how wonderful the mind of a child is, uncluttered by such things. Not to mention the bit I mentioned earlier, about raising the X-wing from the swamp, and howĀ thatĀ relates to preconceptions and expectations; also related is one of my favorite Qui-Gon quotes, āYour focus determines your reality.ā
Anyway, I just think thatās interesting to contemplate--Jedi are people, after all, and this is a very People problem to have.
This has been kicking around in my head for a while, and I felt like it was time to finally actually write it down.
Note: This specifically applies to fictional characters. Discussions over how much intent matters when evaluating the actions/crimes/harm caused by Real People is different and necessarily way more complicated.
CW for discussion of fictional genocide, because why not go whole hog if weāre talking about fictional Crimes.
So, for this example, weāre going to look at two characters who were responsible, on some level, for the genocide of their people. And both of whom are admittedly among my Problematic Faves.
Weāll start with Gaius Baltar (BSG). And in this metaphor, he was asked by the woman he loves beyond reason to throw a rock through a window.
This is, generally speaking, an objectively destructive act (while some destruction/vandalism can be justified in certain circumstances, that is the subject of an entirely different essay and regardless of justification, it is still destructive). And there are some reasonably predictable consequences:
The house is no longer weatherproof; rain/wind/etc. can get in with all the potential problems and discomfort that might cause.
Various pests can now much more easily get in.
Thatās a handy entrance for a thief to use.
Thereās broken glass lying around, presumably, and someone could cut themself.
Again, these are all reasonably predictable/likely consequences. There are also some less likely but still reasonably plausible consequences:
Instead of a thief using that handy entrance, a serial killer does.
Someone could be at the Exact Wrong Place at the Exact Wrong Time; and the rock hits them in the head and they die as a result of that injury.
Then thereās what actually happened, in an increasingly convoluted āletās stretch this metaphor to the breaking pointā kind of way:
His lover and her allies set a bunch of fires inside the house and/or flooded the place with flammable gasses/something along those lines; the point is, conditions were such that the rock he threw caused a backdraft effect and a massive inferno that destroyed the whole thing.
Is this technicallyĀ a possible/predictable consequence of throwing a rock through a window?
Yes.
Is it also incrediblyĀ implausible, to the point that most reasonable people would dismiss it without knowledge of the external factors that make it likely?
Also yes.
Look, this doesnāt really take away from the fact that he did something objectively wrong and objectively destructive (especially since, in this metaphor, he is at least partially responsible for the house as a caretaker so thereās the whole Breach of Trust). And his actions did in fact directly lead to the inferno. And he did, in his mental math, dismiss all the other possible consequences/dangers/etc., some of which are extremely serious.
But would his mental math have worked out the same if he hadnātĀ dismissed that remote possibility of an inferno? Something to argue, but there isĀ room to argue it (to be fair and admit to my own biases/opinions here, lol, I genuinely think it wouldnāt for a number of reasons, but that is a separate essay). Which is where things like Intent come in.
Because now weāll bring in the other example, one of my other favorite Human Disasters, Anakin Skywalker.
Same metaphor, where heās throwing a rock through a window in the name of love.
Except in his case, heās not throwing a rock, heās throwing a Molotov cocktail. And he knows full well that thatās what he has in his hand, and that the house is, at the moment, Extremely Flammable due to some relaxed building codes and prior vandalism by other people. And he still does it, because someone he trusted saidĀ ādo this thing and your wife wonāt die.ā
Similar result, but Very Different Intent.
Obviously, this is a vast oversimplification for a number of reasons. When looking at why characters are considered sympathetic or forgivable, even for unforgivable acts of destruction, thereās wayĀ more that comes into play than Intent. Both in terms of in-universe factors (of which Intent is technically one) and out-of-universe factors (i.e., things like who the actor is/how attractive they are, whether or not this is an organic character moment vs. a Shock Twist For The Purpose Of Having A Shock Twist, etc.)
Looking at these two specifically, for example--thereās the fact that we spend A Lot of time examining Anakinās past life and relationships; almost all of the time we spend with Gaius is post-Fall (apart from a few flashbacks in Daybreak; and obviously the like hour of the miniseries that takes place before the attack). Thereās also their baseline personalities; and how they handle the consequences of these acts, both internally and externally. And then thereās their relationships with the person who convinced them to throw the rock and/or Molotov cocktail. To say nothing of thoseĀ two; meaning the actual people who did said persuading, and the (MASSIVE) differences between them, both in terms of theirĀ internal justification for the destruction and baseline personalities, etc.
But...yeah. These are things that come into play when weāre looking at character analysis and story arcs, especially for characters that hit what for me is a sweet spot of Complicated Alignments And/Or Loyalties.
And, like, even for fictional characters, thereās a point where none of this really matters, only the act and its consequences. And that is a completely valid perspective, Iām not saying otherwise. It depends on the act, it depends on the circumstances...everyone has a different point of no return when it comes to feelings about fictional people who do Terrible Things.
But this was a metaphor that wouldnāt leave my head until I articulated it, and I think there are times when it does make the difference between whether a character is or is not likeable, or forgivable, or redeemable (which, as I pointed out in my last essay, are not necessarily mutually interchangeable terms).
This...roughly 9000-word essay was inspired by a post I saw on Tumblr a while back, talking about conflating āredemption arcā with āwe like this character now,ā and how thatās a relatively new development and misses one of the points of redemption in stories. Iām sort ofā¦using that as a springboard to talk about redemption arcs in general, and how forgiveness and/or likeability can be a factor, or not. Because--look, if you know anything about me and my tastes you know I eat this shit for breakfast, lol. I have a Thing for double agents and defectors, for characters whose allegiances shift over the narrative for one reason or another.
Anyway. Uh. Basically, I think that post was essentially right, that not all redemption arcs have to (or should!) end in forgiveness for the characterās prior misdeeds, or a character becoming likeable, and how likeable and forgivable arenāt necessarily equivalent. And also I think thatā¦likeā¦if a character has no prior misdeeds they donāt need redemption? And everyone has different limits on whatās forgivable and whatās not, and while some limits for some people are automatic dealbreakers, others might be situational/depend on mitigating factors (which can include how likeable the character in question is). I think this is at least part of the reason discussions of redemption arcs and redeemed/redeemable characters get so heated.
Also, purity culture backlash is a factor, which the post in question talks about a little bit, and the general philosophy in certain quarters of āif I like this it must be Good both in the aesthetic sense and the moral senseā and its flipside āif I dislike this it must be Bad both in the aesthetic sense and the moral senseā with the idea that likes/dislikes have to be Justifiable beyond justā¦a matter of taste? Which, like. Yes, sometimes, thereās a thing that has value (or lacks value) for moral reasons, that absolutely exists. But not everything does, and not all morality in stories is or necessarily should be clear-cut and obvious. Thereās a place for that (even if itās generally not my personal cup of tea), but expecting all stories to fall into that isā¦ehhhh, it feels like a Not Good Thing to me.
ā¦anyway. There was going to be an actual Topic to this ramble, and that Topic was redemption in narratives. As I said, this is a very long essay with examples from several different fandoms (most prominently, AtLA, Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica), so. Uh. Brace yourselves, I guess?
I think itās helpful to, first of all, to recognize that this is a Very Broad Umbrella that covers a pretty extensive range of character arcs and storylines.
First, the Hero In Waiting archetype, exemplified by Zuko in AtLA ā this character is eventually On Our Side and Becomes Our Friend/Someone We Like, and itās clear from very early on that thatās where their arc is headed. Iāve also referred to this as Character Transparently Being Set Up For Redemption but thatās less pithy, lol. This type of arc generally has to be planned from the outset in order to have the right payoff; the seeds of Likeability have to be sown from pretty much day one (which they are with Zuko), at least for the audience, even if the Heroes donāt necessarily see it until much later. I love this type of arc. I like stories where people come together and unite, I like redemption arcs that end in forgiveness. I like it when the pressures on the main charactersā interpersonal relationships are mostly external rather than infighting (I Hate the obligatory arc in like Every Team-Based Show where the team is fighting itself/each other because Dramatic Misunderstandings). This one scratches a very specific itch, but it has to be constructed in a very specific way and it is not the only or even necessarily the best or most compelling type.
Second, the One Good Deed archetype. This generally tends to result in Redemption Equals Death; it works best when, at the eleventh hour, a previously villainous character comes up to a line they wonāt cross and refuses and makes a better choice. Think of Vader in Star Wars, or that one servant in King Lear who tries to stop what happens to Gloucester. One shining moment after a lifetime of evil may not bring forgiveness, but when itās done well--whether itās set up gradually, with the slow reveal of the potential for the character in question to have made different choices along the way (Vader) or whether it comes out of nowhere because Even Evil Has Standards (like the servant)--it provides a huge emotional payoff. I love moments like this. I donāt like caricatures of moustache-twirling villainy, and One Good Deed redemption provides some relief from that. The idea that no matter how awful or blood-soaked a person might be, thereās that little glimmer inside them. Somewhere. Thatās a pretty powerful thing to consider. It doesnāt undo the terrible things theyāve done, nor does it mean they shouldnāt face consequences for them (assuming they survive), nor does it mean they should be posthumously forgiven, which is an individual choice on the part of both in-universe observers and the audience, I think. And, obviously, thereās a point where you canāt keep hoping and digging for that bright spot because you have to act on the circumstances facing you, but the fact that itās there. That means something. And, when acted on, it can be hugely cathartic (and can also keep the Heroās hands relatively clean, but letās put a pin in that for now.)
Third, the Enemy Of My Enemy archetype. Basically, a villain who unites with the heroes against a greater threat, and, in so doing, the dynamics of the relationship with said villain shift.
This is another umbrella one, lol.
Type A ā Villain works with heroes and then just sort ofā¦gets absorbed and saunters vaguely upward. As they form positive connections with their new (theoretically temporarily) allies, they gradually become a friend. I love this one a lot. Look, I grew up on DBZ and got extremely attached to Vegeta and Bulma for a reason, lol. I mean, heās not the only one who went through this pattern but he was the one who made the strongest impression on me, so.
Type B ā Not So Different revelations which put Villainās prior actions into a different context and enable everyone to Find Some Common Ground. They may or may not stick around as a long-term ally; this may overlap with the One Good Deed type, but itās a bit longer-range and also less likely to result in Redemption Equals Death. Villain may come back later, either as an antagonist again but with a twist, or as an ally, and that initial connection may build into something long-term.
Type C ā What my roommate affectionately calls the Weird Uncle trope. Itās not so much that new relationships or revelations soften Villain (at least not to the other characters, though they might have that effect on the audience), as there are some things you just canāt go through together without Bonding. Villain is probably just as much of an asshole as before, but now heās our asshole. Examples of this would be Barbossa in PotC, Root in Person of Interest, arguably Bo-Katan in Star Wars. When this works, itās delightful, but it also. Uh. Itās a fine line to walk, especially when questions of Forgiving and/or Forgetting prior misdeeds once past the momentary necessity of the initial teamup. It definitely helps if, prior to the shift, villain has a lot of Engaging and/or Likeable qualities (similar to the Hero In Waiting type, although they donāt go nearly as far). Another possible factor here is that, as the word gets More Complicated (and possibly the Heroes get a little muddier), this person seems Less Evil by comparison. While that can play into any Enemy Of My Enemy subtype, itās particularly relevant with Type C.
Fourth, the Make Them Work For It archetype. This is sort ofā¦some of the Discourseā¢ related to Redemption Equals Death goes to āone good dead doesnāt really mean that much in the grand scheme of things so is this person really redeemed or did they just escape the consequences of their actions.ā So, this is sort of an extension of that One Good Deed type, may also overlap with Type B or Type C of the Enemy Of My Enemy. Basically, a similar setup--Villain finds the line they wonāt cross, but rather than One Grand Gesture, they put their money where their mouth is and actively work on a more long-term basis to atone for their past misdeeds. I have a lot of fondness for this type ā like I said, I have a Thing for double agents and defectors, and most of them fall into this category (ā¦or its inverse, technically, but that is not the subject of this essay, haha). And then thereās also a huge range within this category, in terms of how much impact their change of heart has on their personality/actual relationships with the heroes. Like, I would put both Kallus from SW: Rebels and Snape from HP in this category, but they have very different paths from the moment they choose to defect (more on this later). But itās still the same general pattern--Villain comes to a point where they realize that there is a line they cannot cross/they are on the wrong side, and offer an alliance to one or more heroes, but the Work they do to make up for prior misdeeds is shown and that, rather than the moment of choice, is the point of their storyline/focus of the character arc. Much like the Weird Uncle, characters in this category can be Discourse Magnets, because have they done enough, etc.
Fifth, the Face Of The Enemy archetype. This oneā¦both is and is not a redemption arc? It tends to overlap with the Enemy Of My Enemy, but this is a character who did not have a personal relationship with the good guys prior to their Teeth Clenched Teamwork moment, so I feel like it deserves a separate category. This is one that shows up in War Stories, with clearly defined Sides. Essentially, the heroes meet a member of the designated villain group and find common ground, usually in response to a greater threat, whether a common enemy or a natural disaster/other Circumstances that are not the fault of either party. I feel like this tends to happen a lot in media relating to World War One; but a more typical/recent Fandomy example would potentially be Todd from Stargate Atlantis, maybe Mina and Lux Bonteri from SW: Clone Wars. A lot of arcs featuring these characters tend to cast War Itself as the True Villain of the story. Because they havenāt caused any direct personal harm to the heroes other than happening to be on the other side of the war, the question of Forgiveness is both more and less complicated. In some ways, rather than having an individual redemption arc, this character exists to humanize/āredeem,ā in a way, the Enemy in general.
And now, a few related tropes that Iām not really counting, but Iāll lay out just for the sake of completion:
First, thereās sort of a combination of Hero In Waiting and Face Of The Enemy, where a character weāre introduced to as technically on the villainās side immediately hits their breaking point and acts heroically, without having any prior contact with the heroes; this also tends to be their introduction to the audience; often theyāre the protagonist, or one of a team of protagonists. This type is not included in the main list because theyāreā¦not really redeemed? They didnāt do anything that requires redemption? Finn from Star Wars is the primary example of this. He is not a redeemed villain because he was never a villain in the first place, except under the barest of technicalities.
A second related trope Iām excluding is a Chaotic Neutral Occasional Ally Occasional Enemy. While thereās some overlap, particularly with the Enemy Of My Enemy archetype, this character is generally on a third side unrelated to the core conflict of the story and serves an entirely different narrative purpose. Think Hondo from Star Wars.
Iām also not going to talk about characters who are introduced after having gone through a redemption arc--i.e., characters who have an established and discussed backstory of working with/for the Bad Guys but have since had a change of heart. See Iroh in AtLA. While thereās a lot of interesting points to be made about the role characters like this serve in the narrative (and how theyāre discussed in fandom), in the interests of simplicity and having specific textual events and details to cite when I do go into detail about my examples, Iām sticking to characters who undergo these arcs within the main body of the story.
There are probably more types, and obviously some of these overlap and there are characters who tick off more than one of these boxes, but as a general outline, many if not most characters who go through Redemption Arcs fall under these five archetypes (and the subtypes for the Enemy Of My Enemy). Which Iām going to lay out in a neat list because that was a Lot Of Text and Iāll be referencing things more probably, lol:
Hero In Waiting ā this character is intended from the beginning to become a hero, even if they start off on the wrong side; they are generally likeable and sympathetic, and working with the bad guys for Understandable Reasons until they choose to do otherwise.
One Good Deed ā generally overlapping with Redemption Equals Death; this character finds a line they will not cross and stands their ground/stands up to the Big Bad; usually a secondary villain or Mook.
Enemy Of My Enemy ā this character forms a temporary alliance with the heroes out of necessity, and the storyline goes from there.
Type A ā character forms Positive Relationships and chooses to stay with their new friends/allies who turned out to be less temporary than originally planned.
Type B ā character doesnāt really form Relationships or stick around, but finds common ground with the heroes and may or may not be an ally again in the future.
Type C ā character doesnāt necessarily grow or change but becomes Part Of The Group by virtue of āyeah theyāre an asshole but theyāre our asshole, and look what we went through together, that means at least as much as our prior conflicts.ā
Make Them Work For It ā related to One Good Deed in that the character finds a line they will not cross, but the point of their arc is not the change of heart, itās what they do after.
Face Of The Enemy ā this character was not an individual villain, but is a part of the Villain Group, usually in war stories; tends to overlap with Enemy Of My Enemy but without a prior personal connection to the Heroes.
So, when we look at these five archetypes, and the question of likeability and/or forgiveness comes up, it varies a lot. Hero In Waiting generally requires it; One Good Deed does not; Enemy Of My Enemy varies, depending on the subtype as well as some other narrative factors Iāll get into in a minute, so weāll put a pin in this; ditto for Make Him Work For It; Face Of The Enemy tends to work better if the humanizing individual is likeable.
Which leads to the next question, which is--what is the purpose of the arc? Why are we redeeming (or attempting to redeem) this character? What does it do for/contribute to the story and/or overall themes of the work? How does the genre and/or target audience of the work impact the choice?
Because all of these arcs can have valuable impact in terms of storytelling, but in very different ways.
Like, letās zero in on the One Good Deed archetype again. Thereās what I talked about earlier, in terms of the emotional impact of this kind of moment when done well, and thatās certainly a factor. But in terms of a more purely practical application...I mentioned earlier how this archetype can help keep the heroās/heroesā hands clean. This tends to be more of an issue in media where the target audience is mainly kids.
Essentially, the story is set up with a Good vs. Evil plotline; the creators have built up the Main Villain and need to Deal With Him Somehow and by Deal With we mean Defeat/Render No Longer A Threat. The Good Guys get to win. And sometimes, the Power of Friendshipā¢ might make the Main Villain undergo a redemption arc/change of heart of their own, but some MVs just. Do Not Allow For This, it wouldnāt be credible even in the most hopeful stories with the most Pollyanna of heroes in play.
Unfortunately, having the Hero actually kill MV is. Uh. Well. Problematic. Look, we donāt want to, like, give kids the impression that Murder Is Okay If Your Victim Is Evilā¢ Enough. That. Uh. That just seems like itāll go Very Bad Very Quickly.
There are a lot of ways around this problem. For example: in AtLA, Aang takes a different kind of third option in stripping Ozai of his abilities (which is its own Discourse Magnet lol, but not the subject of this essay); Disney Villain Death (i.e., where the villainās own villainous actions lead to them falling to their death or a similar essentially accidental death) is a Trope for this reason; but a third possibility is--have one of the villainās underlings take care of the problem. The Hero doesnāt kill anyone, someone who is already evil does what may be Necessary, but isnāt something we want to reinforce as Good/Ideal Behavior.
Now, this isnāt always a redemption arc (speaking of Disney villains, Scarās death is not at all framed as providing any redemptive value to the hyena trio), but it can be. Again, we look at Vaderās moment in ROTJ. Our Hero, Luke, has already explicitly rejected the idea of murder, however justified, but the Emperor does still need to die for this victory of Good over Evil to be complete. Vader is able to handle that problem, even as it costs him his own life.
So thatās one factor--how certain types of redemption arcs can be Useful Tools to get around a target audience/message/genre problem--and itās something that doesnāt require likeability at all.
For another, we can take a closer look at the Enemy Of My Enemy archetype, and what I mentioned about the tone of the work playing into how likeable the character is. And ātoneā is a little harder to pin down than, say, target audience or genre (in some cases). And, while the lighter in tone a work is, the more likely it is for the redeemed character to be likeable/forgivable/forgiven, thatās not a hard and fast rule. In a story thatās overall fairly dark in tone, it might be in keeping with the general craptasticness of the world for our New Ally to still kind of suck--or their redemption/Heel Face Turn/journey to becoming a Better Person may be one of the few bright spots in an otherwise gloomy landscape.
The same goes for the Make Them Work For It trope. I mentioned above that I would put both Kallus and Snape in this category, because the focus of their arc is not the moment of defection (which isnāt even shown on-screen for Kallus, though a part of me holds out hope that that might be a plotline in a future season of Andor, lol), but their choices and actions after switching sides. I think these two are particularly interesting to compare and contrast. The works have a similar target audience and some overlapping themes; the characters in question are both double agents/their defection is not immediately known to the heroes and not necessarily trusted for a long time. Their defections even (arguably) have similar roots, in that someone on the other side who they have a personal connection to/some kind of emotional kinship with puts things into Perspective for them.
But holy crap are the actual arcs different.
Look, I grew up on HP, and in all honesty, Snape was probably a formative experience in terms of my attachment to double agents and defectors. I admit that. But he is not a good person, and he never really becomes one. Whether or not he is likeable is a matter of personal preference/reading/taste, but he isnāt (necessarily) set up or intended to be. And thatās sort of a throughline within the overall HP story in general, which Iāve written about before. Thereās a line in GoF, āThe world isnāt divided into good people and Death Eaters;ā which in the broader context of the work tends to boil down to ājust because someoneās not working with the Big Bad, that doesnāt mean theyāre on your side; and just because theyāre on your side, it doesnāt mean theyāre a Good Person.ā With regard to Snape specifically, while there are a few lines he wonāt cross and things that genuinely affect him beyond āthis is the life and duty Iāve chosenā (thereās one scene in CoS that stands out to me in particular; the way his reactions are described when the teachers are discussing Ginny being taken into the Chamber), it doesnāt really show through except in extreme moments. Most of the time, heās a petty asshole at best.
Kallus, on the other hand, even in scenes where heās focused on maintaining his cover, tries to stick to his new principles/ethics wherever he can, as far as he can, without jeopardizing his mission. See his first scene in S3, where he raises the question of excessive force/civilian casualties in a meeting with his superiors. Is he still kind of a jerk sometimes? Sure, heās got a stick up his ass the size of Jupiter and a sarcastic streak a mile wide, but he still earns at minimum the respect and appreciation of his new allies, even if between his prior history and slightly grating personality he doesnāt necessarily become closeĀ friends with any of themĀ except Zeb--but the fact that he generally does in fic is plausible in a way that it really isnāt for Snape.
(And, I mean, fanfic is fanfic, plausibility/canon compliance isnāt always the goal, but you get what I mean, right?)
Because, like, whether or not Kallus actually does make it to Likeable or A Good Person is still very much a personal decision for the viewer. But when the narrative casts him in that light, and gives him and Zeb a happy ending together, it doesnāt feel as disjointed as Harry honoring Snape by naming a child after him.
Sort of related to that last point, and because this is related to the One Good Deed archetype and thatās often tied to Redemption Equals Death--Snapeās death fits both his personal storyline and the overall narrative; partly in him doing what heās been doing all along, for good or ill, as the guardian of key intelligence that will change the game; thereās probably also something about the sacrifice of his entire generation over the course of the two wars, but Iām no longer invested enough in this fandom to try and tease that essay out.
In contrast, while Kallus dying wouldnāt necessarily be out of place in his character arc in and of itself, his survival (and happy ending, with Zeb, as opposed to being imprisoned or something for his acts prior to his defection) is more tonally consistent with what is, in general, a much more optimistic story. Also, it would feel like aā¦distraction is not the right word, but in the context of Kanan and Ezraās respective sacrifices, Kallus dying would not fit. And the other point where his death could have fit his character arc--at the end of season three, when heās exposed--would, again, conflict with the overall tone of both that episode and the series as a whole.
In both cases, how that relates to the characterās likeability/whether or not heās Done Enough to be Redeemed is still, at least in part, a personal decision on the part of the viewer, but the writing and story structure are way more ambiguous in Snapeās case, and generally pointing towards āyesā in Kallusā case. And this is down to some of those factors I mentioned before--the tone of the story, the broader themes of the work and how the redemption arc plays into them, etc.
At this point, I want to tangent off and go into some more detail about another pair of examples, this time from the same story. And that story would be the bastion of Moral Complexity that is the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. Before we go any further, there are a lot of content/trigger warnings for this series; the relevant ones here are genocide, intimate partner abuse, and dubcon.
There are...many, many characters I could talk about who are relevant to this essay. For redemption arcs, forā¦uhā¦anti-redemption arcs(?) where former heroes slide into villainy, for characters who vacillate a lot over the course of the series, for likeable and/or nuanced villains, for heroes who are reprehensible (or at least do reprehensible things)ā¦
But in the interests of having some clear comparisons and possibly getting to an actual Point somewhere along the line, Iām going to focus in on Gaius Baltar and Caprica-Six.
(First, a disclaimer: these two and their relationship are, if not my favorite parts of the series, certainly up there; my biases on this subject will probably color my arguments here.)
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the series (since it is...yeesh, the finale aired more than ten years ago now???), the general premise is that there are two groups* of sentient beings in this universe: humans and Cylons. Humans are, well, humans. Cylons were initially created by humans as robots with advanced AI, intended to be soldiers/servants/etc. Predictably, the Cylons rebelled, there was a war which ended in an armistice, the Cylons choosing to retreat away from human space (the twelve colonies of Kobol) to find their own homeworld.
Forty-some years later, they return and launch a devastating nuclear attack on the Colonial (human) worlds. Of the prior population of roughly 50 billion, about 50,000 survive, and flee the Colonies, looking for Earth for religious/mythological reasons that are a key driving factor in the series but not super important to this essay. The Cylons pursue, and the plot is driven both by that conflict and by internal conflicts within the surviving human population (and, later, some internal conflicts among the Cylons; like I said, bastion of moral complexity).
Caprica is a Cylon; her mission was to infiltrate the colonies, and gain access to their defense mainframe to enable the attack. Baltar is a human scientist, and the man she seduces and uses to gain that access. Her mission was a success, he granted her the access she needed, and then came the genocide.
I do want to note here that, up until the attack, there was no way to know Caprica was a Cylon--the last the humans had seen them, they were Very ObviouslyĀ Robots, rather than the nearly-indistinguishable humanlike versions. The models that fall into this category (called āskinjobsā by humans fighting them) are a new thing*. This series is I believe the Trope Namer for āThey Look Like Us Now.ā
This obviously doesnāt change the fact that what Baltar did was absolutely wrong and a breach of trust and he is responsible for the consequences of his choices, but he didnāt know Caprica was a Cylon until she told him, after the bombs started falling; based on his other choices/behavior/etc., if heād known the stakes she was playing for, while he probably wouldnāt have turned her in or anything, he almost certainly would not have helped her, no matter how hard heād fallen for her. (As compared to, say, Anakin Skywalker, who knew full well the damage he was doing and decided his love was worth it.)
And Baltar had fallen for Caprica in a big way. He is stupid in love with this woman and, as is often the case in such storylines, she got caught in her own honey trap and fell just as deeply in love with him.
By the end of the series, after going through A Lot of shit both together and separately, Gaius and Caprica are reunited and survive to build a new life together. Each of them goes through a Redemption Arc, primarily rooted in Make Them Work For It. Each of them is also haunted by a ghost/angel/demon/?????? that only they can see, and that takes the shape/face of the other, though doesnāt necessarily act the same. Head!Six and Head!Baltar serve as major catalysts for their development/arcs along the way.
Also, despite Baltar being a selfish prick and Caprica being pretty mission-oriented (while she has a Mission, anyway, self-imposed or otherwise), throughout the series, they both show moments of profound compassion that stand out against that general background; children in particular bring out the best in Baltar, and Iāll get into Capricaās arc in a minute. Now, thereās a huge element of out-of-sight-out-of-mind in Baltarās mental math, whereas Caprica is better able to take a broader view, but he stillā¦thereās a moment, in season four, where he in all seriousness offers his life in exchange for someone elseās. And that is a huge moment for him, both in terms of where his mental state is at in that moment and his generalā¦likeā¦heās a coward; he almost always takes the easy path, the one that will preserve his own safety/position. He doesnāt like hurting other people or wantĀ to hurt other people (at least on an individual/immediate level; like I said, out-of-sight-out-of-mind is a Problem for him for most of the series) and if at all possible he avoids it (i.e., thereās a bit in the miniseries, with the old woman and the lottery for getting onto Boomerās Raptor to escape the Colonies, where he probably could have gotten away with lying and switching their tickets and leaving her to a pretty awful death to save his own skin, and he doesnāt even try). But thereās a huge difference between that and volunteering himself/stepping into the line of fire, rather than already being there and stepping back to allow someone else a chance, too. Takes him awhile to get there, but he does. Like I said with the One Good Deed types, thereās a sparkĀ there.
They also bothā¦like, both of them also commit one-on-one murders, so to speak, over the course of the series. Capricaās introductory scene actually involves one (that I will Not go into detail about because itās Upsetting); Baltarās first murder comes early in season two. Whatās interesting about these deaths is that, in both cases, the murder is motivated by a sort of kindness? (Although tinged with desperation in Baltarās case.) But, like. Caprica kills her victim to spare them the horror of dying in the attack she knows is coming; itās an act of mercy. Baltar shoots someone who has a gun on someone elseās head, and is trying to force her into what would essentially be a suicide mission after she froze (and, yes, thereās an element of self-preservation there too because Cally wasnāt the only person Crashdown was putting at risk, just the one who had the actual gun in her face; but still, some part of his mental math was ākeep this girl from getting shotā).
So, thatās where they start, and how their respective redemption arcs are rooted in a very similar place. But, as with Kallus and Snape, despite those similarities (in this case, the very act they need to redeem themselves for), the way those arcs play out is very different.
In short, Capricaās arc is much smoother than Baltarās.
And before I get into the actual meat of the arcs themselves, I want to take a step back and talk about some reasons as toĀ why that is, from a writing/storytelling perspective, because I think there are a couple different possibilities.
First, just in terms of narrative structure as a whole.
Baltar is a main character. His arc, by nature of him being more in focus and also Rule of Drama, is going to be more complicated.
Caprica, although she is the (physical) Six with the most development and screentime, is still more or less a supporting character. After the miniseries, she doesnāt appear until the end of season two, and while sheās around pretty consistently after that, sheās not a focal point in the same way he is.
Second, we go back to the āwhat is the Narrative Point of this arcā question.
Capricaās primary role in the story is to regret the attack and her part in it, and serve as a catalyst for a peace and reconciliation movement among her people. In that, she sort of crosses over into the Face Of The Enemy archetype (in that she, along with Athena, and, in slightly different ways, Gina and Boomer, serves as a way to, for lack of a better word, humanize the Cylons). Thereās also some Symbolic stuff with the Head!People and the Opera House mixed in, but even including those factors I would argue that her mainĀ role is still to bring the Cylons to a point of reconciliation.
Baltarās story, on the other hand, pretty much is his redemption arc; one major aspect of his role in the overall narrative is about regret and shame and forgiveness and what you have to do to earn it. Among other things, some of which are Symbolic (Head!People and Opera House, etc.) and some of which are Literal, but most of which are not relevant to this essay and are in fact essays of their own.
And third, thereās somethingā¦visceral and emotional and horrifying about the idea of a traitor, even an unwitting one, as opposed to an outside enemy agent, even an infiltrator. Especially when the scale of the destruction is just...unfathomable. And that almost certainly plays into how these arcs play out.
So, to jump back to the overall Theme of this essay which I swear existed at some point...where does forgiveness come into this? Where does likeability come into this? Because Caprica is definitely more likeable than Baltar. And some of that, again, comes down to the narrative structure of their arcs.
Thereās not actually a whole lot established about Capricaās personality during the miniseries--thereās the mercy kill, thereās her relationship with Baltar, thereās her confession about what she did. There were any number of ways to build on that, when bringing her back into the story, depending on what role they want her to play.
And so, given the arc she doesĀ have, from the moment Caprica reappears, in order for us to buy into what sheās doing, to buy into her as a Good Guy Now, she has to be likeable. We have to emphasize the sweeter parts of her personality, show why she regrets what she did and wants better for her people, and for humanity, too. Show the softness underneath what we saw in the miniseries, and show it right away, in ways the audience canāt ignore. And also, put a lot of focus in her first episode of the series proper on her reactions to how her role in the attack is discussed. Both by her fellow Cylons (who view her as a Hero), and by Head!Baltar (who repeatedly reminds her of the cost of her actions).
I do also have to point out that, once she makes her decision/Heel Face Turn, she sticks to it. Her choices are, while not always the correct ones (all too often they areĀ very wrong), definitely well-intentioned and her thought process behind them is documented as such. She doesnāt backslide much if at all, she is consistently a voice for peace and mercy and reconciliation, even when her initial ally in that cause starts to have second thoughts. ((ETA: having rewatched the first half of season 3 since writing this essay; this isnāt 100% accurate--after the attempt at reconciliation predictably goes Very Very Bad, she does waver a bit, but sheās still pretty clearly and consistently positioned as wanting some kind of peaceful ending rather than pursuing continued violence/war with humanity. Even when sheās in a position to think that they might haveĀ to resume hostilities--that they have been attacked with a bioweapon--everything about the situation clearly upsets her and she does not want any of this.))
That being said, after Downloaded, that part of her history (i.e., her role in the attack) isā¦not ignored, exactly, but it doesnāt really get discussed or focused on as much, to the best of my recollection (I admittedly havenāt done a full rewatch yet; Iām not allowed to until I finish a fic project for another fandom, haha). She does get some backlash later, but itās more related to her Being A Cylon in general, rather than anything she herself as an individual specifically did (again, as far as I remember). Basically, IIRC, itās as if the narrative, having established and taken as a point of fact that She Is Going To Be Redeemed/We Like Her Now, quietly de-emphasizes the fact that she, knowingly and deliberately, used a man she claimed (and came) to love to slaughter billions of people.
(And I emphasize both the personal betrayal and the genocide for a reason, but Iāll get to that in a minute.)
And then you have Baltar. While he does immediately and genuinely regret what he did, a lot of his focus, especially at first, is self-preservation. Both emotionally and legally/physically. Heās a selfish bastard and a lot of his character development comes from learning how not to be. And he backslides, frequently. And his role in the attack, while not always exactly focal, is always in the background and a Constant Presence around him, in a way that Capricaās isnāt. Even if the full truth about what he did mostly remains secret from the rest of the cast, he (and the audience) is never allowed to forget. And so his guilt, his shame, and his frantic denial/blame-shifting to avoid confronting what he did drive a significant chunk of his choices, especially during the first two seasons (thereās some other Stuff that happens later).
Also, I mentioned Head!Baltar pointedly snarking Caprica earlier; Head!Six usesā¦different tactics with Baltar. Like, slamming his face into a mirror different. She has a great line at one point; āJust remember I have your heart--and I can rip it out of your chest if I need to.ā That...pretty much sums up their relationship right there, which just makes the moments where sheās affectionate and almost kind superĀ unsettling.
And, okay, some of that might be a reflection of his subconscious desire to be punished for what he did, even if he canāt face it head-on. Itās also pretty telling that, the few times he does directly address it, even at almost the end of the series, itās pretty clear that he hasnāt forgiven himself.
But itās still. Itās a Thing.
So, thatās where things stand in terms of their roles in the attack on the Colonies. To reiterate: she knew what she was doing and acted with intent, he had no idea what she was and facilitated the destruction of his people by accident/because he did not think it through; the ways they respond to their guilt areā¦well, Capricaās are a lot neater/more palatable/more likeable than Baltarās, but that at least in part reflects their respective roles in the story.
But now letās talk about their personal relationship because. Hoo boy. Are there Essays I could write about these two.
(Again, I want to reiterate that I love them and I want them to be happy; when they get their happy ending in the series, it feels earned and it fits where they stand at that point. ā¦actually, if we ignore the coda,Ā I would argue that pretty mostĀ of the endings we see in Daybreak fit the applicable characters and their story arcs with a couple of exceptions, but thatās another essay for another day.)
Anyway. Back on topic.
A lot of their initial relationship was based on a lie, Capricaās lie as to who she was and what she was doing. But still, they were together for close to two years, and they didĀ fall in love. And then the way she used him and broke him isā¦I mean, itās obviously a small thing next to the actual genocide, but itās not nothing, either.
And then they reunite, a little less than two years later. Baltar is now President of the Colonies (in what was a spectacularly bad decision on everyoneās part, including his); Capricaās faction has won out in terms of internal Cylon politics (at least for the moment); the Cylons come to a planet where the human survivors have settled (New Caprica), ostensibly to attempt a reconciliation and alliance.
This. Uh. Does not go well. For anyone involved.
Baltar surrenders, and spends the next four months as basically a puppet for the Cylon regime, which very quickly devolves into a brutal occupation; heās arguably a prisoner in all but name, with the polite fiction that heās a free man/head of an independent government; even as he and Caprica attempt to pick up the pieces of their personal romantic relationship.
Which then leads to theā¦Situation with DāAnna. After New Caprica, heās a more literal prisoner on a Cylon Basestar, and he ends up...he basically survives being tortured by DāAnna (another Cylon), by having mind-sex with Head!Six and in so doing kind of accidentally seducing DāAnna (itā¦ā¦it actually does kind of make sense in context? Itās all kinds of fucked-up but it does make sense. Kind of).
Initially, the three of them have a sort of poly/triad relationship, but for various Arc Plot/etc. reasons, Baltar starts gravitating towards DāAnna and sort ofā¦doesnāt exactly dump Caprica, but does pull away from her pretty definitively and abruptly.
(NB: DāAnna is far from the first other woman heās slept with, either while they were together before the attack or during the years they were separated. Canāt really talk about the pitfalls in their personal relationship without talking about Baltar beingā¦uhā¦letās just say it would be easier to list the women he doesnāt sleep with. He likes sex, he seems to be good at it, and he certainly has it with any woman whoās interested. To put things in perspective, I made a Cylon pairing mix ages ago (i.e., a playlist with a song for every canonical pairing that involved at least one Cylon, except for three that the person I made it for specifically requested I leave out for squick reasons) and this dude, who might I remind you is not a Cylon, was the individual who appeared most frequently on it. The man is a slut, thereās no way around it. But he also never claims not to be? And itās also unclear whether or not their pre-Fall relationship was supposed to be Exclusive, especially when there is sort of a line drawn between Casual Sex and Love/a Relationship, though Head!Six is technically the one to draw it. Besides, DāAnna is the only other lover/rival Caprica actually seems to care about (apart from a later dig about not wanting to join his harem, but Iāll get to that in a bit), probably because sheās the only one who really came between them.)
Anyway. Part of what heās doing here, with DāAnna, is a) trying to survive and/or b) find some sort of meaning and/or stability in his life (again, the Arc Plot and what he and DāAnna are doing there is a major factor in their relationship), and itās not likeā¦itās kind of hard for me, personally, to judge his choices with regard to his relationship with DāAnna in and of itself, just because of the context (heās her prisoner, the initial seduction was to get her to stop torturing him, etc.). But at the same time, he does handle the situation in his typical selfish, thoughtless fashion and in pretty much the most hurtful way possible, as far as Caprica is concerned. I also canāt really judge her for being hurt and pissed at him for how things went down.
And then the two of them end up getting captured by the human fleet, which leads to the whole bit where Caprica almost ends up agreeing to be a witness for the prosecution in his treason trial, but is talked out of it because some part of her does still love him, even if sheās Not Happy with him right now (Interestingly, Head!Baltar isĀ still hanging around, which might or might not indicate something about her deeper feelings). (Also, I should note that the trial is not actually related to the initial attack; this is all about stuff on New Caprica during the occupation, which is its own special kind of fucked-up andā¦honestly, this entire debate about likeability vs. forgiveness vs. redemption is one of the focuses of the trial arc, and while Iām not actually going to go into further detail right now, itās actually part of why I chose to talk about these two for this essay, because it is in fact the reason he gets acquitted--because heās being transparently used as a scapegoat because heās Not Super Likeable while other people who have done things at least as bad as what heās currently being accused of have been forgiven out of necessity. The full text of the speech in question is kind of amazing**).
Anyway, after the trial arc, Caprica ends up involved with someone else for a while (while Baltar sort of accidentally acquires a cult/founds a religion/sleeps with a handful of other women ā¦okay that last one wasnāt accidental āI donāt understand did you trip?ā /obligatory West Wing joke). Anyway, uh, Capricaās new relationship ends when her new partnerās wife returns after being presumed dead for a couple years and he goes back to her, along with some associated Hardcore Cylon Drama.
At that point, and thereās no way around it,Ā Baltar fucks up royally, in that has terrible timing and basically tries to immediately get back together with her now that heās out of prison and sheās single again and she turns him down (this is where the harem comment comes in). In part because the way he goes about it was extremely insensitive, in part becauseā¦well, she hasnāt had much/any contact with him for the last like year or more (though sheās certainly heard about what heās up to; heās a Known Figure and people Talk About Him and also he just sort of...keeps doing things that draw attention, some of which is Head!Sixās fault and some of which is on him), and given that his character arc is So Much Messier than hers, she assumes heās still nowhere near the point where sheās at on that journey and she Canāt Deal With him until he is. She needs/wants more from him than she thinks heās capable of giving her at this point. And sheāsā¦both wrong and not wrong about where he stands, so to speak; heās closer than she thinks but still has some processing/choices to make before heās Solid.
But then he volunteers to join the Final Battle as a foot soldier, essentially--and he does it at the last minute, with no witnesses, rather than when the public call for volunteers goes out--and they have a Moment while theyāre getting into position and waiting for things to start, and over the course of...like...fifteen seconds of dialogue, realize theyāre now finally on the same page for the first time, like, ever; they share a kiss andā¦after that, I donāt think they appear separately for the entire last two episodes of the series? ā¦no, wait, thereās that one bit with him and Adama and Cottle and I forget who else thereās like five people there after they land, I donāt think sheās there for that. But other than that, theyāre basically inseparable until they walk off together, having reached the end of their arcs as maybe still not good people, but at least people who earned their peace and happiness and ending with their soulmate in the end.
...youĀ know, Iām not normally into Soulmate AUs, but I actually kind of think in the context of BSG, especially with multiple Cylon copies, it could be Interesting??? ā¦uh, anyway, tangent aside
Anyway, now that Iāve summarized everything, hereās what sticks out to me, through all this personal Drama between the two of them:
Itās very similar to their arcs with regard to atonement for their roles in the destruction of the Colonies. Meaning, thereās a huge emphasis on how Baltar has to earn forgiveness; and any wrongs Caprica commits are quietly de-emphasized.
Like. Donāt get me wrong. Baltar is kind of a shitty boyfriend, even allowing for some of the extreme external circumstances shaping their relationship (especially during Season 3). (Although I would argue that heās not actually theĀ shittiest boyfriend on the show but thatās another essay for another time, lol.)Ā And Caprica absolutely does need to forgive him for the ways he hurt her, and he does need to do some serious work on himself to get to a point where she can. I am not in any way trying to deny that.
But also--she doesnāt exactly have the moral high ground here. She manipulated him into destroying his entire civilization (no, she didnāt force his hand, and yes, while he didnāt know her actual reason, he didĀ know that at least part of why she had approached him was to gain access to the defense mainframe,Ā but she did put him in that position while claiming to love him and thatāsā¦not an easy thing to get past); when their relationship picked up on New Caprica, she was the only person he could turn to for any kind of positive contact (and he was also kind of a prisoner); he was a somewhat more literal prisoner for six months while their relationship briefly lapsed and then resumed (with the addition of the whole DāAnna situation)ā¦
Honestly? The question of whether or not he can/should forgive her for the ways she hurt him is not an invalid one. And yet it never really comes up. For all the denial and blame-shifting and mental gymnastics he does to avoid confronting his own guilt (and this dude is like the reigning champion Olympic gold medalist in mental gymnastics lol), he never once blames her? The one person he arguably could shift blame to? He tries to find ways to justify his actions/deny his responsibility by pinning it on the Universe or God or whatever (ānobody blames the floodā), but never on her.
Some of it is probably likeā¦the enormity of what happened. How can you blame one single person for all of that destruction? Big problems need big answers, and the Universe or God is maybe big enough to wrap around that tragedy.
Some of it is actually down to personality, I think. Because, while Baltar absolutely does get pissed at people, and will definitely make snap decisions out of Spite and then stick to them when he cools off rather than swallowing his pride and backing down (which explains...like...75% of career in politics lol), he doesnātā¦really hold grudges or stay mad? Not at anyone, no matter how much cause they give him. For example, even when he reconnects with DāAnna a year or so after everything went down, thereās no trace of resentment or lingering hard feelings on his part. (Like I said a while back, both he and Caprica have their moments, and his ability to forgive a lot is one of his better traits.)
And, you know, some of it is because she does have a faster/smoother journey in terms of working on herself than he does, so thereās never really a time where heās in a position where he can hold out and wait for her to earn his forgiveness, because what could she do that she hasnāt already done? Especially given where heās sitting at any given moment. (The exception being their first reunion, where he canāt ask that of her for other/unrelated reasons.)
Some of it is also the way her crimes are inextricably bound up with his; in order to condemn her heād have to face up to his role in it; and he canāt do that. Heās too deep in his denial.
Some of it also probably goes back to Head!Six, and the way his relationship with her works. Her combination of dominating and abusing him and breaking him down, along with building up his ego as an Instrument of God; he loves her and heās terrified of her and she doesnāt really leave him room in his head to blame the woman whose face she borrowed to manipulate him in her turn.
And a lot of it is justā¦he loves her. Despite everything sheās done, he loves her. My personal belief/headcanon/what have you is that him forgiving her goes without saying. In order to blame her, heād have to stop loving her, and thatās something he canāt do. Even in the moments where he gets past his own denial and can face what actually happened. What they did.
After all of that, I donāt know that I have any kind of intelligent Conclusion to make here, because I think both of their journeys are fulfilling and, like I said, I think they earned their happy ending together, in the end. Other than thatā¦well, hereās an Example of how these types of narrative tools can actually be used,Ā and in fact the same redemption archetype, starting forward from the same (or at least a very similar) point, can be used in very different ways. And while likeability/forgiveness is certainly a factor in what happens, itās definitely not the only thing in play, or even necessarily the most important.
So, now that weāve looked at different types of redemption arcs, and gone into some depth with a couple of relevant examples--where does that leave us, with this question of redemption and likeability and forgiveness, and how they relate to one another?
Again, I have to say...I donāt know, lol. Itās a complicated question, and a lot of it is personal taste and personal ethics. And, to a point, what the creators are trying to do or say/how the character/storyline is framed. ...and also how successful the creators/writers are at pulling it off; canāt leave out the fact that some of these (especially Hero In Waiting), if badly written, can backfire hard.
But if we look at the different kinds of redemption arcs, and the characters who embody them, in different contexts and different media, reducing it down to āa redemption arc is only Real/Effective if it goes All The Way into a Hero In Waiting typeā isā¦closing off a lot of story possibilities. And ignoring the narrative value in a more uneven arc, or even in an otherwise Evil person having one shining moment where they do the right thing.
Itās true, that itās easier to forgive someone and declare them Redeemed if theyāre likeable. If theyāre set up from the beginning as a Hero In Waiting; or if theyāre one of the lighter/softer/more optimistic variants of an Enemy Of My Enemy/Face Of The Enemy/even Make Them Work For It. But these three concepts--forgiveness, likeability, redemption--while related, are not synonyms. You donāt need all three to have a successful, compelling arc where someone makes better choices and turns to the light.
Even if itās just one choice. Even if itās just for one moment. Thatās still a story worth telling.
*This is, of course, Ignoring some later Reveals and some of the wacky mythology surrounding the Head!People for the sake of āthis essay is really frakking long already and most of that isnāt super relevant to the topic at handā
**For reference, the quote:
āDid the defendant make mistakes? Sure, he did. Serious mistakes. But did he actually commit any crimes? Did he commit treason? No. I mean, it was an impossible situation. When the Cylons arrived, what could he possibly do? What could anyone have done? I mean, ask yourself, what would you have done? What would you have done? If he had refused to surrender, the Cylons wouldāve probably nuked the planet right then and there. So did he appear to cooperate with the Cylons? Sure. So did hundreds of others. Whatās the difference between him and them? The President issued a blanket pardon. They were all forgiven. No questions asked. Colonel Tigh. Colonel Tigh used suicide bombers, killed dozens of people. Forgiven. Lieutenant Agathon and Chief Tyrol. They murdered an officer on the Pegasus. Forgiven. The Admiral? The Admiral instituted a military coup dāetat against the President. Forgiven. And me? Well, where do I begin? I shot down a civilian passenger ship, the Olympic Carrier. Over a thousand people on board. Forgiven. I raised my weapon to a superior officer, committed an act of mutiny. Forgiven. And then on the very day when Baltar surrendered to those Cylons, I, as Commander of Pegasus, jumped away. I left everyone on that planet alone, undefended, for months! I even tried to persuade the Admiral never to return. To abandon you all there for good. If Iād had my way, nobody wouldāve made it off that planet. Iām the coward. Iām the traitor. Iām forgiven. Iād say weāre very forgiving of mistakes. We make our own laws now, our own justice. Weāve been pretty creative at finding ways to let people off the hook for everything from theft to murder. And weāve had to be. Becauseā¦because weāre not a civilization anymore. We are a gang. And weāre on the run. And we have to fight to survive. We have to break rules. We have to bend laws. We have to improvise. But not this time, no. Not for Gaius Baltar. No. You, you have to die. You have to die, becauseā¦well, because we donāt like you very much. Because youāre arrogant. Because youāre weak. Because youāre a coward. And we the mob, we want to throw you out the airlock because you didnāt stand up to the Cylons, and get yourself killed in the process. Thatās justice now. You shouldāve been killed back on New Caprica, but since you had the temerity to live, weāre gonna execute you now. Thatās justice! [ā¦] This caseā¦this case is built on emotion, on anger, bitterness, vengeance. But most of all, it is built on shame. Itās about the shame of what we did to ourselves back on that planet. And itās about the guilt of those of us who ran away. Who ran away. And we are trying to dump all that guilt and all that shame onto one man, and then flush him out the airlock and hope that that just gets rid of it all. So that we can live with ourselves. But that wonāt work. That wonāt work. Thatās not justice. Not to me. Not to me.ā
Note: this is actually an essay I wrote a while back but never got around to posting; I am doing so now because there was a conversation on discord about classical music and my feelings about this particular episode came up.
As I discuss in greater detail behind the cut, I love this show a lot and my criticisms are mostly meant lovingly; and if theyāre going to do an Orchestra Con Scheherazade is just. Too Thematically Perfect to notĀ use (plus I love it so getting to hear it in one of my favorite shows was a plus).Ā But. This episode, man.
So, letās talk Leverage for a minute.
Overall, Leverage is an absolutely amazing TV show that I genuinely recommend everyone watch, especially if theyāre into capers and/or found family tropes. The main and recurring characters are all great and Iām really, really excitedĀ by everything Iāve heard re: Leverage 2.0 which I havenāt gotten around to watching yet, alas. I donāt spend a whole lot of time in the fandom (in part because Iām one of, like, two people who doesnāt ship the OT3) but what little Iāve dabbled in has also been pretty great/pretty chill. All around, itās a Good Experience that I recommend everyone at least try.
Anyway. Uh. That being said, while Leverage is pretty close to perfect as far as TV shows go, and the episode quality is generally pretty even throughout all five seasons, there are a handful of episodes I donāt particularly enjoy. Two of them because they freak me out (the Grave Peril job and then the one with the creepy experimenting on homeless people); one of them just because itās a very specific parody of a show/style of humor that I simply do not Vibe with (the Office job)ā¦a few others for reasons I canāt recall off the top of my head but I tend to skip past unless Iām doing a Dedicated Rewatch. Thereās also an episode that I adore even if it doesnāt quite feel like a Leverage episode exactly (the 1940s one). And, obviously, the bulk of the episodes are on a sliding scale of ādecentā to āI LOVEā depending on the mark/the specifics of the con/which if any recurring side characters show up/etc.
But there is one other episode. That I really, really want to love. Because so much of it is Great. Nate being creepy, Hardison being awesome, a really cool vault for Parker to break intoā¦
Iām talking about the Scheherazade job.
And I really, really do want to love it.
But it just. There are so many details. That are Wrong.
(is this how medical professionals feel when they watch hospital dramas lol)
Uh, some background.
I am a certified Orch Dork (which. Uh. Was that even a term outside of my high school???) My immediate family is heavily involved with classical music. My father is a published composer (some of his work premiered in the 80s) and taught music theory and composition at the university level before moving into music education advocacy. My mother, before retiring, was a freelance musician and also played in a major symphony orchestra for something like fifteen years, as well as maintaining a private studio and teaching at the university level. My sister went to a conservatory, and is now working as a music therapist, supplemented with teaching and (in the before times) freelance work. As for myself, I started playing piano and violin (and later viola) when I was a Very Smol Shadowsong; I was in school and youth orchestras for a good 8-10 years, through the end of high school/first year or two of college. I also did choir/voice lessons for several years, but thatās less relevant.
I have, in fact, played Scheherazade. Not the solo part (I was never that good), but I have played this piece.
My point is. I know what Iām talking about here. And. Ffffffffff, I really, really want to like this episode!
But that is not how any of this works!
Like. Okay. First of all, Scheherazade isnāt really the type of piece a guest soloist comes in for. Thatās done for concertos, primarily (there are a few other cases, but theyāre Specific Pieces (i.e., Beethovenās 9th symphony which has a choir and vocal soloists) and/or pops concerts which are a whole different animal). Among other things, you might have issues with the union over this? Iām not sure of all the details that go into those contracts, but the thought does occur.
But, whatever, that gets handwaved because this is propaganda/the markās vanity project. If that was the only problem, it would fall neatly under suspension of disbelief and Iād roll my eyes and move on.
Second of all, that is. Really not how orchestra rehearsals are run??? Also, was Hardison only on that one piece, or was he concertmaster for the rest of the performance, too? Was the concert only Scheherazade? Because thatās really short for a professional orchestra. Yes, itās a long, multi-movement piece; about 45-50 minutes, butā¦likeā¦thatās one half of a concert. Most concerts, at least the ones Iāve been to, have a short work (an overture or something) and then a long work (a symphony, a suite, a concerto, a symphonic poem like this one), an intermission, and then a second half with a similar makeup. Maybe an encore. There are exceptions, of course, especially when doing, like, a Themed Week (and pops concerts, but, again, those are a whole different animal).
But, like, you see my point, right? Unless Hardison was only joining the orchestra for Scheherazade, and their regular concertmaster was resuming their position for the rest of the concert (which would be super weird; Scheherazade isnāt a concerto and, again, you donāt usually bring in a guest star like this butāwell, like I said before, propaganda/vanity project, we can handwave that), then he also needs to rehearse all the other pieces on the program, too. Plus, like, even if he wasnāt, the conductor and the rest of the orchestra (ā¦mainly the conductor; orchestras are not democracies lol) are going to need/want to at least run through the piece once or twice with him, to make sure tempos are correct, balance is correct, everyoneās following along correctly, etc. Especially sinceāwell, Iāll get to that later, when I talk about the piece itself.
Tl;dr: walking out of the rehearsal like that just because he obviously knows his part and he doesnāt need to rehearse? Not A Thing That Would Happen.
Third! The orchestra, as itās shown, is not the correct instrumentation for Scheherazade. And, like, fudging it is a thing that happens when orchestras are worked into TV shows because Reasons butā¦likeā¦there are some Very Key Instruments that are missing from that stage. Like, for example, thereās no harp. Why is that important?
Well, that brings me to point the fourth: that is not how Scheherazade works! The whole piece of music that the con is built around! Does. Not. Work. Like. That.
Yes, the concertmaster is featuredābut theyāre featured throughout, sort of āplayingā Scheherazade in interludes between the movements/an introduction at the beginning/etc. (Like. I just double-checked, and there are at least three in the first movement alone.) It isnāt one big solo at the end. In fact, the one at the end is one of the simpler/easier ones.
Also? The violinist isnāt the only soloist. Remember what I said earlier, about the mysterious invisible harp? About how Hardison ditching rehearsal really does not make sense? The first concertmaster solo is basically a shared/duet cadenza between the concertmaster and the harpist! Iām pretty sure some of the others are like that, too! And, like, yes, a good harpist will be able to follow along regardless of what weird-ass shit the concertmaster pulls but doing that for the first time in the actual performance is. Well. Bonkers. And Does Not Happen. (Barring, like, either the concertmaster or the harpist getting into a car accident on the way to the concert hall and someone has to fill in, I guess, but thatās obviously not the case here so. Like. You see my point???)
Thereās also a pretty significant featured part for the principal cello, and I want to say one of the horns, and one of the windsāmaybe bassoon or clarinet? Itās been a while. But my point is, while the concertmaster stands in for Scheherazade and it is a hugely featured/famous violin part/at least one of those cadenzas will Probably be on at least one orchestra audition (not a guarantee, but theyāre Common), a) they are not the only soloist; and b) they have solos throughout the piece.
(Also, much pettier detail, but generally speaking, you donāt stand up for these solos, you stay in your seat and play them. Youāre only standing in front of the orchestra for stuff like concertos. But, again, that could probably be handwaved because vanity project/propaganda/whatever. Little weird, but not, like, on the level of the rest of it.)
ā¦yeah. So. Uh. I really do want to like this episode. And thereās a lot to love in it! The mark/the setup for the con is interesting, the Italian shows up to be pretty and mysterious, thereās a cool vault, and Scheherazade is a gorgeous piece that Iām always happy to hear.
But there are. So many things wrong. With how they do it. That the Orch Dork in me gets cranky, lol.
Okay, yes, I am in this show for Dadalorian and Found Family etc. But I am at leastĀ as invested in the plotline this season about various factions of Mandalorians and their, for lack of a better word, sectarian disputes. Which frequently result in barfights. Because Mandalorians.
(AKA that scene where they picked up Bo and her minion was. A Delight.)
(Also, I love my girl Bo-Katan. Even if sheās very much a blunt instrument/not a politician going at this in all the wrong ways and was Very Rude to Boba but tbh I wasnāt 100% sure she was going to show up in this episode and I wouldāve been Sad if we hadnāt gotten to see them meet. Either here or next season.)
(Still Sad at the lack of Sabine, though :( )
Leaving aside anything re: Gina Caranno (because that has been discussed by people much smarter and better-informed than myself), Iām kind of thrilled that the strike team was Almost Entirely Ladies.
(On that note. Uh. Does anyone else kinda. That little āAnyone else, we can takeā smirk. And I just. Uh. Bo/Fennec, anyone??????)
(I kind of already ship Bo with Ventress tbh but a) multishipping ftw and b) threesome??????)
(Hi Iām shallow sometimes lol)
Anyway moving on.
Also the sound/almost-music when the CylonsĀ Dark Troopers were activating was Excellent I approve.
And that Visual of the one trooper Din set on fire. ...honestly that whole hallway fight sequence was pretty Brilliant.
And the sort of...almost casual layer of the scene in the elevator. Even if these women havenāt worked together before, just that,Ā āsure you donāt need any help with that?āĀ āI got it. Excuse me.ā
And that whole thing where Gideon was trying to Manipulate Din and he was likeĀ ā...dude, I legit just care about the kid. Iāll fight for/with Bo-Katan because sheās pretty badass and I Might As Well plus she gets me what I want but I donāt...actually...Care about her Greater Cause?ā
(Side note, Iāve spent a lot of time writing Bo-Katan/figuring out how her head works and literally allĀ she cares about is Mandalore and its survival. Itās why she broke away from her sister in the first place, and has informed every single thing sheās done since. A lot of why she makes the specific choices she does goes back to the Mandalorian Civil War and her experiences there--especially since all the evidence indicates she was notĀ with Satine and Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon. The way that separation and their different experiences of that conflict probably contributed to the eventual destruction of what seems likely to have been a Very Close Relationship before that is fascinating to me. And the subject of a fic Iāve been working on off and on for a couple years now, lol.)
(...anyway, where I was going with this was--I mean, yes, Gideon knows everything in terms of facts, but he doesnāt always interpret them correctly. IMO, Bo-Katanās desire to rule Mandalore is less about power (for herself) than it is about Mandalore. Especially given some of what she says to Sabine in Rebels--ifĀ there was someone else she genuinely trusted to take the throne and rule her world, sheād be willing to cede her claim and be one of their generals. Especially since sheās very much not a political animal. Sheās an excellent war leader, but not so much in terms of actual Governance.)
(insert long ramble about the Parallels between her and Anakin, which I touched on in one of my fanfics, lol; and will probably do more with in my BB project which involves the two of them and Padme as the main characters)
(And, yeah, she does want to fight Din for the right, but if she thought Din would be a good Duke/King of Mandalore, I think she would seriously considering swearing allegiance to him? Again, witness how she handled things with Sabine. Also she would probs prefer to avoid a third (fourth?) civil war in her lifetime. But, I mean. I love Din but he is. He is not a Leader. Not like her people need.)
(And I think the way things played out with Sabine affects her decisions here, too--she did accept the Darksaber as a gift/tribute then, but proceeded to lose it. Maybe she does need to fight for it the way Maul and Viszla did (presumably; we donāt know how he got the Darksaber; it may be something he inherited/have been held by House Viszla for a while, even if they never used it to dethrone the Kryzes until now).)
(But, then again, I mean, this hasĀ been her life for at least a decade, so...well, maybe she wouldnāt quite step aside. Even if an Absolutely Perfect candidate came along. But WRT Din specifically--given who he is and what heās capable of, while she absolutely wants him in her camp (and on a personal level isnāt super thrilled about having to fight him like this; she seems to genuinely like this kid), my guess is she doesnāt want him ruling. Not without some more actual leadership training/experience. Because, well, heās been either a follower or a loner in everything weāve seen him in, and given Boās opinion of (possibly experience with?) the Watch/the group who raised him, and the fact that heās consistently shown himself to have super-narrow priorities and not really caring about much outside of them...yeah, she probs has some Concerns.)
(Plus, he clearly doesnāt wantĀ it. And you haveĀ to Want It on some level in order to be an effective ruler--that Wanting can be from genuine altruism/wanting to make the world better, like we see with Bail and Padme; it can be from single-minded determination to Make Things Right, like Satine and I would argue Bo-Katan (Leia falls into either the first or second category, depending on the point in her storyline); and it can come from a desire for personal power and advancement (as we see with Pre Viszla and, of course, Skeev Palpatine himself; to be fair, rulers in this third category tend to be bad in other ways lol). But someone who genuinely doesnāt wantĀ power generally kind of Sucks when theyāre unexpectedly handed it. Which I could cite several IRL historical examples of. And, I mean, obviously, this isnāt the onlyĀ factor in play for what makes a good ruler/leader (see above re: Palps and Pre Viszla), but it is a factor.)
(Also, to clarify: none of these are badĀ qualities/traits, necessarily? Like, traits are good or bad depending on whatever context a person/character finds themself in. And in Dinās current context, with his current life and mission--even in situations where he has to coordinate with other groups in the service of a larger goal--these are excellentĀ traits to have. But for someone whoās responsible for an entire nation? Not so much.)
(One could argue that Bo has some Issues there, too, albeit different ones, which is why I think she might be willing to step aside and cede her claim to a Genuinely Good/Better Alternative, if she found one. Sheās a war-leader, not a ruler, and the two jobs require overlapping but different skillsets.)
(..........honestly? I donāt think the show would go there, but I think the two of them as a team/partnership ruling Mandalore would actually be really effective? Either on an equal footing or with one as the Official Ruler and the other as a second-in-command/right-hand. She has the leadership expertise and the actual will and drive to pull this off, and he has the diplomatic skill, as we see with the Tusken Raiders, among others.)
(Not a romanticĀ partnership, lol, that would be Weird, but a political and probably eventually platonically affectionate one. Especially with how Mandalore feels about family of choice/adoption, and the fact that theyāre both kind of alone now (whatever happened to Korkie, anyway??) even if no formalĀ adoption is likely in their case...)
(Anyway. Uh. Long tangent aside...)
(also if thereās anyone who didnātĀ see Gideon trying to decapitate Din when his back was turned...IDEK what you were expecting. Like. I am All About guys like Pellaeon in the Imperial ranks, and the fact that there might be a few people who wouldĀ make that offer/deal and be on the level. To say nothing of my best beloved Alexsandr Kallus. But. Uh. Gideon is. Not one of them.)
(Also, I thought it was a Nice Touch when the spear started turning red--because, no, the Darksaber canāt cut pure beskar. But it doesĀ generate heat, as weāve seen in, say, TPM. And beskar doesĀ melt.)
Also, called it on tossing the Cylons Dark Troopers out the airlock Not Working in the long term.
While itās not Cool or Flashy like a bomb or slicing, the Cylons Dark Troopers pounding the doors down with their goddamn fists was Cool and Terrifying in all the best ways.
Side note--I think even if I hadnāt been spoiled (forgot to mute the spoiler channels on the SW Discords Iām on before going to bed, and checked on autopilot), X-wing + Grogu perking up wouldāve probably clued me in and I wouldāve been SHRIEKING. I was still vibrating super hard even though I knew who was coming, but it probably wouldāve been slightly more XD
(and then a moment of HAHA GIDEON KNOWS WHATāS COMING)
(and so does my girl Bo)
(and then the greenĀ āsaber and the glove and other costume details and IF YA DIDNāT SCREAM BEFORE YOU SURE ARE NOW!!!!)
(Kind of cool that they waited until the last minute before showing his actual face though)
NO MY GIRL BO-KATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(IF YOU DIE WHO WILL GET DRUNK AND SWAP WAR STORIES AND MAYBE HAVE VICTORY SEX WITH FENNEC)
(shut up iām shallow)
(also I love her sheās legit one of my favorite characters in this series I donāt want her to die DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD:)
OH GOOD SHE GOT UP
(yeah that was my actual real-time reaction to her getting shot lol)
āTalent without training is nothing.ā ::insert Obvious/Tired joke about Luke having all of three monthsā training At Best::
(also, I mentioned this in my last quick reaction, as well as elsewhere, but Iām...still kind of uncomfortable with the continuing implication that the Jedi path is the only option other than Darkness. Not because itās a bad one, either in the PT-era or with Lukeās reconstruction. But the idea that the only way to achieve the mindset/emotional stability/whatever needed to wield the Force without Falling is through adapting the Jedi philosophy sits wrong with me. especially the implication that you can only do so from an early age/in isolation from other influences or bonds; which is a word Iām using very specifically because thereās a difference between Attachment as defined by the Jedi and interpersonal bonds which they clearly have and I donāt want this to get derailed by that particular Discourse(tm) That doesnāt even super hold up on Earth, with a single species, let alone in a galaxy with trillions of beings of multiple different species. Basically, people and the galaxy--and by extension the Force, which is in part created/influenced by living beings--are wayĀ too complicated for there to be only one right answer.)
(Also, it...doesnāt really hold up with the core message of Star Wars, which is about Choice? If the only way you can be a Good Force Adept is by meeting this extremelyĀ narrow set of criteria, most of which are outside your possible control......but I should probably save this for a separate post, lol.)
(The point is, I mentioned earlier in the post how much Iām LOVING the throughline in this season about different factions/sects among Mandalorians, and I think it would be Great if we got more of that with Jedi/Light adepts.)
I...donāt know what I was expecting from the credits but Welp. I wonder who the body double was...
(And before you ask, I didnāt really get the Uncanny Valley effect from Rogue One, not even Tarkin, so.....yeah, I guess I donāt always pick up on that, or it hits me from weird directions, lol. Because I sometimes get that from the Rebels animation, especially in stills/gifsets, because everyoneās faces are all so Smooth...)
.........Jabbaās palace, okay.
.......Bib Fortuna, Okay.
(those fingernails, however, are Not Okay)
YAY RESCUE THE GIRL.
Good on you, Boba, just shooting him in the face instead of letting him posture!
although why you want to rule Tatooine is...okay then.
LOL at Fennec perching on the arm of the chair, sipping her booze all casual-like.
Right! So that was an Experience! Overall, I liked it. Looking forward to how Din and Bo handle things moving forward, in particular! Because, like I said, Iām in this series for Dadalorian (so IDK how Iāll feel with it no longer being the Core Story since Grogu left with Luke) and in this season for the Mandalorian factions/sects and how they interact.
Iām also not sure how I feel about three interconnected series leading up to a Major Finale Event? Disneyās Star Wars has not had a super great track record with giving all the information needed to follow things in the core product (see: the ST worldbuilding lol, and also some of the cameos/appearances in this season, even), so Iām Skeptical of how well theyāll do explaining what is Necessary in each of the three series, in case someone only watches one or two.
things i am learning now that iām finally actually watching avatar the last air bender part one:
1) not everyone is a bender
2) it does appear to be inherent to some extent, because katara seems to be partially self-taught
3) however, there is a learning element, because you can improve on your skills and the avatar has to learn how to master all four elements where i thought aang just had inherent skill
4) the element of the bender seems to always match the element of the tribe theyāre in, which makes sense if they are taught by their tribe but raises some questions if itās inherent. is bending ability passed genetically? what happens if two benders of different elements have a kid? i canāt google this because i donāt want anymore spoilers than i already have
5) uncle iroh is prince zukoās uncle?????????? i thought he was like an earth bender who owned a tea shop this entire fucking time how did i go into this series knowing almost everything but THAT
With regard to bending and heredity, hereās what we know, in descending order (roughly) of There Is Explicit Canon Proof On The Subject (based purely on content within the shows themselves [referred to as AtLA for the original series, and LoK for Legend of Korra]; my knowledge of Word of God/comics/novels canon is patchy, especially for stuff thatās come out since LoK finished airing, which is around when I drifted away from the fandom the first time):
1. The ability to bend in and of itself seems to notĀ be genetic; episode 14 of season 1,Ā āThe Fortuneteller,ā has a pair of identical twins. One is a bender (earthbender, specifically), the other is not. Also, neither of Kataraās parents is a bender (and I believeĀ neither of Tophās is, though I donāt think we have explicit confirmation one way or the other), and at least in LoK we have at least one example of two benders having a nonbender son in Bumi* (I canāt recall any in AtLA off the top of my head but I might be misremembering/we donāt know the parentage of every character). There areĀ also families which seem to be made up exclusively of benders (the Fire royals, for one; plus the Air Nomads, swampbenders, and sandbenders seem to have a much higher proportion of benders vs. nonbenders than other places, if not being All Benders), so maybe itās likelierĀ that a bender will have a bending child than a nonbender, or than a bender having a non-bending child, but even that we canāt say for certain. Also, all of those examples have heavy spirit influence tied to them (the Fire Nation used to be a theocracy until the Fire Lord split off as a secular/hereditary office rather than being the chief Fire Sage; the Air Nomads are just Like That; swampbeders areā¦well, they live in Foggy Bottom Swamp; sandbenders live in close proximity to the spirit library), so that might play a bigger role than genetics.
2. In terms of children of benders of two different elements (or people from different parts of the world), the child(ren) can inherit either element (this is made Explicit in LoK with at least four characters who are the products of such relationshipsāMako, Bolin, Kya, and Tenzin). This doesnāt seem to happen super often, at least prior to the start of AtLA canon, but presumably it has happened at least on occasion throughout historyāpeople travel, and there were definitely at least trading links between the nations before the war, even apart from the Avatar bouncing around.
3. Apart from the Avatar, people can only bend one element, and that is determined from birth (or whenever bending ability becomes apparent, which I donāt think is explicitly defined; Iāve seen everything from āimmediately after birthā to āsometime in early childhood;ā personally, I tend to default to āgenerally a child will start bending between two and seven if they can, with 4-5 being the most common, though some may skew a bit earlier or laterā for fanfic/etc. purposes)**. Also, as mentioned in the original post, it takes training and practice to be able to use these abilities well or effectively, and thereās some variation in how powerful individuals can be, based on both natural/inborn ability or talent and by training/experience/skill/etc. No information on how much of that (i.e., the natural talent/inborn ability side of that equation) is hereditary.
4. As for which element you bend, thatĀ does seem to be largely genetic, in that whichever nation/ethnic group you are from (apparently/as far as we can tell from Super Strict Adherence To Canon) determines the element.
5. However, thereās definitely room to experiment with other options, if you want! There are a variety of other possible ways of determining which element you bend, ranging from āthere are other definable factors besides bloodline that play a role; these factors might, for example, determine whichĀ element is inherited in someone with, say, one firebender parent and one earthbender parentā to āidk lol the spirits thought it would be Funnyā and everything in between. Also,Ā thereās no canon, to the best of my knowledge, regarding what might happen if a characterās great-great-whatever grandparent was from another part of the worldācould that result in, for example, a waterbender cropping up randomly in the middle of the Earth Kingdom, even if everyone exceptĀ this one person who married in over a century ago was either an earthbender or a nonbender from the Earth Kingdom? What about being born somewhere outside your original nation (n.b.: I did not come up with this particular idea; my friend Puck did)? Does having an Avatar somewhere in your bloodline make a difference? Maybe! Thereās no explicitĀ canon reason why not! And it can be Fun to play with these things!
Basically, thereās not a lot of hard canon apart from points 1 through 3 (and there is at least one major/well-known fanfic, Embers, which played with point 3), but superĀ strict canon adherence would probably hold that genetics are what determines what element a person bends, since that seems to track with every bender we see in canon. However, thereās nowhere in canon that specifically says the things I mentioned in point 5 donātĀ play a role, even if theyāre rare/generallyĀ speaking, you know which element a kid is going to bend if they happen to be a bender. So, tl;dr: there is at least some wiggle room, if thatās the way you like to play/if you find worldbuilding and figuring out magic systems Fun the way I do!
*[SPOILERS]: At least prior to the Spirit Shenanigans at the end of S2, but since weāre talking genetics and bending generally starts in infancy/childhood, he still counts for the purposes of this ramble.
**[SPOILERS]: This is based entirely on the world as it functions during the time period of the two relevant series. Look, whatever else is going on with that worldbuilding, regardless of any personal opinions I or any other commentators might have on the subject, the fact of the matter is what was going on in the Wan flashbacks was a very different setup and the lionturtles no longer play an active role in these things, and therefore, doesnāt really apply to a discussion on the heredity of bending for practical purposes once itās justā¦a thing that occurs naturally. Which is what this list is about, so.
Quick response to the most recent Mandalorian episode
Behind a cut because Spoilers, just a general list of things I Liked; have Minor/Petty Issues with; Disliked/have Concerns about; and have Complicated Feelings about.
Things I Liked:
- Yay Ahsoka!!!
- The way the confrontation between Din and Lang played out.
- The Magistrate was pretty cool.
- That one citizen guy.
- The general plot of the episode.
- Groguās backstory--I have Questions and they are Intriguing Questions that make me More Invested; part of me thought that when some of the Mystery was filled in I would have the opposite reaction so this is Good!
- The brief parallel between my girls Ahsoka and Bo with what/who theyāre seeking and how. ((still wish weād gotten a bit more of their teamup in TCW, but this is Great!))
Things I Have Minor Issues With:
- Why did Ahsokaās montrals and lekku shrink back to their teenage size? They were much larger/longer in Rebels...
- Reverse-grip shouldāve come out sooner since itās Ahsokaās primary/default style.
Things I Didnāt Like/Have Concerns About:
- Sabine's absence DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD:
- Reference to Thrawn without reference to Ezra
- We still havenāt gotten back to Boba, whereās that thread going???
Things I Have Complicated Feelings About:
- The way things played out re: Ahsoka training Grogu.
- On the one hand (and this is Very Good and Important), it was extremely respectful of both cultures involved, and it makes perfect sense with Ahsokaās specific background and trauma.
- This show, in general, has been pretty good about interrogating/moving past the Planet of Hats idea that is so prominent in sci-fi in general; particularly with Mandalorian subcultures/sects, but I like that they treat other cultures (re: the Jedi) with similar respect (so Iām really hoping we run into Luke, to see how his Jedi subculture compares and contrasts with where Ahsoka and Grogu are coming from).
- Anyway, I completely understand and respect Ahsokaās decision and reasons Ahsoka herself canāt/shouldnāt train Grogu, and the way she handled it, and the way she came up with the Tython alternative at the end, I really liked.
- Basically, I donāt have an issue with this specific scene and the way it played out in this specificĀ instance, given the timeline and the characters involved.
- On the other hand, I do have some issues with the broader context involved, in that it reinforces a couple issues I have always had with the worldbuilding re: Jedi and Light-side adepts in general.
- This is not an issue with thinking the Jedi path is evil or bad or wrong because it is not. It is a good one for many people, it has been fulfilling and great for millions of beings over the centuries; and even if some of the specifics have probably shifted over time (because change does happen and is normal and healthy, on an individual and a group level), thatās still very much true of the PT-era Jedi.
- But--and Iāve touched on this before--the idea that an older child/adult canāt learn/adapt to the Jedi path is a hugeĀ problem for me, both because it just...feels Wrong, in terms of how even human brains work, let alone aliens, and because of the IRL implications when viewing entering the Jedi order as analogous to adoption, particularly given IRL issues with older kids/teens in the foster system/who have trouble getting adopted.
- (I.e., the implication that Grogu is...this is not the best word for it, but...corrupted now and his best/only option is to ignore/suppress a fundamental part of who he is, or else heāll become a Dark adept is....Troubling. Again, coming from Ahsoka with her specific background and circumstances and the example sheās looking at, that makes a lot of sense. But the fact that it feeds into/reinforces the idea that This Is So in a general/overall sense is where I have a problem.)
- Also, the continued implication that in order to be a Light adept/an active Force-user who is not a Dark-side Adept, you have to be a Jedi/have a foundation in Jedi training or something very similar.
- Again, Iāve touched on this before, but thatās one of the general issues I have with some of the worldbuilding in SW re: Force-adepts. I have a very strong negative reaction to the implication that there is only One True Way to do anything. ParticularlyĀ when we have at least two very distinctive groups of Dark-side adepts (Dathomiri adepts and Sith adepts have veryĀ different approaches and practices; why canāt we see some of that variety among Light adepts? On a related note, this is one of the reasons Iām enjoying the worldbuilding around Chiss Force adepts, because they seem more Light-aligned but significantly different from the Jedi.)
- Anyway, as I said before, none of this is a problem with the Jedi path itself. It is a good and fulfilling one, clearly. But the continued implication that the Jedi path is the best and/or onlyĀ way to be an active Light adept is........I have Feelings on the subject.
ah, yes. the Delightful part of being a Nerd where i can make a legit meta/commentary relating st. thomas beckett to a specific clone wars plot and have it actually kind of make sense.
All right then, you asked for it. ::cracks knuckles:: Put on your History Nerd hats, everyone. I have read a fair amount about and am super interested in the delightful soap opera that is mid-late 12th century England, and so this is gonna be a Ride.
((also, please note that i misspelled becketās name in my prior post; it has been corrected moving forward))
Here we go. Thomas Becket and The Clone Wars: What The Hell Do These Two Things Have In Common???????
First, some general historical background. For those of you who are unfamiliar with medieval English history and/or the lives of Catholic/Anglican saints, Thomas Becket (also known as Thomas a Becket) was a twelfth-century Archbishop of Canterbury, famously murdered as he prayed in the Canterbury Cathedral itself. This was...not technicallyĀ ordered by the king at the time, but when, yāknow, this is the twelfth century and your medieval warrior king, who has been feuding with this guy for several years now, has a temper tantrum and saysĀ āWill no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!ā (or words to that effect; Iāve heard a few different versions)
Yeah. Four dudes decided that this was not venting/rhetorical and. Well. Rid him of said turbulent priest. Messily. With swords. In a church. While he was praying.
Even by modern standards thatās Not Cool, and when you factor in that this was 12th-century Europe.........yeah.
Anyway, Becket was venerated as a saint almost immediately, and Canterbury quickly became a shrine/key place to make a pilgrimage to (hence, the frame story for the Canterbury Tales of Chaucer a century or two later).
But what does this have to do with Star Wars?
Well, to answer that, we have to talk about what ledĀ to his murder.
Letās rewind a bit.
Before becoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Becket was a clerk. He wasnāt actually an ordained priest at this time (he wasnāt until he became Archbishop), but he held certain church offices (as a deacon, among other things), and was a close friend/crony of King Henry II. He excelled at a lot of things Henry valued, ranging from leisure pursuits like hunting and hawking to being a clever administrator and able to keep up with an energetic king who...well, all courts at the time were itinerant, but Henry was constantlyĀ on the move even by the standards of the day.
Becket eventually becomes Chancellor, one of the highest positions in the civil government at the time. A lot of these positions were held by churchmen throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, since most educated men were affiliated with the Church in some way. (Becket wasĀ also possibly minor gentry/his father may have been a knight? But he was mostly educated and rose through the ranks that way. See also: Thomas Wolsey, a few centuries later; but that is off-topic.)
Anyway, when the prior Archbishop of Canterbury died, Henry had this brilliant idea: āI will appoint you, my friend and trusted, loyal advisor, to the most powerful ecclesiastical position in the country, even though you have a reputation for being a conniving politician and about as far from a holy man as you can possibly be and pretty much no legit churchmen will be happy about this.ā
Becketās response is lessĀ āIām not super qualified for high ecclesiastical office Iām not even an ordained priest dude wtf,ā and moreĀ āIf you have me do this, I am going to Do It Right. Iām going to serve in that position as well and as loyally as Iāve served as your Chancellor. And I donāt think a man can serve two masters. Please do not do the thing.ā
Henry, of course, did the thing.
Becket promptly resigned as Chancellor and threw himself into the Archbishop role with a fervor that surprised everyone. It was like a switch had flipped, and the canny politician with a reputation for greed and impiety and a love of luxury became a devout ascetic.
Henry was not best pleased by this turn of events.
So, to recap: Becket was a long-time crony/political aide to Henry II, appointed to a very powerful position to basically be Henryās representative/yes-man when it came to the Church and various reforms/etc. Becket decided that, as an Archbishop, he was more beholden to God than his King, and it did not go as Henry planned.
But Shadowsong, I hear you say again, what does this have to do with Star Wars?
I am getting to that, I promise.
First, though, we need to talk about the other player in this drama. Henry II himself.
Henry II was one of theĀ more effective kings England had. By the standards of his day, at least up until the Becket controversy, he was an excellentĀ king. An extremely capable warrior and commander, ruthless and powerful and hard-working. He absolutely put his money where his mouth was, and he could make his edicts stick by a combination of force of personality and force of arms. His administration of his French territories is a little more complicated/not as well documented, but also not the subject of this essay, which has to do with some specifically English legal questions.
Anyway, he came to power in England in 1154, following nineteen years that were later known as the Anarchy, under the rule of King Stephen. The causes of this period of instability are complicated, and only partially Stephenās fault (tl;dr: a combination of a succession dispute/Stephenās usurpation of the throne and a series of bad winters led to general lawlessness and famine; various barons/magnates built themselves up as warlords in their territory, what central authority there was was minor and ineffective; there was a lotĀ of violence and not a lot of justice, even by the standards of the day).
Upon his accession, Henry immediately sets himself to fixing those problems. Some of this involves, well, being a Medieval Warrior King and knocking heads together with extreme prejudice.
Some of it involves re-establishing the courts/justice/rule of law. (Side note: whether or not his specific laws/justice were actually Just is a matter for historical debate and not actually the topic of this essay.)
And then, he decides to go further. He wants to reform justice, curb abuses by various magnates (including the Church/powerful bishops and archbishops), and put together a system that will work better than the one that was in place. A lot of his reforms laid the bedrock for the English common law system, as much as Magna Carta did a half-century later.
Henry indulges in a little...mmmm...letās call it sleight of hand here. He claims that all heās really doing is re-establishing the laws that were in place under his grandfather, Henry I. To be fair, that isĀ a good chunk of whatĀ he's doing, but heās also expanding them with his own ideas.
For the most part, while thereās grumbling, his reputation and ability to knock heads together is strong enough that heās able to put his reforms in place.
Which brings us back to Becket, and the fact that some of Henryās legal reforms had to do with specific problems/abuses with the Church.
Shadowsong, seriously, you say. Star Wars. You said you were getting there.
And I am! Very soon now!
One of the pieces of legal reform that Henry put together became known as the Constitutions of Clarendon. These were a variety of legal reforms (I think there were sixteen clauses?), mostly relating to the relationship between secular and Church authority. He actually managed to get a fair amount of support for this through his blend of personality, politicking, and, well, bashing strategic heads together. By the time he presented the Constitutions in 1164, by some accounts, he had managed to persuade most of the bishops to side with him, at least at first.
Except for Becket.
The issue that was the main sticking point--and which is the focus of the parallel I can draw--is something referred to as the benefit of clergy.
Basically, what this means is that any priest/man of the cloth cannot be tried in civil courts, and must be tried by an ecclesiastical court. Regardless of the crime. This includes things like petty theft, sure, but also includes things like murder. Serious felonies. In addition, the rules which applied to ecclesiastical courts meant that generally punishments were lighter (or perceived as lighter). They were things like fines, flogging, defrocking, up to excommunication. Penalties in secular/civil courts often involved things like maiming or execution.
(Again. We are not discussing here whether the penalties in either case are actually fair/just/etc. We are discussing the fact that there were these two separate systems, and one operated on a different standard than the other.)
Henry, with his desire to reform the justice system, rein in Church abuses, and collect more power for himself/the Crown, is like,Ā āWell, thatās ridiculous.ā
So his proposed solution was thus: a criminous clerk (i.e., a priest accused of a crime) would be tried in ecclesiastical court, with a representative of the Kingās Justice as a witness. Should said clerk be convicted/defrocked, he would be handed over to the secular courts for punishment, the same as any other felon.
Seems reasonable, right? A compromise of sorts, which means that the same system of justice, however just it actually is, is applied to everyone, regardless of whether they are a priest or a layperson.
āBut wait!ā Becket says.Ā āThis is essentially punishing someone for the same crime twice. How is thatĀ reasonable? If this man reoffends, then heāll of course face civil penalties, but, to use an anachronism, double jeopardy isnāt fair, either!ā
To which Henry says, āthatās ridiculous, all the other bishops are signing my Constitutions, even if theyāre not happy about it, youāre just being a dick.ā
And Becket says,Ā āNo. I will oppose this because it is Not Correct Or Appropriate.ā
...there was more to it than that, other issues they clashed on (having to do some stuff relating to Henryās eldest surviving son, among other things). Over the course of the next six years, Becket fled into exile and continued to hammer on the issue from France (whose king was not super fond of Henry and only too glad to back Becket); there were occasional attempts to mediate between them by the Pope and other parties; occasional partial capitulations that were then rescinded; and things just...escalated, until Henry throws his infamous temper tantrum and we get some Blood Stained Glass, to quote TVtropes.
But the part that matters for our purposes is this one. The Benefit of Clergy.
Does this mean weāre finally getting to Star Wars now?Ā you ask, plaintively.
Yes. Yes, we are.
Letās talk about the Wrong Jedi.
Ahsokaās trial.
Now, admittedly, there are a lot of things going on during this arc, and very few of them bear any resemblance to actual Justice. Thereās the fact that the investigation and trial were superĀ rushed and performative, for one thing. Also, Tarkin was involved, and Tarkin makes everything worse.
But, as with the discussion of the medieval English justice system, letās set aside the actual fairness of the system itself for now and talk about the specific issue.
Which, in this case, in our analogy, is the Jedi Council expelling Ahsoka from the Order and handing her over to the Senate/Tarkin to face a military tribunal, as opposed to protecting her/handling the investigation and any trial or punishment in-house.
There are, of course, a couple ways that this is different from the 12th-century Catholic Church situation. For one thing, Ahsoka is a psychic space wizard; regardless of who tries her, barring capital punishment, who butĀ the Order could properly contain/punish her, if applicable?
Thereās also the fact that, unlike the Church at the time, the Order is actually subordinate to the Senate, and while they can handle their internal affairs to a point, the Senate doesĀ have the authority to tell them they canāt do that.
However.
The same question does come up--is it really justice if there are two different standards for trial and punishment, especially for serious crimes that fall primarily under secular/civil law? I.e., murder/arson/the various charges that can get lumped in under a bombing?
I donāt know that I have an actual/permanent conclusion for this, but it basically boils down to a couple key points:
1) There is a legitimate point to be made that Ahsoka should not be held to a different standard than another accused murderer/bomber.
2) In addition to being a member of the Jedi Order, Ahsoka is also serving in a position of civil responsibility as a GAR commander; thereās arguably a legitimate question of Jurisdiction even if the two justice systems were essentially the same. Similar to questions of whether a case should be tried in a local or state or federal court.
3) There is alsoĀ a point to be made that some of the issues here have to do with Protagonist Centered Morality and/or Rule of Drama--i.e., would people be as Upset with the Council, and would this plotline have had the same Impact, if the accused party wasnāt someone we had spent five seasons growing to know and love?
3a) Also, would it have made a difference if the accused party wasnāt innocent/framed, so the issue was less about the clear and obvious Kangaroo Court, and more about the actual question of what shouldĀ be done under these circumstances? For example,Ā Dark DiscipleĀ is on my ARGH list for several reasons, but look at how the situation with Quinlan Vos is handled in comparison, when he did a lotĀ more damage than Ahsoka was accused of doing.
4) I know I said I wouldnāt be focusing on it, but there are also a Lot of political complications flying around, both in terms of the way the trial was rushed (see above re: Kangaroo Court) and the no-really-good-options position the Council found themselves in, given their political position/relationship to the Senate and relative authority.
Taking all of that into consideration...
I do not think the actual decision the Council made was necessarily wrong (see point one above), but the way they went about doing it wasnāt super great. And, yes, Ahsoka running off the way she does isnāt super helpful to her case, and the fact that the investigation and trial are rushed through is even moreĀ of a contributing factor, and maybe this is Protagonist Centered Morality rearing its ugly head in my...head...
...that got away from me.
Anyway, the point of this is...IRL parallels! That are kind of shaky/flimsy, maybe, but they do make you Think, right? Which is where I was going with this.
Also, I am enough of a Nerd that I can connect Star Wars to St. Thomas Becket and have it make sense. XD At least to me.
So, every so often, this conversation crosses my dash/etc. And I tend not to get involved, because itās very Discoursey and Iām not super into Discoursey stuff, lol.
But Iāve noticed a sort of...trend?
And thatās that there are basically two points of view on this arc:
What Obi-Wan did was Incredibly Hurtful and Anakin* is righteously pissed at him for faking his death/lying/using Anakinās intense feelings in order to sell his cover.
What Obi-Wan did was Absolutely Necessary for the sake of the Republic/Mission and Anakin* is wrong for being upset with him over it/this is a symptom of his descent into darkness.
*Iām saying Anakin here because LBR the amount of meta/fic/etc. that deals with the perspective of anyone otherĀ than Anakin and Obi-Wan is...Lacking.
Anyway, I have issues with bothĀ of these takes--at least in these forms. Because they are treated as mutually exclusive and...theyāre not??? As much as both of them are kind of wrong--both of them are also kind of right.
Let me be clear from the outset--it is not my goal here to take sides, or evaluate which of the two extremes is more or less correct. Iām going to talk about what, in my opinion, is wrong with each of them, and whatās right with each of them.
So first, just sort of in general terms/to explain why I think thereās rightness and wrongness in both extremes: whenever someone has personal relationships with other people, especiallyĀ when that person is put into a position of public trust, there is a balance that needs to be struck between duty to the person/people with whom they have a relationship and duty to the community as a whole. In this arc, as in a lot of stories, those two levels of responsibility come into conflict. Obi-Wan makes a choice that aligns almost entirely with his public/community duty, even if it causes a lapse in the personal duty/a potential breach in his personal relationships.
Again, Iām not here to talk about whether his decision was right or wrong. Iām here to talk about the way the impact of that decision is treated in fandom, and the fact itās treated as a very black-and-white thing when itās kind of not.
The problem with Option #1 is that itās...it doesnāt acknowledge that this wasĀ mission-related, it wasĀ a duty thing, it wasĀ something that, for whatever background, whatever reservations he may or may not have had, Obi-Wan was the best person to complete the mission and he accepted this assignment. Based on all the information available to him/the Council at the time, this was a necessary action to save the Chancellorās life, before they realized he was Evil. That point I made above about community/public duty is a factor here, and Obi-Wanās choices here aligned with that.
Also, Option #1 tends to skew towards the point of view thatĀ āthe Jedi Order and/or Obi-Wan and the choices they/he made with regard to Anakin are a Significant Factor in his Fall.ā Which is flawed. Look, there are exactly two people to blame for Anakinās Fall--Palpatine (without whom I tend to think Anakin is the leastĀ likely of the PT trio to go Dark Side, but thatās a topic for a separate essay), and of course Anakin himself. Now, thereās a whole road-building metaphor essay I have about other contributing factors that may have made manipulation easier for Palpatine, but that...thereās a difference between being a contributing factor and being responsible.Ā ...but, again, thatās a topic for a separate essay.
Thereās also the fact that, on the rare occasions where fics do handle POV of anyone other than Obi-Wan or Anakin and they skew towards Option #1, they tend to lump everyone outside Obi-Wan and the Council in the same group, regardless of nuance or characterization? Meaning everyoneĀ is angry/hurt in the same way otherwise theyāre painted as the same kind of cold/hurtful way as Obi-Wan/the Council in this take. That those are the only two possible reactions someone can have to the situation. And thatās not right, either. Like...Anakin handles everything one way; Satine would probably be furious,Ā at least in the short term; but looking at Ahsoka (who Iāll discuss more when looking at Option #2 because I think she in particularĀ gets shafted by this Discourse) or Padme or Rex or Cody or...see what I mean?
Basically, Option #1 takes a kind of bad-faith/uncharitable view of Obi-Wan and the Jedi Council, in a way that I think is both unfair and wrong.
The problem with Option #2 is that it...it comes really close to saying that the feelings/reactions of people who are hurt by Obi-Wanās actions are invalid. That the fact that the people close to him (Anakin in particular, as I mentioned above; but also Ahsoka, who Iāll talk a little more about in a minute; Satine, who is openly sobbing at his funeral; Padme...) should just Be Okay With This, without needing time to process the grief and the shock and the confusion and the hurt feelings over the fact that someone close to them, however justifiably, let them believe he was dead.
This is especially true for Ahsoka, who went through something that Obi-Wan knows first-handĀ is incredibly painful and takes some time to deal with--having a mentor/father-figure who she loves very much die in her arms. (Like I said. It saddens me that thereās very little content about anyone otherĀ than Obi-Wan and Anakin in the aftermath of this arc, because holy cow is there a lot to unpack in those other relationships, too).
And, I mean--I think eventually, all of the principal characters who are immediately impacted by this event would come around. In part because canon supports that--this incident never really comes up again. Thereās no evidence of lingering hard feelings even from AnakinĀ past the immediate aftermath/conclusion of the arc itself. To be fair, some of that is the pacing of the show/the structure of it as a series of mini-arcs that sometimes but donāt always build on one another. But the idea that itās Not Fair or Wrong for people close to Obi-Wan to be upset with him over this, to need timeĀ before forgiving him, to maybe need to be mad at himĀ and not just vent in private...particularly given that everything happens over the course of...like...a week. Even for trained Jedi who are taught how to handle Big Feelings, thatās a lot of Big Feelings to process and itās not easy or simple.
Basically, Option #2 takes a kind of unfortunate/uncomfortable view about how Obi-Wan should be Automatically forgiven for the fallout in his personal relationships, because it was necessary/justifiable.
In the end, like I said, I have issues with bothĀ of these arguments, and I think thereās elements of truth to both. Like I said, I think that Obi-Wan ultimately will be forgiven because the choice he made was notĀ malicious or intended to hurt people. On the flipside, it didĀ hurt people close to him, and they have a right to need space to be Upset with him beforeĀ they forgive him. So I donāt really like eitherĀ take--the side that demonizes Obi-Wan (and, by extension, the Jedi Order/Council) for his choices, or the side that goes so far in the other direction that it says Anakin is Wrong/has no right to be Upset about it.
And one interesting thing about this, at least for me, is that...I donāt think this is really debated in the same way in other fandoms where thereās a faked-death plot? Like, the example that comes to mind is Criminal Minds; where JJ helps Prentiss fake her death for a season or so for Reasons. This decision ultimately saved Prentissās life, among other things, but when itās revealed and Prentiss comes back, Reid in particular is extremelyĀ Upset (primarily with JJ) over the lies, and to the best of my recollection, neither of them is really demonized over it? Either in-universe or in the fandom. And yet when it comes to this particular plotline in this particularĀ fandom, thereās no room for both sides to be right.
So...yeah. Iām not sure I made my point very well--like I said, I try to stay on the fringes of Discourse like this because I donāt like getting into Arguments on the internet, but these are the thoughts on the subject Iām having at the moment.
So, itās been a couple days since the TCW finale aired, and all the pain and the beauty and the meta and the gifsets, itās great, I love it.
But at the same time, thereās a part of me thatās a little bitā¦
ā¦am I the only one whoās kind of disappointed that the Siege of Mandalore arc had so little to do with the actual Siege of Mandalore? Instead, we got Order 66/ROTS from an alternate POV and like donāt get me wrong, itās beautiful and painful and hurts in all the right ways, but I was really looking forward to more Bo-Katan and Ahsoka teamup, for starters, and also to the (at least heavily implied by prior canon) active participation from Anakin and Obi-Wan in the earlier parts before they were recalled to Coruscant. One last mission together before everything went all to hell.
Again, what I got instead was gorgeous and I love it, but at the same timeā¦
Itās like I went toā¦IDK, a dinner party or something, and I knew ahead of time that the dessert was going to be a lemon meringue pie. And thatās great! I love lemon meringue pie! I am super excited!
And then the party/event rolls around, and dessert time comes. They bring out the pie that Iāve been looking forward to since I got my invitation. Itās got that shiny swirly meringue coat and the crust looks perfect, so I dig ināand it turns out itās a key lime pie. Not lemon meringue. (ā¦does key lime pie also come with meringue on top? I canāt remember, lol. ā¦not the point. For the purposes of this metaphor, letās pretend it does.)
Anyway, the point is, itās not that I donāt like key lime pie, too. I do, very much. Maybe even better than lemon meringue, at least in a vacuum, so to speak. And this key lime pie, is likeā¦itās one of the best Iāve ever had. I very much enjoy this particular key lime pie.
But that doesnāt change the fact that itāsā¦itās a key lime pie, instead of lemon meringue??? And I was really looking forward to the pie I was told was on the menu. So, even though I love the key lime pie, and even if (to stretch this metaphor to the breaking point) itās arguably better than any lemon meringue pie couldāve been, at least given the timeframe and the ingredients available to the people throwing this partyā¦a part of me is just a little bit disappointed.
...apparently I have more Feelings on this subject. Kind of brought up by some other posts Iāve seen today (that I donāt want to derail, hence adding on here rather than replying there XD), specifically related to Bo-Katan and her role in this whole thing.
It does all come back to the disconnect between previously-established canon re: the whole setup for the Siege arc. I talked about Maul in my last post, but honestly, between not having read Son of Dathomir (which might clear up some of those issues) and the fact that Maulās reappearances are about as explicable as the Master in Doctor Who (i.e., heāll turn up when it suits the Plot but apart from One Particular Throughline exactly how and why is rarely if ever given more than a token explanation. If that.) ...anyway, given all of that, Iām less irked about Maul now.
(still have a Thing about the equation of the Fall of the Republic with Anakinās Fall, but again, I went into that the other day).
But letās talk about Bo-Katan.
(Quick disclaimer--Bo is one of my absolute favorite minor/side characters, to the point where Iāve done a lot of thinking about her/started working on a massiveĀ epic backstory fic focusing on her, covering approximately ten years starting with the Mandalorian Civil War. I freely admit that this impacts my position here.)
So, the impression I got from prior canon (between theĀ Ahsoka novel, where things stood as of The Lawless,Ā and the way Bo talks about these things in Rebels S4 Mandalore arc) was that the Siege was going to be an organized, official effort; the product of probably several weeks/months of back and forth between the Council, some subset of the Senate, and Bo-Katan and her faction, as the closest thing to a legitimate/recognizable authority/government Mandalore hasĀ right now. And that...really didnāt happen.
Granted, Bo-Katan is not a political animal, sheās a war leader (and oh boyĀ the things I could talk about WRT parallels between her and Anakin but that is a subject for another essay). Sheās blunt and abrasive and going about this in all the wrong ways. But if she was expecting the same things I was, based on what little she and Obi-Wan were able to discuss after she rescued him, and instead there was no communication/she was hung out to dry...
Like, yeah, this shouldĀ be an internal Mandalorian dispute and she probably hatesĀ that she has to bring in outsiders to solve this--but Pre Viszla did that first; from what I recall, she was never super on-board with allying with Maul. Which doesnāt change the fact that she went along with it/didnāt break away until after the damage had been done, but the commentaries treating it like bringing in Maul/anyĀ outsider to deal with the current regime which she opposes was her idea...ehhhh, rubs me the wrong way. Anyway, sheās bending enough to seek outside help, and sheās given absolutely nothing, based on the politics and treaties previous regimes established that she wants to renegotiate to be applicable to the current situation. ...basically, I feel like a lot of the commentaries Iām reading have been giving thought and weight to the context everyone exceptĀ Bo-Katan brings to this particular table, and I feel like thatās not particularly fair or accurate.
Thereās also a lot of assumptions being made (granted, this came in part from a post on Korkie Kryze and the polite fiction that he isnāt Obi-Wan and Satineās biokid) about when and how Bo-Katan joined Death Watch. The fact of the matter is, we donāt know.Ā We know (or can infer) exactly three things about Bo-Katanās backstory, based on the way things are described in prior TCW episodes and Rebels:
She is Satine Kryzeās sister, and they were probably close at some point.
(Older? Younger? Who knows! I tend to read her as younger but thereās no proof one way or the other; the closeness I infer from the way Bo talks about her in Rebels, though, to be fair, that couldĀ just be a ādeath whitewashes all sinsā/possessive impulse (thatās myĀ sister how dare only IĀ am allowed to hate her like that)/guilt-based reaction)
She was not with Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Satine during the Civil War.
(Based on the way Obi-Wan identifies her in The Lawless)
At some point, she joined Death Watch.
(During the Civil War? Immediately after? At some later point, after possibly trying to work within the system/compromise with Satine?)
I believe thereās also Word of God stating sheās not Korkieās biomom (which I think tracks, but again I do headcanon that heās Obi-Wan and Satineās kid, though Bo-Katan may be his legal/official mother on-paper, but that is as much an assumption/headcanon as anything else).
So...we have those three facts, and her actions with Death Watch when we see her in TCW, and the fact that, based on RebelsĀ content, sheās viewed by a not-insignificant faction of Mandalorians as well as some external authorities, including the Jedi Order,Ā as a legitimate head of government/Satineās legitimate successor.
I mean, granted, we donāt actually know how the succession on Mandalore works with regard to planetary leadership. Most likely, Bo has to prove herself in a contested succession, but the fact remains that, based on Rebels content,Ā she was acknowledged as the regent of Mandalore.Ā The point of this all being that that particular fact, especially given the compressed timeline involved, seems to have been retconned/ignored, and it doesĀ impact how a lot of this should be handled. As does Mandaloreās status re: the Republic/Senate as a whole, which is a little ambiguous (given that Satine had enough standing to represent herself and her faction of neutral systems in the Senate early on in the series, but later on Mandalore seems to be no longer considered a part of the Republic? Iād have to rewatch several of these episodes to be sure, though.)
...basically, it all boils down to this: thereās a serious disconnect between where things stand as presented in these episodes with the way prior canon talked about the Siege of Mandalore and Bo-Katanās role in it (also, I was under the impression that Anakin and Obi-Wan were active participantsĀ at first, until they were recalled to Coruscant? But, again, compressed timeline, so...yeah.)
And some of these issues may have been resolved if weād gotten the full two seasons worth of content, rather than maybeĀ half that? But IDK, thereās a lot of Weirdness/what feels like major discontinuity here and I feel like Bo-Katanās context/role in this whole thing is being ignored and a lot of assumptions are being made about her that are not necessarily fair or accurate.
...most of whatās actually on screen, lol. Ahsoka and Maulās fight, the dialogue bits in the first episode, Ahsoka and Obi-Wanās second conversation...just so delightful. Also my girl Ahsoka in general, and my girl Bo-Katan, and...just Yes. All of the Yess.
Things That I Kind Of Have A Problem With But Are So Very Star WarsĀ That Iām More Amused Than Annoyed:
What even is this timeline???????????? Travel time/distance between events????? Never heard of her. (seriously, this arc puts the entire second half of ROTS on a level with ESB and TLJ in terms of Internal Timeline Nonsense; so Iāll probably choose to ignore some or all of the time/date markers if/when I start referencing these specific events in things because Wow. But, like, on the other hand...welcome to Star Wars, where everythingās made up and the timeline doesnāt matter XD)
Things That I Actually Donāt Like:
One: It...doesnāt really follow on where we left things in The Lawless? Particularly with Maul--though admittedly I have not read the Son of Dathomir comics which might help with that?? But yeah I just...do not see the throughline between where Maul and Sidious left things there and where Maul is here. Similarly, the end of the S5 Mandalore arc left me with the impression that Bo-Katan and Obi-Wan had something of an Understanding and there was going to be communication/negotiation back and forth between her faction and the Order/Republic as a whole to lead into a much more Siege-y siege, if that makes sense? And I feel like the way things are laid out in the Ahsoka novel more support that than how things actually played out in the series? (Though, to be fair, I havenāt reread it in a while so I may be wrong.)
Two: The conflation of Anakinās fall with the fall of the Republic. These are two separate things??? Like...okay, it is very hardĀ for Anakin to fall without the Republic also falling (although I have seen one fic that did that; where Anakin murdered Palpatine in the face and then just...kept going until Obi-Wan had to bring him down...but itās Hard). But the reverse? Still feasible, even at this point. Like...yes, I know, allegory and Main Character etc. etc., but creating Vader was the cherry on the shit sundae that Sidious was scooping, okay? Not the primary goal by any means. Not requiredĀ for the rest of his plan (though at this point Anakin doesĀ more or less have to be either dead or answering to Palps or neutralized some other way, though being isolated/far away and not in position to act would also suffice).Ā Because Palpatine (and/or Plagueis and/or prior Sith Lords) had the majority of this planned wellĀ before Anakin was in play. And diverting Anakinās path (or killing Anakin, as was Maulās original plan) doesnātĀ stop the rest of it. Unless you manage to divert him at exactlyĀ the right time under exactlyĀ the right circumstances for him to murder Palpatine in the face before he can trigger Order 66. I mean, I get why Maul fixates on this (and kind of why the audience does see above re: Allegory), but...removing Anakin from the equation doesnāt actually change the rest of the story.Ā Unless, as I said before, your timing is exactlyĀ right.
Overall Impressions:
I am both enjoying this a lot and crying a lot but there are some Details here that amuse and/or vex me enough that at least the first half of this arc isnāt quite working as well for me as Iād hoped it would :(. Second half, though...oof. I Am Not Ready.
Specifically in Relation to Nontraditional/Latecomer Students
So, thereās a commentary thatās been floating around lately, that examines whether the Jedi Order/culture should change purely because of Anakinās issues integrating (and later issues as an adult, some of which are related). And if that were the question, then the answer is probably no--as these commentaries have pointed out, the vast majority of Jedi donāt have that kind of trouble and are, so far as we the audience can tell, happy/fulfilled. Or, if not, theyāre willing and able to depart under peaceful circumstances. And, as has also been pointed out, if they did adapt to the changing galaxy in the ways that fandom, with its external viewpoint, would suggest, whoās to say Palpatine wouldnāt be thinking five steps ahead of them and have a contingency plan in place? (The man does love his contingency plans, I gotta say.)
These are valid points, particularly in terms of some of the doctrines/requirements placed on adults/full Jedi (i.e., no marriage, etc.) that tend to catch a lot of criticism, but I feel like thereās a piece missing from this conversation. And thatās a consideration of other nontraditional/latecomer students (and/or nonstudents who are rejected for being too old), aside from Anakin. Because, from where Iām standing, the evidence indicates that the traditionalist Jedi Order, as it is at the fall of the Republic, is not super great at helping them integrate.
Before I get into my actual examples/analysis, I want to say that I donāt think this is from a lack of compassion or effort on the part of the Order. I do believe that, once a nontraditional student is accepted, they are given support in terms of that integration. I just donāt think itās very effective support, because I donāt think that the Order, as it stands at that point, is very well set up for it.
Second, I want to say that the reason why this matters is that thereās a not-insignificant implication that not all potential candidates are identified within the acceptable age range; and therefore some unknown, and possibly significant (in proportion to the size of the Order itself) number of people are actually affected by this policy. Iāve touched on this before, but the fact that Palpatine (who comes from a) a Republic sector capital, b) a culture that highly values children, and c) parents with means) is never identified indicates that there are some significant gaps in the search process; probably particularly for populations that are more likely to slip through the cracks in a society like the Republic (i.e., the deep underlevels of Coruscant; remote farming/mining communities that are essentially Space Appalachia; etc.)
I should also mention, as a caveat, that we unfortunately have very few examples of nontraditional students within canon, so itās admittedly not the greatest sample size in the world--I came up with five, which I will discuss at some length. But the sample sizes for any discussion on this subject are pretty small (I think we have personal information/significant canon detail on maybe a hundred members (i.e., ~1%) of the Jedi Order of this period?), so assumptions have to be made regardless. The way Iām defining my five examples is that they are students who came to the Jedi Path later than the traditional Order would typically allow, and they were trained/raised by Jedi Masters who were themselves traditionally trained (so far as we know).
Okay. Moving on.
So, the five nontraditional students we see in any detail are Anakin, Rael Avaross, Luke, Ezra, and Ventress.
With Anakin and Rael, we see a failure to adapt to the culture. Again, this is despite a genuine effort given on the part of their teachers. Admittedly, Iām less familiar with Rael, since I havenāt gotten around to reading Dooku Lost myself, but Iāve read enough excerpts and analyses that I feel like I have a general idea of whatās going on. Basically, my understanding is that he has some of the same issues Anakin has, relating to the family he left behind, and wanting things that are out of step with Jedi values. And, yes, at least with Anakin, Palpatineās manipulations play a role in that. But the fact that heās not the only example indicates (to me, at least) that itās not the only factor in play here.
Obviously, this disconnect does not in any way excuse what Anakin (or Rael) later does, when he comes to a crisis point. Iām not trying to say that.
What I am trying to say is that I think this is an issue of conflicting expectations, and a fundamental miscommunication/disconnect despite genuine effort, particularly in the early stages, that leaves nontraditional students with a shaky foundation even if/when they find workarounds to appear like things are on track. Because the fact is that the Jedi Order typically takes in very small children, who can absorb most of these cultural norms essentially by osmosis, through a combination of infant neuroplasticity and the Force. An older child needs a different approach, and Iām not sure that the Jedi Order actually has the tools it needs to adapt their teaching style effectively to those circumstances. Especially when trying to integrate someone into a close-knit, fairly isolated/insular culture, which is difficult for an outsider/newcomer under the best of circumstances, on top of the new modes of behavior/emotional processing/etc. And, given how few nontraditional students there are, this is definitely a factor.
So, then it becomes sort of a feedback loop--older/nontraditional students have trouble adapting, which means the Jedi Order is less likely to take them on in the future, which means any they do take in have further troubles, etc., etc. Legends sort of indicated how this cycle started; canon has not; but frankly itās a chicken-and-egg situation as of the period weāre talking about. Once that cycleĀ does start, itās hard to break.
Which brings me to my next set of examples, and the reason I think this is at least in part an issue in the Jedi Orderās teaching style.
Luke and Ezra are also nontraditional students, who are taught by traditionally-trained masters. And they are both successful.
And maybe, in part, that comes down to some quirk in personality that they share that Anakin and Rael donāt. But thereās also the fact that (due to genuinely horrific circumstances; and I will interrupt myself here and now to say that, while I doĀ advocate for change on this particular issue, I donāt think the catalyst for change had to be, let alone should have been, what it was; but in canon, it was a catalyst for a change in approach), their masters had to adapt traditional teachings and values into a somewhat nontraditional framework. One reason I lean more towards the second/change in approach as the stronger factor--and, granted, we donāt have many specific examples to cite; plus they donāt fit technically my established definition--is that Lukeās new Academy would pretty much have to be all nontraditional students, and, so far as I can tell, the vast majority of them seem to have been successful, or on their way there, until Kylo Ren happened.
So, that leads to the conclusion that thereās an issue in how traditional Jedi Order teachings/teaching styles work with nontraditional students. Meaning, the Jedi Order of the late Republic era has difficulty in adapting said styles to the needs of the few older candidates they do take in, though not for lack of trying.
At this point, Iāll interrupt myself again to say that adjusting these practices might have an impact on the children who are brought in at a more typical age, and thereās possibly a balance to be struck between the needs of those students and the needs of these others. The way the culture is structured now does seem to be beneficial for the majority of students brought in the usual way, and fixing this flaw might open another, which might be more detrimental in the long run. And if there were any viable alternatives for training and support, that would be the end of it, as far as I was concerned. But the fact is--there arenāt. Pretty much all other Force-adepts we see seem to be closed ethnoreligious groups (or Sith). So I think an increase in flexibility in the early-stage teaching style/age limit for adoption is actually of a net benefit. Whether or not any changes are made to the broader framework/culture past that period, which is a separate discussion.
And that brings me to Ventress, my final example, who is much more complicated and harder to discuss due to several key pieces of evidence that are missing.
Where does she fit into all of this?
The implication in her flashbacks seem to be that she does pretty well with Ky Narec, who--without the same awful circumstances pushing his choices--adapts and uses a non-traditional/one-on-one approach with her, rather than trying to bring her to the Temple and integrate her into the culture right away.
Of course, there are a couple of issues with this. One, Ventress falls apart when he dies, so his approach also clearly had some flaws. Two, her memories may not be the most reliable/she might not be a super reliable narrator. Three, we are missing so much information about how and in what order everything went down.
First, why did Ky Narec make the choices he did? One explanation is that he had no way off the planet/no long-range communications and couldnāt contact the rest of the Order. I find this hard to believe for two reasons: how did Ventress then get offplanet after he died; and how did she get onto the planet in the first place? Someone there has a connection with the wider galaxy, and if Ky Narec really wanted to make contact, Iām sure he couldāve found a way.
So, why didnāt he? Was it because he knew Ventress was too old, and he felt he lacked the standing/social or political capital to convince the Council to accept her anyway? Was that assessment accurate on his part? Alternatively, did he think he could get her accepted, but felt that some training on their own before trying to integrate her into the broader culture was the better approach; and then he died before he could complete that process? Was he already thinking about leaving (as did the Lost Twenty), and she was what pushed him to actually take that step? Iām sure there are other possible explanations, but those are the ones that jump to mind.
Second, what did he tell her? What were her expectations for if/when they finally made contact with the Order? Did he warn her that her training was unauthorized and the Order would not accept her (whether or not that was actually true)?
Third, what did she actually do when he died? Did she try to reach out to the Order? Did she assume that there was no point? Did she reach out to her sisters on Dathomir? (From what I recall, most likely not, but itās been a while since I watched the relevant TCW episodes.) Did she go straight to Dooku?
Fourth, when she did finally contact Dooku, was she seeking him out as a former Jedi who might have some understanding and compassion for her situation, or was she seeking him out as a Sith Lord/Dark Side adept? (Unless thatās actually covered in her flashbacks as well; again, I might be misremembering/have forgotten.)
Soā¦yeah. Itās really hard to evaluate this question fully without more information on how everything with Ventress went down. But all the other evidence does indicate a disconnect.
I guess my point in all of this wasā¦no, itās not right for an entire culture to have to change everything for one person. But on the other hand, thereās something to be said for a test case/case study that draws attention to an existing flaw in the structure. And Anakin, while the most visible, isnāt actually the only one here.
Also...on a more general note, cultures are dynamic. They do change over time. Sometimes very rapidly, when change is forced by external pressures, sometimes more organically, by gradual internal shifts. So, the implication that the culture of the Jedi Order should remain exactly as it is as of the late Republic because thatās the best possible way for it to be, no matter how much the broader culture of the galaxy and/or their role in it might shift, feelsā¦a little off to me. Especially since the war itself was already an impetus for change. The postwar Jedi Order was almost certainly going to be somewhat different from the prewar Order; how drastic or subtle that change would be without Anakin making all the wrong choices is a little harder to determine. And--look, I know Iām citing Legends here, because canon has yet to provide deep (i.e., 100+ years pre-TPM) backstory, but some of these things already have shifted over time, in response to both internal and external pressures. The age limit for taking in initiates/apprentices being one of them.
...but Iāll admit that that last paragraph may be me misinterpreting/reading too much into some of the posts and my There Is No One True Way button getting pushed again whether or not itās merited in this case XD
Anyway, tangent aside, I just wanted to highlight why I feel this particular issue should be addressed, even if the expected cultural norms/code of conduct for Jedi who have integrated into the culture remain the same. Because, yeah, those seem to work out for most members, and the option to leave is there for those who have issues.
But the problem of latecomers/nontraditional students, particularly when there arenāt really any other options available to them for training and support, and there are an unknown (but possibly significant, in proportion to the size of the Order itself) number out there, is still a Thing.
((Also, one last tangent re: why this matters/is a Thingā¦look, applying IRL issues/politics/history and so on to Star Wars can be a weird/hinky/YMMV thing, apart from certain direct/explicit/obviously intentional parallels, and in general I try to avoid doing it--and, like, earlier today, I had to stop myself from going off on a long tangent about the Constitutions of Clarendon and Thomas Becket on a semi-related post about Ahsoka; if I want to do it, I can--but given the issues older kids/teenagers have being adopted IRL, and given the idea that baby Jedi are essentially adoptees, the fact that older kids are excluded is a littleā¦yeah.))
So, it took me a while to sit down and actually read this book, even though I had preordered it, so Iāve already read a lot of the fandom commentary percolating about it (because I donāt especially care about spoilers). And, between that and the reading I have done, I have some nascent thoughts. Granted, Iām not very farĀ yet, so this probably wonāt have too many spoilers, but Iām putting this under a cut just in case.
So, I got several comments on my most recent Precipice update relating to some narrative/worldbuilding decisions Iād made regarding the monarch of Naboo (basically, implementing the headcanon from this post) and King Veruna, so I thought Iād write this up to clarify why Iāve gone in the direction I have. And, in the interests of explaining/answering a few questions I got in a sort of central location, Iāve written up a clarification!
(Posting this here, rather than on my fic blog, since it seems to fit better; also, this is not intended to be discoursey or defensive, just explaining where Iām coming from in terms of what canon/etc. Iām basing this on.)
To my knowledge, Veruna is a Legends character who hasnāt yet been canonized, and Padmeās predecessor was retconned as of Queenās Shadow to be Reillata (though I may have misinterpreted the timeline there; there could have been another monarch between Reillataās first term and Padme). Also, as far as I know, no other specific King of Naboo has been recanonized--someone did comment to the effect that one was mentioned in TCW, so I may be wrong about this/have genuinely forgotten; thereās also the fact that I donāt read a whole lot of the comics since I find comics in general hard to focus on, so if anyone was recanonized there, I missed it.
Basically, opening disclaimer: I acknowledge that there might be current/Disney canon here Iām unaware of, but Iām operating based on what Iāve read in both canon and Legends novels, the various TV series, and the films themselves.
Overall, when I write, I do tend to work in a blended canon. For example, in Precipice,Ā Iāve gone with Disney canon with regard to lightsaber crystals (at least for now--I may change my mind when we get to Luke); I plan to involve Mara Jade and Pellaeon and a few other Legends characters in future arcs (and have already written Winter in); I tend to write Thrawnās personality/behavior/temperament/etc. more in line with his Legends incarnation than his canon one, but draw in timeline details from current canon as needed to fill in the gaps...In general, for pretty much all fic projects, especially for broader worldbuilding and/or character backstory details, where Legends and Disney conflict, I go with the version I like better and/or the one that suits my story better.
In terms of the specific issue at hand, Plagueis, the novel Veruna comes from, is actually one of my favorite Legends books, and I reference it quite a bit, especially when it comes to writing Palpatine. However, specifically with regard to the monarchs of Naboo, Iāve chosen to go with the current/Disney canon, as far as Iām aware of it, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, Veruna--at least as established/presented in Plagueis--doesnāt really mesh with the rest of what we know about the Naboo monarchy, even if we only look at details established in top-tier/film canon. He particularly conflicts with information regarding term limits and, IIRC, the tradition of electing teenagers. Both of these factors have been established since AOTC; term limits explicitly (Padme and Anakin talk about attempts to reform the Naboo constitution to allow her to serve a third term, which she refused to ratify), and the tradition of young/teenaged monarchs by implication.
Verunaās plotline, from what I recall, makes absolutely no reference to term limits. The implication in the novel, to the best of my recollection, is that a) Plagueis has to either murder him or put an alternate candidate in the ring in order to remove Veruna from power; and b) I know that Star Wars timelines are difficult to parse at the best of times, but Verunaās tenure and everything that happens during it doesnāt fit in two four-year terms (which was the general assumption by both fandom and Legends novels, IIRC, at least until Neeyutnee was introduced; certainly, given Padmeās timeline, it couldnātāve been much longer), let alone two twoĀ-year terms, which is both the current canon and the assumption Iāve been operating under for a while, including in writing PrecipiceĀ (see notes on this chapter). And the idea that Veruna had only served one term, and thatās why Plagueis had to push another candidate into the ring to unseat him, makes even less sense.
He also seems to be an adult when elected, though I could be misremembering that. And that isnāt technically a legal requirement, but itās a strong enough tradition that it sticks out as another reason why he doesnāt quite fit. Thereās also the fact that, IIRC, he rules under his own name, whereas I think itās stated somewhere that monarchs typically take separate professional/regnal names when elected? But, to be fair, the only one I know for sure did that is Padme, so that may be me reading more into this than I should.
Second--and, honestly, more important--is that Iām doing this because I like it? The more I think through my Dealing with Dragons approach/reading/headcanon, the more it justā¦appeals to me? Not just as a backfill to patch an issue I had with Queenās Shadow, which is where it started, but as an actual system thatās fun to explore. Especially since most media that does this kind of thing uses the masculine-coded title (i.e., King) as the default, rather than the feminine-coded one (Queen). And, of course, none of this precludes Veruna or prior male rulers from having existed--though, as I said, Verunaās specific storyline as previously presented doesnāt work. That wasā¦sort of the point. It just changes a male rulerās title from King to Queen, and makes figuring out what title to use for genderqueer/non-binary monarchs a lot easier.
Soā¦yeah, that about sums it up. I just wanted to clarify, since there was some questioning about this on the relevant chapter. And since it takes a while to go through my reasoning/thoughts on the subject, I figured it was better to do a tumblr post rather than in AO3ās comment box. ^^ But, yeah, I couldāve been clearer from the outset, for which I apologize, and hopefully this helps explain where Iām coming from!
Basically, this post exists becauseĀ The Mandalorian got me thinking some about the culture, particularly as relates to the Mandalorian Civil War, and how that reflects certain IRL religious movements and upheaval. This has been percolating in the back of my head for a few weeks, actually, and this seemed like a reasonable time to write it all out, now that at least the first season is over. There are brief spoilers involved for the season finale.
Which means itās time for a Long Complicated Metaphor! (Not the road-building one about Anakin and his fall, though I really should write that up properly and share that here, too, but yāknow.)
Basically, Iām going to talk a little bit about how, as I see it, some of the Mandalorian Civil War issues parallel the Protestant Reformation, particularly in England, leading up to the English Civil War and Interregnum.
(As a note--from what I recall, the Amarna period in ancient Egypt is also a good parallel; maybe even a better one. But since Iām significantly less well-read on the subject and what reading I have done was a very long time ago, Iām sticking with the English Reformation analogy for the purposes of this essay.)
So, it has been a while since Iāve done some in-depth reading on this subject, both the general history and the specific religious/church history. If youāre interested in the church history side of things, Iād actually recommend Cromwell to Cromwell--it got a little dry for me, especially since I didnāt read the summary carefully enough and thought it was going to be a little more biographical than it ended up being, but it is still a solidly researched book on the subject in question.
Anyway, the point is, Iām going off of memory from something I read about/researched a few years back, as well as my general background knowledge of the subject/period, so please forgive any slight inaccuracies as I build up my metaphor/essay/point.
So, to start with, some background of why Iām viewing this through a religious lens, based on some things weāve seen in the TV show. Obviously, there is the fact that Din Djarin specifically refers to this as a creed/religion in the first couple episodes. However, thatās notā¦super-well defined, other than it is analogous to a religion. But in terms of specific details--
First, thereās the helmet thing, which I know has been brought up by other commentators as well--this is the Way, we donāt take off our helmets for any reason unless weāre stepping off this path.
If we view combat as Mandalorian religion, in the organized/Western religion sense, this actually makes a lot of sense to me. In this reading, our titular friend from the show about baby Yoda is, essentially, a priest (or possibly a monk; or more likely a friar since heās a wanderer and not cloistered even if the rest of his covert might be, but thatās probably a little too nitty-gritty for an essay on this level; for analysis purposes, Iām just going to go with āpriestā). Priests are subject to stricter vows, and while laypersons can (and indeed are expected to) perform certain religious duties/offices, priests have greater responsibilities and restrictions. Like prayer, only instead of rosaries and Christmas, Mandalorians have blasters. And flamethrowers. And occasionally jetpacks. Etc.
(Obviously, not a perfect analogy, in the same way that comparing the PT-era Jedi to monks or priests is not a perfect analogy, but itās a reasonably convenient one.)
Anyway, this explains why Mandadlorian and the other members of his covert/group wonāt take their helmets off, but weāve seen a variety of Mandalorians do so before--all of the Wrens, Bo-Katan and her close allies, various other members of Death Watch (though not all)ā¦itās part of something akin to a clerical vow.
Which brings us back to the Civil War, and the IRL parallels.
So, the English Reformation--yes, a large part of what kicked it off was Henry VIII beingā¦wellā¦Henry VIII about things, but there was a lot of back and forth beyond the Great Matter/Divorce, and Lutheranism, Calvinism, and other Protestant movements had some level of foothold at varying levels of society. In terms of actual doctrine and practice, the Church of England varies quite a bit during the reigns of the later Tudors (with Edward VI being pretty hard-core Protestant, Mary I bringing England back to Rome, and then Elizabeth I being more moderate than her brother), so itās not a straightforward question. Eventually, Protestantism wins out, but itās a half-century or so of minor upheavals and doctrinal shifts, much like in the rest of Europe during this period.
Again, I recommend Cromwell to Cromwell for more detail about the specifics, but by the time we get to the 17thĀ century and the Stuarts, weāre sort of starting to see a split between the Puritans (who stayed in England with the intent of making the English Church more fundamentalist, rather than the ones who left and settled in Holland and the Americas, who would be better referred to as Separatists) and the more elaborate High Church. There were other sects/factions, and other/secular/political factors that led to the Civil War, of course, but that was the gist of the religious one.
Which brings me to Satine and the New Mandalorians. Who, in this case/analogy, are similar to the Reformers (eventually, Puritans).
Which might sound weird, given that weāve established that the Mandalorian culture/religion in this context is All About Combat, but hear me out.
We donāt know exactly what went on with the New Mandalorians forming and building steam, but I highly doubt that Satine came up with the idea on her own--they were a radical movement to reform Mandalorian religion and culture that she gravitated to, and eventually made official/the law of the land when she and her faction won the Civil War and she took power in Sundari. We donāt know where her parent(s) fell on this spectrum, if they were hardline traditionalists or fairly neutral moderates or mild reformers (I doubt they were hardline reformers), or essentially traditionalists in terms of their personal beliefs/doctrine but making serious reformer steps for unrelated political and/or personal reasons (a la Henry VIII).
The point is, much like the more radical Reformation politics and philosophies as put forward by Edward VI and, later, Oliver Cromwell and the Roundheads, Satine is operating in a larger context and, however devoted she is to this movement, she probably didnāt found it.
The reason I think she lines up with the Puritan model is that the New Mandalorian philosophy is an extremely stripped-down version of the approach-to-combat religion/culture. Basically, New Mandalorian philosophy takes away the fancy trappings and asks āwhat exactly does it mean to have this faith?ā She says to Obi-Wan at one point, ājust because Iām a pacifist doesnāt mean I wonāt defend myself.ā What her philosophy is asking--maybe; possibly; Iād love more canon context but this is a reasonable reading of the text IMO--is āour faith is combat, but does combat need to be physical? Do we need to continue to kill each other and spill the blood of our kin as well as outsiders, or are there other ways to fight?ā After all, Satine is extremely combative; she just doesnāt use weapons or overt violence when she fights for what she believes in.
So, again. Stripping away all the fancy trappings to get back to the core of the belief--only instead of gold and icons and stained glass (and Christmas), itās blasters and flamethrowers and occasionally jetpacks. And whips. And so on. (ā¦I feel like Mandalorian Christmas involves a lot of blastersā¦)
This was all probably reinforced by her experiences on the run with Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan during the Civil War itself; but thatās something Iām going to at least partially cover in our faces like a mirror. The fic focuses more on Bo-Katan and why she makes her choices in all this, but Satineās personal worldview is obviously profoundly shaped by her experiences during that year, and is, of course, a key part of all of this.
(As a side note, Bo-Katan, in this analogy, is soooooort of related to either Mary I or Charles II--although I tend to read her as a younger sister/thereās no succession dispute involved. But the Traditionalist heir in exile; with a level of devout belief thatās more aligned with Mary than with Charles; although sheās a bit more willing to compromise until she canāt anymore, and then seems to have found a more moderate approach when sheās in power/after she leaves Death Watch? Weāll see what the relevant TCW episodes have to say. Also, I would love to see her show up in season 2 of The Mandalorian or some other live-action thing (maybe the Obi-Wan series?); still played by Katee Sackhoff as is only right and proper. Just getting that out there.)
[Also, given the way s1 of The Mandalorian ended--I fear for my girl Bo-Katan and am even more interested in seeing her in something live-action/post-Rebels D:]
ā¦yeah, this felt like I had more of a Point when I got started, lol. I guess what Iām trying to say is--a lot of seeming inconsistencies in worldbuilding about Mando culture make a lot more sense when viewed as a religion, with a variety of sects and interpretations and relative levels of devotion, particularly in parallel with IRL religious movements. And while Satineās aesthetic is an homage to Elizabeth I, her politics/role as a hardline Reformer in power are more aligned with Edward VI or Oliver Cromwell. Itās justā¦an interesting way of looking at things, I think? One I figured was worth sharing.
So, I got back from seeing EPIX this morning, and I figured I should get all my thoughts down!
Everything spoilery is behind a cut, and this post is also tagged with the spoiler tags Iāve listed here. If you want me to add any additional tags, let me know and I will to this and any future EPIX posts.
As a note--because I want to keep the tags on this blog to a limited list, there is a singleĀ āspoilersā tag rather than the full list in the post linked above. This was put together on the 20th after I saw the movie.
