#I'm responding to this reblog mainly because the last time I posted a similar (but much less updated) quote collection

[david-talks-sw]

I'm gonna blatantly use this opportunity to share some of my other writings for those who are new to my blog. Hope you don't mind :)

"It can be both things, and not everything in [the Prequels] necessarily has to be a conscious decision on George's part."

So... yes. It can be about both things.

But on the condition that you decide to forego the author's intended narrative, which is my whole point.

Conversely:

Red Riding Hood is a story about parental neglect and animal cruelty, as the only reason the poor starving wolf gets cut open is because Red Riding Hood's mom let her travel alone in the woods, instead of accompanying her.

Batman is a psychotic rich boy who uses child soldiers to beat the mentally ill, because instead of using his money to end world hunger, he takes the Robins who sometimes were as young as 10-years-old to attack his rogues gallery, all of whom need help and get sent to an asylum for a reason.

These are (uncharitable) takes that can be argued, if you choose to ignore the fact that, no, narratively, the Bad Wolf is a villain and the Robins are sidekicks to a superhero.

But while you can say "Batman is a psycho who uses child soldiers", you can't (not genuinely, at least) say the Batman story is meant to be about a psycho who uses child soldiers. Because aside from a few exceptional tales... it's not. It's a comic about a superhero. Note the word "hero" in the term.

And in a lot of works of art, the artist will leave stuff up to interpretation, so the audience can see it and take away from it what they wish. Many times, they'll refrain from giving their own headcanon so as to not step on anyone's feet.

George Lucas... is not one of those artists. He has been very explicit on what he's going for, just listen to the director's commentaries, read his interviews and watch his talks.

So while the Prequels can certainly be about things, you can't tell me with a straight face that they're meant to be about both those things. Because they're really not.

I mean, take the first thing you argue:

Throughout the prequels, the Jedi look at Anakin with distrust and disdain. He's "too old", he's "too emotional". He cares too much about his mother.

If you look at what George Lucas said about how the Jedi first met him, he openly admits the whole "he's too old, we can't train him" bit is just a way to keep Anakin in the third act of the movie.

He also sides with the Jedi's arguments about Anakin being dangerous and says that Qui-Gon's insistence on training him is controversial.

CLEARLY, the narrative that they "mistrusted him and looked at him with disdain" doesn't fit with the narrative.

"Instead of getting this traumatized former slave actual psychiatric care, or any sort of nurturing that a child needs, he's told to just bottle everything up and ignore it."

Once again, the trauma that a former slave must feel is never even a factor in George Lucas' narrative. In 779 collected quotes, I've never seen him address Anakin's background as a slave in that context, instead referring to it as a humble beginning like in mythological tropes.

But considering how much he agrees with the Jedi principles (or rather, how much the Jedi's principles echo is own ones inspired by Buddhist philosophy) it's clear the narrative is that, well, the Jedi teachings were the "therapy" for lack of a better term.

Which takes us to your next point:

"Or rather, he's told to "let go", but he doesn't know how to do that, and no one ever tells him, so it just sits inside him, festering. And his instructors just roll their eyes and curl their lips and pass him along."

Once again, though... George agrees with the Jedi, on this.

He'll usually blame Anakin's failure to let go as the source of his problems, not the Jedi's inability to teach him properly (on the contrary, he refers to it as a "basic Jedi principle").

This idea that "non-attachment was never explained to Anakin" is pure fanon. It was explained to him. By his mother, in Episode I...

... but also we see he knows the theory of it because he's literally reciting it in Episode II...

... and even teaching Ahsoka on how to overcome it herself.

The idea that his instructors roll their eyes and pass him along is also inaccurate when taking George's narrative into account, especially when you factor in scenes like Mace and Yoda telling Obi-Wan to get off Anakin's back, for example.

Bottom line (and like you acknowledged): personal responsibility is a big factor in George's Star Wars. Just like you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink, and therapy is only effective when the person in therapy wants to heal, the Jedi gave Anakin the tools to get better, but it was up to him to take that last step through the door.

You can ignore all of the above, and say that "we never saw any Jedi explain attachment to Anakin so it didn't happen," but then that's you choosing to forego the word of the author in favor of a story you relate to more because, as you've said, it happens in real life.

"And so in swoops Palpatine, all smiles and understanding. Of course Anakin gravitates toward him. Of course Anakin trusts him. Palpatine would not have been able to groom him if the Jedi had just done their fucking job in the first place."

There is no evidence from what GL said to indicate that the interjection of Palpatine in Anakin's life is the fault of the Jedi.

"The Jedi failed to notice the Sith lord in their own midst. They were arrogant and cocky. They were complacent. They were convinced of their own superiority."

Here too, I mean, it's mixing stuff that is part of George's narrative with stuff that he explained already and didn't frame as a failing on the Jedi's side.

Yes, the Prequels Jedi are indeed complacent and arrogant.

George explains in the AOTC commentary that it's what the contrast between the Jocasta Nu/Dexxter scenes shows: the Jedi think they're prepared for the incoming conflict and no, they're really not. The battlefield has shifted beneath their feet and they're still playing catch-up, instead of adjusting their tactics to the now more-political battlefield.

That said: "cocky" and "convinced of their own superiority" is an uncharitable description that doesn't match the narrative. Because the reason the Jedi can't find the Sith Lord is because the Dark Side has clouded everything.

It's impossible to find a specific black object in a dark room at night.

So there's "being unprepared because you didn't know a threat was looming", and there's "being a cocky asshole who's swinging his lightsaber in a helicopter motion and saying "come get me shit lords, I've got your dark side riiiight here!""

The narrative, through close-ups of the Jedi masters being visibly worried...

... and actively searching for the Sith Lord that trained or was trained by Darth Maul...

... shows that the Jedi are doing their best.

They're not asleep at the wheel, they're just driving through an unexpected fog.

"And when Yoda comes back in TLJ..."

Let's stop right there. TLJ takes plot points from George's Sequel ideas, as I've pointed out in this collection of quotes and this defense of TLJ Luke, but it doesn't reflect George Lucas' intended narrative.

Rian Johnson has said that he came up with it by himself.

"Accepting that emotions are a part of the humanoid experience that you can't just get rid of, and that in ignoring them you drive more people toward the Dark Side, as they find it the only place they can freely express themselves."

The Jedi don't ignore their emotions...

... nor do they ignore their Dark Side.

They have been shown confronting and accepting it multiple times, in both George's narrative and current canon.

I mean we literally see Yoda almost crying in AOTC, we see Obi-Wan get angry multiple times throughout the Prequels, we see Mace get so mad at planetary leaders for killing an innocent animal that he'll pull a lightsaber to their throat.

We literally see many Jedi be faced with a "fear" and overcome it by standing their ground and accepting it as a part of themselves.

The Jedi are about emotional regulation. "Have your emotions, but don't be ruled by them." Not emotional repression.

Again, read the data and you'll see that in George's Star Wars, the Dark Side isn't freedom to feel your emotions. It's freedom to be ruled by your selfish desires and quest for constant pleasure. The Dark Side is greed while the Good Side is compassion.

"The Jedi did fail, and that failure is a major theme of the prequels. The point is being able to learn from that failure."

The Prequels are about the Jedi's failure in the same way that The Lord of the Rings is about how Gandalf went to Mordor (which is to say, not at all).

Yes. That happens in the story. But it's not what the story is meant to be about. And at this point you might say:

"David, I don't give a fuck about what George Lucas says the Prequels are meant to be about. You're not the boss of me, the interpretation of any artwork is subjective."

And my answer is: more power to you. I agree completely.

That's completely fine. Come up with your headcanons and interpretations. If you want to strictly engage with the material but not the narrative, as Karen Traviss did, for example...

... it's fine. That's also literally what the above-quoted Star Wars authors have done.

But 1) there's a difference between saying:

"I think the Prequels are about X" and

"George said the Prequels are about X" or "the Prequels are meant to be about X"

Because the first one only concerns your view, and it holds as much weight as anyone else's (if you adhere to a "death of the author" approach).

The second is verifiable and factually disprovable, as George has been very vocal.

And 2) clearly, a lot of people do give a fuck about what George's view of the Prequels is, as they keep using him as an authority argument, be they current Star Wars creators (for instance, in the above-collected quotes by Filoni & co) or enraged fans.

So - as someone who's read the data - I'm sharing my findings and pointing out that there's a difference.

From this point on, we either all say

"well, fuck what it's meant to be about, I like the way that I (and maybe some new Star Wars media) interpret it...

or we stay consistent and keep putting George's word on a pedestal, in which case, can we please let's stop pushing the narrative that it's about the Jedi's failure? Leave my space wizard meow meows alone.

If I'm completely honest, I find myself being somewhere in-between those two options. But hey. That's my two cents.

I'd say where the dissonance really starts, when it comes to the portrayal of the Jedi in more recent Star Wars stories, is the perception of what the Prequels are about.

They're not about the Jedi.

George Lucas said over and over that they're about:

How a democracy turns into a dictatorship, we see this in the background of the films, as the Republic descends into becoming the Empire.

That first theme is then paralleled with a second theme: how a good kid becomes a bad man. We see this in the more character-driven and personal exploration of Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side.

The Prequels’ focus is on Anakin and the Republic, these films are not primarily about the fall of the Jedi. In fact, I’d argue they aren’t about the Jedi at all!

And when you look at the original backstory, you’ll notice that it also primarily focuses on:

The political subplot of the Republic’s downfall and Palpatine becoming the Emperor.

Anakin’s turn and his betrayal of the Jedi. 

So, there too… the Jedi themselves aren’t really that big a part of the Prequels’ original idea. They aren't mentioned much, beyond their trying to save the Senate and getting wiped out.

The Star Wars movies aren't about the Jedi, they're about Anakin and Luke, they're about Obi-Wan and Padmé and Han and Leia, the Rebellion vs the Empire, the fall of the Republic.

They're not about Ben and Yoda and Mace and Ki-Adi and Plo Koon and Shaak Ti and Luminara.

Just like Harry Potter isn't about Dumbledore and McGonagall. Just like the Lord of the Rings isn't about Gandalf.

On a functional level, the Jedi are:

POV characters who witness the events unfold with their hands tied, they're our anchors, whose eyes we see through to see democracy crumble into dictatorship.

Embodiments/vectors of the message George Lucas wanted to get across through these movies, which is the conflict between selfishness & selflessness, greed & compassion (Sith & Jedi).

But that's about it.

However, if you ask today’s fans and Star Wars creatives, most will say the Prequels are about the fall of the Jedi Order.

This is a take shared by a big chunk of the fandom, including various filmmakers, authors, and executives involved with Star Wars, so much so that the time period the Prequel films cover has now been redubbed by Lucasfilm as the “Fall of the Jedi era”.

Which leaves us with a question... why? Why the dissonance?

My guess? It's because the Jedi are cool. They're awesome.

And deep down, they wanted the Prequels to be about the Jedi. About the Jedi Knights at their height, errant warriors like the Knights of the Round Table.

And they didn't get that. They got a bunch of diplomats serving a political institution. And that didn't make sense, right? That's not what they expected so it's bad. And it's Star Wars. It's Lucas. It can't be bad, right? So like... what were they missing?

Oh... wait... what if... that's the point? That the Jedi were supposed to be Knight Errants and being guided by the Force instead of like - ew - space ambassadors for the Republic. Yeah now it all makes sense.

The Jedi in the Prequels aren't what we wanted them to be and that's their failure! Like, it's not just that I didn't like them because they weren't likeable to me, it's that I'm not supposed to like them because the narrative totally says so--

-- it doesn't.

The Jedi preach and practice the same Buddhist values as George Lucas, mirroring what he says in interviews almost verbatim.

The relationship between Obi-Wan and Anakin/Qui-Gon mirrors the dynamic between Lucas and Coppola.

The designs of the Jedi and their temple had to be toned down because they looked too bureaucratic and systemic.

This is Lucas we're talking about. "On the nose" is his middle name. He named the drug-peddling sleazebag "Elan Sleazebaggano." He ditched an elaborate introduction of General Grievous in exchange for just "the doors slide open, in walks Grievous and he's ugly."

If he had really been hell bent on framing the Jedi as elitist squares who lost their way and were mired in bureaucracy, he would've made them and the Jedi Temple look like the authorities in THX-1138.

They weren't likeable to some fans because, well, they weren't developed or shown as much as someone like Anakin. Because it's not about them. It's not their story. It's Anakin's. It's Luke's. It's their respective friends'. Or maybe it's an adversity to "perfect goody two-shoes" characters (which the Jedi are not). But hey, it's a movie for kids. Some 2-dimensionality is forgivable.

Bottom line, had more time been spent on the Jedi, had Lucas made the Prequels into a limited show and give them a whole subplot, had he decided to do away with the 30s serial dialog and let someone else write the dialog, maybe the reception might've been different.

But that's what we got. And guess what it's fine.

It's more than fine, it's fucking awesome.

I proudly and confidently say that I love the Prequels, with and without The Clone Wars.

I love my space monks, I love that they're diplomat wizards, I love that there's such a variety of them, I love that Mace is a no-bullshit guy who genuinely cares about his fellow Jedi and how screwed the Republic is, and Yoda is wise and kind but also a gremlin weirdo who'll embarass you in front of a classroom full of kids, and Ki-Adi has a penis for a head, is constantly calm and yet goes down like a champ even though they take him by surprise. I love that Shaak Ti can kung fu an army full of Magna Guards and still have the energy to charge at Grievous. I love that Obi-Wan is a sass machine who is also hilariously oblivious to the fact that he's just as terrible as Anakin.

They're awesome even if they're not perfect. They're awesome because they're not perfect.

But the movies are not really their story.

They're Anakin's. They're Luke's. They're the Republic's and the Rebellion's. And the fight against a space Nazi emperor/empire.

[greenelectricsky]

Hi everyone! I'm GreenElectricSky and this is my blog, mainly about Cats. (My pronouns are they/them here, he/him. Please, not girl, she/her!!! also, long past 18) Also my earlier posts about flowers and every other stuff I liked are here. Now, what is not related to Cats will be published/rebloged on another blog :) Because it's become problematic I also made a blog only for my fanfiction and Cats Scenes, so if you like to see them go to @moonyskyallthetime :)

Those are my main OCs:

Cysiek and TuśTuś:

Cysiek is more my OC when TuśTuś is more my catsona, as they are more similar to me:) They are Tugger and Munku's twins.

My Cats Scenes are tagged #i think im funny. I'm doing them almost daily from 12.07.2023, so it's a solid number now :) Also, now they are linked together, so have fun. And my writing is tagged "my writing" ;) It can happen I post here links to my other fiction too.

Although, because it was a problem a few times, I want to say one thing loud and clear: PERSONALLY I DON'T SHIP INCEST AND CHILD/ADULT. It doesn't mean YOU can't - if you like it, it's your fun, not mine, and definitely I don't judge you because of that! If I ship someone you think they are siblings or kittens, in MY headcanon they are NOT. (I have a lot of ships, so when I write tuggerstrap they aren't brothers - funny thing here. I know Cats from 1998, film and other shows, and I never saw them as a brothers. Only after I joined here I was enlighted that some people see them like this. So stop telling me it's disgusting, this ship lives in my head longer than some of you! - but when I write tuggoffelees, then yes, there is a big chance Tugger and Munku are brothers, etc.) I hope it's clear now :)

This blog is LGBTQIA+ friendly. It's also friendly to everyone who behave respectfully to others. I don't want to be part of any kind of war in fandom, I'm too old and peaceful for this shit. Pro-shippers, shippers, non-shippers are welcomed here.

I hope we all can have fun together, be fans and show our love for Cats in every form we like!

If you want to ask, then ask, I would love to respond to your questions. Also about my OCs to Cats (TuśTuś, Cysiek, Mirage, FinFun, FanFanGrace, Cream, Tango, Papyrus, Sky, Silenia, Jemmysweets, Adonis, Star, Sun, Moon, Shyny, Haze, Oranglow, SpicyJuice, Amberlina, FlowerFlow, EarthyRose, HoneyTrap, AlmonDisco, Vanilliarity, Bumblee, Tikku. More about them here) or any other things you like. If you want to just be friends I also love to know you better, start a talk, don't be shy :) But please, don't send me anons with luck chains or other things like "and tag another ten mutuals/blogs" because it's... Creepy? From anon I can take the real question because someone can want to know but is shy or something, I can understand that. Chains only from not anons, please :)

P.S.II (08.12.2023) I wanted to do something for less appreciated pairings/ships, other relationships too and started to do it in my advent calendar (now with tag #advent calendar and #cats advent calendar). If you want something with them or any other pairings/ships I didn't write send me a prompt, ship and tag (or at last two of them) and you get something! HERE (another update 16.04.24, 16.02.24, 07.01.24, 28.12.23, 25.12.2023) is a list of pairings/ships/ and other kinds of relationships (with tags) I'm making (here or somewhere else like my published/no published fanfiction). If there isn't your ship - don't worry, I can write it too and even add it to that list :) One thing - I'm not doing abusive/toxic relationships, because... well, because just no.

https://discord.gg/PgwBFH9M

2023! Achievements!!!!!

Lovies!!!!! <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3