How Karen Traviss BRAINWASHED you about Jedi non-attachment in her book?
In 2009, Karen Traviss released her novel, titled No Prisoners, and the book become some kind of Holy Bible for those who believe the Prequel-era Jedi Order forbade love and affection, claiming, Traviss called out and refuted the Jedi idea of non-attachment. Throughout the novel, she relentlessly hammers her point: attachment is love, and the Jedi Order forbids love. However, there is only one time when you can see the definition the Jedi gave to attachment, as something different from love:
“Putting personal relationships first, caring about the people you love so that it influences how you act” and it “affects your judgment.” – Ahsoka Tano, explaining the Jedi’ definition of attachment, No Prisoners
Thus, the Jedi non-attachment is identical to what Buddhism says about non-attached love. (”they [the Jedi] were designed to be a Buddhist monk who happens to be very good at fighting” – George Lucas) As the Dalai Lama writes: it “takes the sting out of discriminatory emotions toward others that are based on considerations of distance or closeness. You lay the groundwork on which you can cultivate genuine compassion extending to all other sentiment beings.” In Star Wars: The Clone Wars, when Ahsoka asks Aayala Secura about attachment, she defines not forming attachment in practice as “don’t lose a thousand lives just to save one” and Obi-Wan warns Anakin in Attack of the Clones, “don’t let your personal feelings get in the way” since they had to capture Dooku to end the clone wars.
Therefore, in Jedi philosophy, “attachment”, as it was defined by Karen Traviss in No Prisoners, is putting my personal relationships first over anybody and anything else, my actions and judgment grounded in my discriminatory emotions toward others that are based on considerations of distance or closness. Love is allowed, romance and sexual relationships are allowed, only attachment is forbidden.
However, Traviss porpusefully ignores the very definition she gave herself, continously and relentlessly hammering her original claim. Let us see, what happens with the most important parts of her novel, her celebrated criticism against the Jedi philosophy on attachment, when you replace “attachment” with the definition of that the Jedi gave to it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Attachment is … putting personal relationships first, caring about the people you love so that it influences how you act.” Ahsoka seemed to be picking her words carefully. Coric stared back at her. “You know, it affects your judgment.”
“But ol’ Pellaeon’s just having a spot of romance, if you know what I mean. It’s not like he is putting his personal relationships first over anybody and anything else, ground his actions and judgment in his discriminatory emotions toward others that are based on considerations of distance or closness, is it? Is romance allowed? Can you have a spot of romance if you don’t put your personal relationships first over anybody and anything else, ground your actions and judgment in your discriminatory emotions toward others that are based on considerations of distance or closness?”
(Rex’ internal dialouge.)
“Romance,” Ahsoka said stiffly, “is acceptable. Jedi are not … celibate. Just … not putting my personal relationships first over anybody and anything else, ground my actions and judgment in my discriminatory emotions toward others that are based on considerations of distance or closness.”
Ince adopted a wonderful frown of apparent bewilderment. “That’s a bit cold, ma’am. Love ’em and leave ’em?”
Not that he knows what that means, poor lad, but …
“What about all the negative things Jedi might feel without putting their personal relationships first over anybody and anything else, ground their actions and judgment in their discriminatory emotions toward others that are based on considerations of distance or closness?” Boro asked. They were all piling in now. “You know … bitterness. Resentment. Jealousy. Loneliness. Anger.”
“Yeah,” Ross said. “It’s not normal. Can’t be healthy.”
(Rex internal dialouge and description)
“I don’t make the rules,” she said at last. Her voice was very different; there was a faint, rasping undertone, like the echo of a sand panther’s growl, and Rex was reminded yet again that the Togrutas’ primal ancestors were predators. “But I accept that wiser beings made them, and so I’ll follow them.”
“We follow orders, too,” Hil said. “We understand. Except we can usually see what goes wrong when we don’t.”
“Yeah, you get hurt,” Ross said. “Or worse.”
“I have to deal in the unseen,” Ahsoka said quietly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
„He’s not putting his personal relationships first over anybody and anything else, ground his actions and judgment in his discriminatory emotions toward others that are based on considerations of distance or closness. So it does no harm.”
Had Ahsoka any idea how callous—and foolish—that sounded? Callista found a retort forming on her lips, but bit it back. She couldn’t blame this child simply because she had swallowed what Callista saw as an intolerant doctrine.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The celebrated „liberal” Jedi, Master Altis:
"As with all faith, some basic messages become distorted over time. Why should putting my personal relationships first over anybody and anything else, ground my actions and judgment in my discriminatory emotions toward others that are based on considerations of distance or closness, lead to the dark side? This is loving commitment, the cornerstone of civilization, of society, and unites all living creatures. How can it be wrong? I assert that it’s fixation—obsession—that leads to darkness and evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, despite Karen Traviss - more or less - knows what „attachment” connotes in George Lucas’ Star Wars, she porpusefully overlooked it and buried it under her own imagination, even ignoring what she wrote down herself, mentioning, but not using the actual Jedi doctrine on non-attachment, repeating her own distorted and alternative version of it.
So, how exactly Karen Traviss No Prisoners proved the Jedi wrong? She did not. All what she did was manipulating you by hitting a straw man.
“It is unfortunate that [Karen Traviss] moving on because [of] her opinion that canon is being changed. I guess the big problem is the assumption that her work is canon in the first place. After working with George on The Clone Wars series, I know there are elements of her work that are not in line with his vision of Star Wars” – Henry Gilory, Star Wars: The Clone Wars Head write, 2009, TheForce.com podcast.
