Star Wars Analyses

A Buddhist who loves to write I My blog is dedicated to the Star Wars Saga, analyzing symbolism, motifs, themes, character arcs, philosophy of the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy and offering explanations for frequently asked questions

[writerbuddha]

How was Anakin Skywalker selfish and greedy?

When we love, we usually love in two ways

When we’re attached, that means we want to be with that person, and we don’t want to be without that person. Why is that? When we want to be with someone, that’s because they make us feel good. They’re beautiful, kind, smart, comforting, funny – we like them, we enjoy them, or more correctly, we enjoy these good qualities of another person, because they bring us happiness. In turn, we desire to be with them, so we can be supplied with the happiness, we can receive those pleasurable experiences. Is that, in our mind, a bad thing? No, it is not. But is that self-referential? Yes, it is – it’s entirely focused on ourselves, it’s the desire to make ourselves happy. And that is why attachment is called selfish.

Is that, in our mind, a bad thing? No, it is not. But is that love? No, it’s not love. Because love is unconditional, compassionate: we’re concerned about the well-being of another person, regardless how they make us feel. We want them to be happy, and we want them to be free from suffering. That is unconditional, compassionate love. It’s focused on another person. The core of love is being happy for another person’s happiness, to rejoice for, and rejoice with another person. It’s the desire to make another person to be happy.

So, love and attachment are two clearly distinguished relations to another person. And the main difference between attachment and love is, that attachment is a linkage to another person, formed out of the desire to experience the happiness ensued upon their company, upon having them in our lives, whereas love is unity with that person, birthed by feeling how they feel, their joy is being our joy, their sorrow is being our sorrow.

How attachment is bad?

Now, the question, “How attachment is bad?” is understandable. It’s generally considered to be selfish, but not self-indulgent, certainly not possessive, greedy or bad. The answer is that attachment, which is our striving to not to be parted from the source of our happiness, is in stark conflict with how reality is. The most fundamental truth that on some level we all know about the universe, and everything in it – all things and beings - is that everything is transient. Everything is constantly changing, moving from beginning to end, from creation to destruction, from birth to death, from meeting to parting. People and things will be there in our lives, then they won’t be there, because they’re passing through our lives, and life itself is passing through us. For this, attachment is grasping, grabbing onto the coming and passing things in our lives, wanting to have, to possess, to own, to keep them, so we can stay happy, whereas that’s impossible. We can’t hold onto things, we can’t make them stay, we can’t have them, they’re not ours. They have their own course, moving to us, then moving away from us.

And that is why attachment is greed: it’s self-interested desire for more of the happiness, that it was given, that it was possible to have, desiring things to not to move away. And that is why when we become attached to a person or a thing, we become afraid of losing them – we’re afraid to be without them, we’re afraid from the pain of not having the happiness they give to us. The greater the happiness, the more we afraid, the more we want to hold onto it, and when we ultimately, inevitably lose them, the more we suffer. And the fear of loss eventually makes us angry, especially when we lose, and we start to see threat to our possessions, obstacles to our happiness: we become jealous, we become hateful, and we suffer, because we spend our lives, all our happy moments haunted by the fear of loss, filled with anger and hate.

Do not think of extremes, like making a pact with the Devil to save our loved ones from death. Most of us are able to endure the pain when they slide, and not to go extremes, like physically forcing people to stay with us, becoming clingy, controlling. But emotionally, we grasp on the people we love: we crave the happiness they give to stay with us, we don’t want to be separated from them, and the happiness, we still hold onto them. We don’t let them go – we just let them tear themselves apart from us. And as a result, we suffer terribly.

But don't we all need attachments?

Now, our need for love, warmth, affection and security is at the foundation of our human existence. We simply cannot be without it, and that is because the core of reality is interdependence. This is how it is; we orient ourselves toward people to whom we can turn for emotional support, guidance, love, and we need such people to be in our lives – it’s a necessity, interlocked with, and inherent to being alive. But we must realize, those causes of our well-being that are around us – friends, family, pets, even objects - are too coming and passing elements of reality, thus, we can’t be attached to them, we can’t grow ties to them, founding our well-being on their temporary presence in our lives. (That's why Buddhism defies to label such emotional connections as "attachments," whereas Western psychology labels them as such.) As long as they're in our lives, we shall enjoy them, take comfort in them, love them, but we must accept, both in our minds and in our hearts, that we can’t hold onto them, that we can only long for them not to move away from us, that will lead to pain and suffering.

Letting go

And that is why we must cease our attachments, or in other words, to let go of everything we afraid to lose. It's not getting rid of the people or the things we love in order to let go of them - letting go is to loosen the fearful grasp on those we love, holding only very gently, and letting things flow, to come and go.

Fearless love: compassion

The way to overcome fear of loss, and therefore suffering, is to love compassionately, unconditionally. Love, which is compassion, which is wanting another person to be happy, and free from suffering, rejoicing for the happiness of others, is, by itself, a joy that we cannot get in any other way, a joy that we cannot get through having ephemeral things in our lives. It's selfless, giving, caring, protecting, without the thought of any reward, and as long as you love people compassionately, you won't be afraid of loss. And because change, and the biggest change of all, death will interrupt having, but can never interrupt love, in the moment you trade the love of joy for the joy of love, you shall find eternity. This way, you can let go those who you love to move away from you, when it's time, or when it must happen, because you can forever keep them in your heart.

[cheaphalloweencostume]

someone new in my replies implying only white people watch movies made more than 15 years ago because thats roughly when all movies stopped being racist. just spreading the word

[cheaphalloweencostume]

does anyone else smell burning toast

[maidenvault]

When I was growing up in the 90s a lot of the live-action shows on the channel I mainly watched, Nickelodeon, were black sitcoms or sketch comedy with a largely black cast. Obviously it was never a “black entertainment channel.” This was just normal.

In 1989 we had a black Harvey Dent. Billy Dee Williams plays him in the first Batman movie, and the intention was for him to be a main character later. When they originally intended to bring in Robin in Batman Returns, Marlan Wayans was cast. This wasn’t “woke.” It was just the kind of casting you saw sometimes, if still not enough.

Obviously the industry was a lot more racist back then in a lot of ways, the kind of roles black actors could get was even more limited. But the culture wars are just so different and reactionary now, it’s so ugly. The internet isn’t just exposing racism that was always there, it feels like it’s feeding and validating it. And I honestly think some modern movies can get a ridiculous amount of credit for being progressive and diverse just because of the insane outrage and backlash that happens when people have to look at a woman of color on the screen.

[writerbuddha]

And we don't need to agree with the casting choices of the director of a movie made in the 20th century in order to learn a valuable point from the story itself. If you ask me, it's much more of an issue if all you can value about a movie is the casting choices.

Funny. After all the talk about post-modernist analysis and critique, the modernist idea that the past was primitive, the present is rational, and the future will be better seems to make a come-back. Not a fan.

[theresolutenegotiator]

I thought we had decided not to fall in love...

[writerbuddha]

George Lucas' third trilogy included Darth Maul's apprentice, "a young girl named Darth Talon," a red-skinned Twi'lek, who would have serve as the active villain in the story as Vader did in Episodes IV-VI. The Maul show makes me think (hope) that Disney decided to take his treatments out of the trash bin and in some form, his vision for the post-Return of the Jedi galaxy will come to Disney canon.

[writerbuddha]

As Margaret Atwood said, writing is a conversation with the reader. This is true of all forms of storytelling. And just as you would want the people you speak with to engage with what you have to say, authors — writers, filmmakers, all of them — want you to pay attention to them. Have your headcanons, have fun with your fan fiction. But have the basic decency to care about what the author was actually telling you and to respect the author’s canon.

[audreymolinatti]

i loved andor and mon mothma is so great. i was inspired by renaissance martyr art .

[writerbuddha]

This is an excerpt from a larger essay I am working on, I though it would be a good idea to post it:

"Although Yoda clearly identifies fear, anger, and aggression as the dark side of the Force, and warns Luke not to use the strength that flows from them, as they will rule him and he will forever have to bear the consequences of what he has done under their sway, many fans and critics have distorted these teachings. The dark side is often asserted to be a malevolent metaphysical force or principle of wickedness that operates through fear, anger, and aggression. In the Expanded Universe novel Heir to the Empire, Timothy Zahn even altered Yoda’s teachings, writing, “Fear and anger, Yoda had often warned [Luke], were the slaves of the dark side.” In the 2000s, Matthew Stover spoke out against what he identified as the “dark-side-is-the-devil” perspective in the Expanded Universe, attempting to steer the narrative back toward Lucas’ canon. However, a few years later, in James Luceno’s The Unifying Force, Luke declared, “Anger by itself is not of the dark side,” and nevertheless insisted on fighting to “eradicate” the dark side, calling it “Evil” itself. Moreover, video games such as Knights of the Old Republic II portrayed drawing strength from the dark side as calling upon a mystical entity for magical powers through anger and aggression.

By the mid-2010s, such distortions had led to the formation of a primitive yet increasingly widespread interpretation that Jedi Knights were forbidden from feeling fear, anger, aggression, or other strong emotions altogether; Yoda’s teachings were reinterpreted as declaring such emotions “evil” in themselves, replacing valuable and practical psychological lessons on emotional regulation with a caricature of emotional repression. This interpretation resonated with those who may have been raised to believe that anger is always wrong, that feeling it is itself a moral failure, or that anger must be suppressed lest one face punishment in the afterlife - however, it does not match with the original cinematic portrayal."

[lesbinewren]

crazy how every time a female character gets cliche misogynistic writing we have to explain to people again that fictional characters are not real and do not choose things for themselves.

[lesbinewren]

it’s really this at the end of the day tbh

[writerbuddha]

That, and that how many people think that they somehow can and should discover the "truth" that the  documentary filmmakers didn't want you to see, because they're mean and biased.

[inquisitor-apologist]

See the thing about me is I’m generally a very pro-Death of the Author style guy. I’ve read the original essay, I understand the concept, I often engage with media through that kind of lens, I get it. But this fandom as a whole seems to have NO IDEA what that concept even means.

You stop being able to apply Death of the Author when you’re actually like. Centering authorial intent. You can’t make a post like “oh the Whole Intended Point of The Original Trilogy was that Luke rejected the teachings of the Old Jedi™️ and chose love over dogma” and then when someone pulls up GL interviews showing that he did not actually intend to communicate that Luke rejected Jedi teachings and was in the right for that say “well, death of the author, that’s my interpretation!”.

Like, cool buddy, if that is for some reason what you want to take away from the Original Trilogy (I can’t imagine why, given that the teachings of the Old Jedi barely exist in the OT, but you do you) that’s fine and it does fit with Death of the Author, but you brought up authorial intent. You weren’t arguing that your interpretation is valid, you were arguing that it was in fact the express intent and vision of the creator, which is a completely different thing incompatible with Death of the Author analysis.

If someone’s criticizing RotS/the Prequels from the angle that they failed to create an effective ‘inevitable tragedy’ narrative as was intended… it’s entirely fair for someone to bring up behind the scenes material and quotes demonstrating that Lucas did not in fact intend to create an ‘inevitable tragedy’ narrative in the first place! You can’t apply Death of the Author if your analysis supposes that the author is alive and intended [x]! The entire point of Death of the Author is that the author’s intention becomes irrelevant once it is released and that the meaning of a text can only be found in the interpretation of the audience!

[writerbuddha]

I'm afraid, for these people, Death of the Author actually means "Death to the Author." They want to BECOME the author. “Well, death of the author, that’s my interpretation!” actually means, "I am the author now, the story is whatever I want it to be!"

[writerbuddha]

Question: does anyone know, why Alex Kane's article, titled "The Power of Compassion," which ended with the passage

"I’ll admit that when I first saw Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, I thought Anakin was stretching the truth when he told Padmé compassion was “central to a Jedi’s life.” The idea that Jedi “are encouraged to love” seemed like the kind of thing you’d say to a beautiful senator if you wanted her to fall in love with you, despite whatever the Jedi Code might have to say about it. But now, with years of hindsight, I understand Skywalker was speaking the truth. Heroism isn’t about brandishing a certain color lightsaber; it’s marked by loving-kindness for all living things."

was deleted from StarWars.com? 🤔

[writerbuddha]

One of the reasons why the Jedi Order is criticized is the fact that George Lucas' Star Wars actually shows that the good guys can't be always nice and you can't do perfect. The Clone Wars illustrates this masterfully: as Lucas said, "Are they going to stick with their moral rules and all be killed, which makes it irrelevant, or do they help save the Republic?" But some people are just unable to accept this.

There is always a right choice. Right doesn't mean it's the nicest and most perfect choice, the one that you might find the most satisfying and pure. But it's the best choice you can be make in given circumstances. And in 99% of life, that's all we can do.

[disease-danger-darkness-silence]

But! Most of us can do that without like. Stealing children.

[writerbuddha]

😂 Sorry, I can't decide:

Is this just a shitpost?

Or are you hoping for a real discussion about this, including, but not limited to what is regarded as culturally acceptable for children, the notions of who children "belong to," whether it's ever actually possible to raise a child without instilling our own values and worldview into them, why so many people believe that the Jedi younglings are "kidnapped," as well as the conundrum of the fact that if we insist, a child is too young to decide whether they want to be taken to the Jedi Temple and raised by the Jedi, they’re also too young to decide whether they want to be left with their parents and let that opportunity pass?

[blueberry-ry]

Everybody loves characters with an unshakable moral code that is imbedded to their core and that they would rather die than break <3 (unless they are women)

[writerbuddha]

What I find interesting is that criticism leveled against Satine applies to the Lumen elder in the Jedi Crash arc, who declared "we would rather die than to harm others" or something along those lines. He clearly saw the prospect of his entire village - including himself and his own children - being killed by a firebomb, fired by a Separatist general just to test his weapon, as a glorious triumph of non-violence, the right thing to do, the martyrdom which raises them to the ultimate level of goodness.

By contrast, although Satine guided Mandalore away from the militaristic and barbaric past, and visibly reduced their military, she herself declared, just because she is a pacifist, it doesn't mean that she won't defend herself, and Mandalore, too, had a security force with very much lethal weapons. In fact, it was explicitly stated by Satine's minister, "we have been training for this. We can stop them. But if we are to combat them effectively, we must have the temerity to stand strong in the name of peace."

The Death Watch admittedly was not strong enough to take over Mandalore without the will of the people, and they eventually succeeded only by allying themselves with crime syndicates and Darth Maul, who overrun Mandalore by surprise and created panic and chaos. It can be said that the security system failed, but that's not because of pacifism. Then, Satine addressed her people, telling them not to afraid of the attackers - which actually implies that she intended to call them into arms. But the people turned to the Death Watch for protection.

There is a type of pacifism that makes one a doormat, like the Lumens. And there is a type of pacifism that is non-aggression and keeping military as low as possible, but still effective. Yes, they ultimately failed, but it's not because Satine - and her new Mandalore - was a doormat.

I am forced to the unhappy conclusion that Satine is smeared by certain fans because she embodies the behind-the-scenes reality that their beloved Mandalorian warriors from Legends novels are portrayed as totalitarian terrorists who would relish death and warfare.

[writerbuddha]

There's something deeply disturbing about journalists who are at best in their 30s, write "the original Star Wars (or A New Hope for younger readers)." I mean, "younger readers"? Star Wars (1977) wears the title "A New Hope" since 1981. That's 44 years today. Even if you were born a decade after it received this title, you're 34. I will never understand why people like to pretend that Generation Y and Z never happened.

[exorcismpersonified-deactivated]

reblog to tell your mutual you’re proud of them and it’ll all work out

[rickktish]

Not quite sure how to explain that I don't hc Obi-Wan as either ace or aro but that I frequently have to block literally every ship I've ever seen him in while fic searching bc the Whole Point of Siri Tachi in the EU and Satine Kryze in Clone Wars is that he WILL fall in love and he WILL put his beliefs over his feelings every time and it genuinely exhausts me how people devalue that in today's society by saying either he must not experience or want those kinds of attraction or else those feelings must be more important to him than his oaths and yes, I do think there's something to be read in here about my experience as a queer Christian but I think it might be less than anyone would assume given my particular FLAVOR of queer and Christian identities and how do I explain!!! That for some of us the things we believe!!! Are more important than the things we feel!!!!!!! Because tbh I barely trust my own memories 60% of the time but at least my convictions give me something to keep living for!!! And I think that is So important to a character like Obi-Wan, who DOES fall in love and DOES probably want to have sex and!! Still chooses not to!!! And THAT my friends is what made him the Jedi Of All Time (mostly) because he could let go of what he wanted for something that he deemed to be more important!!! He could give it up!!! For the sake of a higher purpose and calling!!! And I mean personally I and my church are pretty rather fairly maybe a little very philosophically and theologically anti-celibacy but if celibacy is part of your vows!!! And your vows are part of the beliefs you hold most dear!!!! Then keep those vows!!!! Keep those oaths!!! What another person believes about your faith is so much less important than what you believe about your faith, and while Anakin might have decided that being willing to refuse to break the values you aspire to for the sake of a person you care about is evil, Obi-Wan actually believes in those values, and that matters vastly more than trying to arbitrarily decide whether one or the other of them was more morally correct, because it seriously depends on which perspective you relate to more! And it matters because he both believes them and keeps them. Because Anakin was able to break them because he didn't believe them, and Obi-Wan didn't because he actually valued those beliefs. Anyway this is why I'm dissatisfied with both the aro/ace/etc tag combos and the shippy fics for Obi-Wan bc I feel like there's this entire other perspective of Obi-Wan's character that gets ignored in favor of presuppositions that if you feel things, you must act on them, and if you don't act on them, it's because you don't feel them. And that's just not how that works at all. But also people don't much like to explore the possibility that the jedi order could both include vows of celibacy for some or all its members AND be good guys, because people associate that with Real Life Organizations and start tying things in that are just... Hnnnng.

Words machine broke. Sleep time. But it just pisses me off a little sometimes. Or greatly disappoints me. Depending on the day.

[writerbuddha]

When you talk about attachments being bad in Star Wars do you mean specifically in that fictional universe where Lucas set it up to be that way or do you also apply this to real life and to other real life individuals as well?

Well, I'm talking about attachments, not "attachment as it exists in the universe made up by George Lucas!" Just like "fear" in the Star Wars universe is the same real life fear that real life individuals feel, and it causes problems the same way, "attachment" in Star Wars is the same attachment we're talking about in real life, between real life individuals, and the very same rules apply!

But I suspect your question is more about whether we're thinking about the same thing when we say the word "attachment." Many people would sort things like gravitating towards someone who provides us affection and comfort or enjoyment, or a sense of innate connection that pulls individuals together to form couples, families, friendships etc. into the category of "attachment." I use the word in accordance with Buddhist psychology, where "attachment" is the grasping and clinging on the things we like or love. The difference is not in the meaning of the word, but rather, in the way we understand the diverse instances of love, connection, appreciation, loyalty, sense of togetherness and belonging we might label as "attachments."

Please, feel free to ask for further clarification if my answer was not sufficient!

[writerbuddha]

Any other shows or movies you talk about in depth or are interested in in terms of philosophy outside of Star Wars?

I'm really interested in James Cameron's Avatar movies, especially the concept of Eywa, but it takes me forever to finish a draft and post it, so that will have to wait! 😂

Apart from that, I'm more interested in things like how the portrayal of character archetypes changes and the underlying sociology and psychology and politics of that change. For example, in Star Wars, the mentor character is someone who conveys the overall lessons of the story, whose guidance the hero badly needs (Yoda). You can see the same in Kung Fu Panda (Shifu and Oogway). But in, say, KPop Demon Hunters, the mentor figure (Celine) is actually someone whose views are outdated, and the hero is basically self-taught when it comes to profound lessons. So, there's a rising trope where the previous generation is not a source of experience and wisdom, but as an obstacle, which can promote critical thinking, but it can also backfire if it's presented as a general truth. I think it's interesting - and sometimes, scary! - to investigate these things!

But, again, I'm incredibly slow when it comes to actually writing these things down, so... one day I will flood my Tumblr with essays on this, but not in the near future! 😅