#luke would refuse on principle

[cap10froggerguy]

Alright, I just saw a poll on YouTube asking who would win between Luke and Anakin Skywalker, with both being at their prime and in peak form. And wouldn’t you know, the poll was favoring Anakin two to one.

Ok, look, Anakin never reached his prime since his emotional imbalances held him back. That being said, he was probably in peak form around the time of RoTS where, may i remind you, he was absolutely TROUNCED by Obi Wan.

Luke, meanwhile (in current canon) in in his prime around S2 of Mandalorian and BoBF. We see him facing off against droids during this, yes, but we also see that he has a greater sense of strategy and understanding of the force than Anakin did. Also recall that this Luke has already survived two encounters with Darth Vader, and won the last one.

In conclusion, if the two had to fight (Luke would not want to, and neither would Anakin if he discovered who Luke was), Luke is twice the Jedi Anakin is by that point, and even if we’re giving Ani dark sider rage then Luke still wins.

Anakin’s strategy is “Hit problem until it dies”, while Luke has been shown to be much more surgical and careful at this point in his life. In a life or death fight, Luke simply has to say something that Anakin doesn’t like, and then Anakin is, very much, dead, because he’ll lose control and wake up three hours later in a lava bath with two fourths of his limbs missing. Again.

[david-talks-sw]

As a quick addendum to this recent post:

Could the Jedi have done more to help Anakin? Sure. There's myriad more things that could've been done. For example, Mace could've sat Anakin down in the Council Chamber and gone "Skywalker, tell me what's really going on."

But it bears mentioning that the above scenario ⬆️ likely wouldn't yield any results. Because, well, Anakin barely ever opens up about his feelings or fears or past trauma.

He doesn't do it with Yoda, when the latter asks for more tangible information so he can tailor his advice.

He barely ever opened up to Ahsoka.

He barely did so with Obi-Wan.

And by Revenge of the Sith, he's even shutting Padmé out.

(Yes, part of it is due to the secrecy surrounding his marriage, but I've already explained my thoughts on why it's an unfounded fear at that point in time, and it's not the only factor behind his silence as he already didn't open up as far back as Phantom Menace, nor is it his only secret)

The only person he does confide in is Palpatine, who:

keeps enabling Anakin's flaws instead of letting him learn to overcome them,

keeps isolating him from everyone else.

And Palpatine's both the most powerful Sith in history and the leader of the free world, so he's always gonna find a way to worm himself into Anakin's life.

As long as Palpatine's in the picture, no matter what the Jedi or Padmé do, he'll be right around the corner, ready to undo it.

So at some point - short of Palpatine tripping into an empty elevator shaft and falling to his death - the only person who could've gotten Anakin out of that mess... was Anakin himself.

Would it have been difficult? Hell yes.

But as Shmi Skywalker (who let go of her attachment), Padmé Amidala (disciplined and principled), Obi-Wan Kenobi (refused to give in to anger upon losing the love of his life), Ezra Bridger (rejected the Emperor's promise of power and reunification with his loved ones), Luke Skywalker and Quinlan Vos (pulled back from the Dark Side against all odds) have shown us... it wouldn't have been impossible.

"All of my movies are about one thing, which is the fact that the only prison you’re in is the prison of your mind. And if you decide to open the door and get out, you can. There’s nothing stopping you." - George Lucas, SirusXM, American Voices, 2012

[jonsaslove]

This will be my one and only discoursing post about house of the dragon’s finale.

So many people are saying that Alicent’s character is being ruined (and to a lesser extent Rhaenyra’s) both with the earlier sept scene and now the finale scene.

I can agree that the writing is a bit clunky or even that the premise of these meetups is unrealistic, sure. However, most people are mad that Alicent is not raging with fury over the death of Jaehaerys, that Rhaenyra isn’t holding Lucerys’ death over her head, that Alicent is willing to give up Aegon and Aemond in exchange for her own life and Helaena’s. And in principle I get it, I really do.

But! I do not think that these choices equate to unequivocal bad writing. They are simply different from the choices that many people wanted the writers to make, they wanted Alicent and Rhaenyra to be allowed to be angry and righteous and vengeful instead of sorrowful and mournful and full of regret. There is a whole conversation to be had about this in terms of how women and men are written differently and how it may feel like Rhaenyra and Alicent’s motivations and feelings are being feminized as to be more palatable. Again, sure, I see that and I understand that critique, and agree with it. But do I think it isn’t realistic that Rhaenyra and Alicent’s shared past gives them some form of lingering endearment to one another, that they may hesitate to want the other dead even as these atrocities occur? No, I think that it’s pretty reasonable. Alicent did not strike down Lucerys on dragonback, Rhaenyra did not swing the steel to take Jaehaerys’ head. Which even if Alicent believes Rhaenyra ordered it, was retaliation for Luke’s death not expected, even dreaded? They are at war and still they are allowed to feel multiple feelings at once. They are allowed to be feel agony and then when face to face with the other feel hesitation on what violence and war actually mean, the consequences of those righteous feelings.

What it boils down to is that people are not realizing that the story the writers are telling is different than the one they envisioned in their heads, there is more of an internal look at these characters as humans with complexity as opposed to the caricatures we get in Fire & Blood (an in universe historical text that glosses over many intricacies of the Dance with countless potential for bias…but I digress). You can dislike the decisions being made, you can critique them, you can think some of the writing is bad too (there are parts I haven’t been thrilled about either), but blaming everything on “bad writing” feels like a cop out at this point so that you can refuse to engage with the text where it’s at and not what you thought it would be.

Rhaenyra and Alicent’s connection is a core tenet of the show, however you interpret that, and if you think that is going to be ‘fixed’ next season because there won’t be a writer’s strike or whatever other reason you cling to, you are deluding yourself. I enjoy a multitude of aspects of the show, many of the ships and their dynamics and I think by refusing to acknowledge that their relationship is at the very least central to the story (and accept the way the writer’s are choosing to write that relationship!) you will set yourself up for disappointment.

[raayllum]

one of my favourite aspect of foil dynamics is when you have a pair of (although not always) foils who switch narrative positions. for examples i’ll use frankenstein and the creature and burr and hamilton from hamiltion bc hamilton is good from a literary standpoint good god.

frankenstein starts off in creating/playing god in order to gain recognition and glory, but also as he increasingly isolates himself for his cause. the creature awakes in a world where he’s rejected by his creator & by all other humans and endures then painstaking isolation. after killing/threatening to kill some of frankenstein’s loved ones, the creature demands victor make him a wife - an eve to his adam - despite knowing it’d condemn her to a similarly lonely life, save one person, and frankenstein refuses. the two then become mutually hellbent on killing one another, even as they’re cognizant that whoever completes the murder will truly then be alone in the world and without purpose

for hamilton and burr this is even more clear. both orphans, though in increasingly different upbringings, and both ever cognizant of mortality and the notion of history. burr never takes a stand, hamilton arguably takes too many. but over the course of the play, burr becomes more like hamilton and hamilton becomes more like burr. this means that while they switch perspectives, they still fundamentally never understand each other, and it’s this misunderstanding that makes hamilton assume burr would never act like him and shoot him, and burr assume that hamilton would never act like him and throw away his shot, yet this is precisely what happens.

we even see this in star wars. luke chooses to save leia & han, just as anakin tries to protect padme and obi-wan. anakin cuts off luke’s hand, luke cuts off anakin’s hand. farmboys on tattooine, ace shot pilots, etc etc. and luke is nearly successfully turned to the dark side, yet reaffirms his father’s place by refusing to bend... in the last movie. that point couldn’t have come any earlier because 1) it’s the triumphant victory and 2) the narrative tension of the foil dynamic means it has to go on as long as possible.

arc 1 is kind of a perfect example, where viren starts out powerful and close to the king and magically strong, and ends the season falling to his death thanks to his elven guide, and callum starts out powerful and close to the new king and magically strong, and ends the season literally soaring to new heights thanks to his elven guide. but like - that’s arc 1. that’s the arc where the heroes win. of course it ends that way.

but now we’re in arc 2. 

we’re in the arc - s4 to s6 - where the heroes Lose. 

and we know that TDP is aware of these principles when it comes to callum and viren precisely because they are in many ways already in the process of being switched. in arc 1, callum is the one going through a season without magic and being pursued before a powerful creature can be reunited with its place in xadia’s hierarchy; in arc 2, that’s viren, even if he’s far more passive about it and callum is more active. they’re brother-mage-advisors to the king, placed in proximity to power but never allowed to fully wield it, they both chase magical agency in s2 beat for beat (2x04 -> 2x07 -> 2x09) only really diverging in the finale of the season. viren is now going to be having dark magic dreams while callum is presented with the coined elves viren imprisoned. 

like yes it’s true that they’re not the same person and won’t make all the same choices, but in a show that’s all about the younger generation struggling to not repeat the same choices as their predecessors, and still getting caught in the cycles of their own journeys... it’s like “i have always been ready to do anything to protect my family however dangerous however vile” and “i value those close to me more than anyone and anything” when callum means it even more than viren does (because viren is and has been willing to sacrifice his family - hi soren - pretty blatantly) is like... yeah they’ll Diverge. just not till s7 lmao

[adragonsfriend]

"If Anakin had just been able to be open about his family..."

Frankly, if Anakin and Padme had been open about their relationship during the war they would've been that couple that everyone knows is pretty but dysfunctional, and whom no one wanted to invite to parties because of the risk of Anakin publicly trying to get into fights.

Don't get me wrong at all I think Anakin and Padme have the potential to be a good couple that that good for them and the people around him, I love the ship in general (even and sometimes especially for the fact that it's a messy one), I think they're characters with great chemistry and enough overlapping values to work together. That said:

We need to stop with the idea that openly having a family (while simultaneously being a Jedi or not) would've automatically fixed a single one of Anakin's issues.

This is going to get spicy and not be as well written as my usual kind of post, cause I'm tired of this idea. Fight me if you wish (but before you do, think really hard about whether this post is actually mad at you or if it's talking about someone else).

If you're familiar, Jane Austen put it best in Sense & Sensibility in this conversation where Elinor (the main heroine) and Marianne (her sister) discuss Willoughby (the man who played Marianne, unwittingly actually fell for her, then left anyway when an opportunity to marry rich came along, and afterwards came to confess than he was miserable despite his new wealth and now believed he would've been happier if he'd married Marianne and been comparatively poor),

Marianne's lips quivered, and she repeated the word, "Selfish?" In a tone that implied, Do you really think him selfish? "The whole of [Willoughby's] behavior," replied Elenor, "From the beginning to the end of the affair has been grounded is selfishness. It was selfishness which first made him sport with your affections (he intended to play Marianne), which afterwards when his own were engaged made him delay the confession of it (he didn't tell Marianne he actually fell for her when he had the opportunity), and which finally carried him from Barton (he left her when the opportunity to marry rich appeared). His own enjoyment, or, his own ease, was, in every particular, his ruling principle." "It is very true. My happiness never was his object." [said Marianne] "At present," continued Elinor, "He regrets what he has done, and why does he regret it? Because he finds it has not answered towards himself. It has not made him happy. His circumstances are now unembarrassed (he's rich now), he suffers from no evil of that kind, and he thinks only that he has married a woman of a less amiable temper than yourself (he doesn't like his new rich wife). But, does it follow, that that had he married you, he would have been happy? The inconveniences would have been different. He would then have suffered under the pecuniary distresses, which because they are removed he now reckons as nothing. He would've had a wife of whose temper he could make no complaint, but he would've been always necessitous, always poor. And probably would soon have learnt to rank the innumerable comforts of a clear estate and good income as of far more importance, even to domestic happiness, than the mere temper of a wife." --Chapter 47

(Please excuse any mistakes in the quote, I was typing it out from listening to the audiobook)

Point being, circumstances do not automatically change people. We largely create our own realities and our dissatisfactions with those realities. A greedy person who refuses to change themself will be dissatisfied no matter what they gain in life.

And Anakin is greedy when is comes to his relationships. Not for money, but the way he wants people to make him feel. It's the whole arc of his character over the prequels and the originals. He learns to love selflessly from Luke, right at the end of his life. It's so important. It's the most important moment in the whole of Starwars, and to claim that Anakin was loving well before that moment diminishes it. Anakin's love for Padme did exist, and it had its good moments, but it was not selfless or giving like his love for Luke became in that moment.

Being open about his relationship with Padme would not have changed that quality of it. Openly having kids would not have changed the qualities in him.

Could he have found the people and time and motivation to face and deal with his issues while having a family, especially if the war somehow ended? Of course.

But having bio kids wouldn't've fixed him any more than having a padawan did. Being with Padme openly wouldn't've resolved the fact that she has a job she cares about , and is a full person who can't cater to his feelings all the time. ("Nothing matters more to me than the way you make me feel.")

Side note, but the utter hypocrisy of criticizing Yoda for assigning him a padawan and then turning around and saying, "but if he'd just not had to hide that he was having kids..." is wild. A knight raising a padawan is going to get a so much communal help and oversight from the community around them (as we see in clone wars), as oppose to a parent in a nuclear family format. If Anakin was "too young and totally unprepared for a padawan," and "Yoda shouldn't've done that," then Anakin was infinitely less prepared to be responsible for actual infants.

The only way being able to be open about his marriage would've helped him is that someone outside the relationship might've tried to step in and been like "please get help." And frankly, that's not actually anyone outside the relationship's responsibility to do. Also, Anakin displays plenty of red flags that have literally nothing to do with his relationship with Padme that people advise him to deal with, which he does not deal with.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Anakin could've left the Jedi. He was free to put down his laser sword and have the househusband arc he deserved at literally any point. And frankly, if his ONLY two options (and this is absolutely a false dichotomy) were commit mass murder or "fail" his duty to the Republic by retiring, I think we can all say which of those is better--both for the Republic and, for Anakin's soul or whatever.

When Ahsoka lost faith in the Jedi she was brave enough to make the decision to leave and find her own path. She left and discovered she still wanted to help people, just in other ways. Literally no one (in world or fans) considered her a failure for opting out of being a soldier in the war. Anakin could've done the same, and it was only his own ideas about status and attachment and violence (and yeah some genuine sense of duty too) that stopped him from doing so. In fact, he is the one to yell at Ahsoka that "The Jedi are your life!" Because he wants her to stay in his life.

Romantic relationships don't fix people.

Becoming a parent doesn't fix people.

People can fix themselves. When they do, it's often partly so they can be better to the people in their lives, be those spouses, friends, children, whatever--but the relationships themselves, the presence of those people in and of itself, is not what does the fixing.

It's effort. The genuine effort to act better. To follow their best impulses over their worst. To take themselves out of risky situations. To build good habits.

The idea that Anakin had to have a spouse, or had to have children in his life either to be happy or to not murder people is Hollywood and/or Sith propaganda, and we should treat it no differently than any other, "her magical vagina will cure him of his issues," or, "let's have kids to save our shitty suburban marriage," narrative.

[antianakin]

This could garner me a lot of hateful comments, but the whole "Obi-Wan is so extra attached to Anakin" thing in fandom is something I'm going to lay squarely at Matthew Stover's feet.

“I think," Obi-Wan said carefully, "that abstractions like peace don't mean much to him. He's loyal to people, not to principles. And he expects loyalty in return. He will stop at nothing to save me, for example, because he thinks I would do the same for him." Mace and Yoda gazed at him steadily, and Obi-Wan had to lower his head. "Because," he admitted reluctantly, "he knows I would do the same for him.”

Like this shit? This isn't something we see in the films. Not because the quote/scene doesn't exist, but the idea that Obi-Wan would "stop at nothing to save Anakin" does not appear to be true of Lucas's Obi-Wan.

It's OBI-WAN who insists Anakin has to leave Padme behind to do his duty. It's OBI-WAN who insists that Anakin be left in the dark about his faked death despite knowing how much it would hurt Anakin. It's OBI-WAN who ultimately DOES leave Anakin to die on the shores of Mustafar, who does his duty by refusing to save Anakin when there's nothing left to save. It's OBI-WAN who sacrifices himself to save Luke and abandons Anakin in the process. It's OBI-WAN who tells Luke that there may not be anything left of Anakin TO save and he may have to be ready to kill him in self-defense.

I'd even argue we actually do see that Anakin is most capable of the whole concept of letting go WHEN IT RELATES TO OBI-WAN. He does so when Obi-Wan's ship crashes during Landing at Point Rain, and he makes sure not to kill "Rako Hardeen" when he first goes to capture him and he cites Obi-Wan's own morality as the reason why he's holding back.

Which seems to indicate that Anakin's personal loyalty to Obi-Wan isn't actually that he thinks Obi-Wan would do whatever it took to save him, or that he'd do whatever it took to save Obi-Wan, but that it actually forces him CLOSER to Jedi ideals so he can be closer to who Obi-Wan believes him to be. His loyalty to Obi-Wan, unlike his relationships with people like Padme and even Ahsoka, actually seem to make him BETTER because he knows for sure that Obi-Wan wouldn't appreciate Anakin "stopping at nothing" to save him or avenge him.

I know that Lucas was at least somewhat involved in this novelization and all, and that the prose in this novel is really really good, but this isn't the Obi-Wan we see depicted in the films. This shameful Obi-Wan who would throw aside his Jedi ideals just to save Anakin because he can't help being unhealthily attached to Anakin just... isn't in-character to the person we see depicted in both the films and TCW. That person in the quote up there? That's not my Obi-Wan, it just isn't.

[kaleidoscopeminds]

anon is so right like it’s kinda crazy how the sparkly makeup doesn’t just enhance luke, he actually embodies it<3 what’s your favorite makeup look of his?

i appreciate this ask so dearly, unfortunately asking me to pick a favourite of any of luke’s anything is going to be fruitless because i can’t make a decision to save my life and i refuse on principle to say anything of luke’s is better than anything else. however i will use this as an excuse to think about and demonstrate what i think are some highlights of luke’s makeup over the years, so thank u for the opportunity <3 here under a cut bc this got long and i know the formatting on this is going to be crazy on desktop; best viewed on mobile

firstly it’s been so interesting to see the evolution of how he’s been doing his makeup over the years, and shout out to the yb era when he started experimenting with his smudgy glitter <3 have to give a moment to these ones which make me feel all sorts of things

i’ve really been enjoying how he’s transitioned from a subtler glitter and occasional coloured liner look on stage from tmh tour which is where he really started wearing it most of the time:

to a much more obvious shimmery eye looks during the 5sos show (wow remember these pics huh):

to a full and much darker eyeshadow for the aesthetic of the nostalgia tour, which is so hard to even pick out good ones because i think all of them have been so gorgeous but here are ones that i’ve liked for various reasons

there are several more subtle make up looks which i really enjoy, to just enhance is natural beauty, firstly this sparkly liner which he wore for the fonda shows and in milan, which i think accentuates his eyes so beautifully

the second is his inner corner highlight which he’s done a few times with stunning results, but i really like the gcl one because wow, and when he had a bit of eyeliner and a glowy highlight for one of the boy press days/shoots. stunning. enhances his gorgeous eyes perfectly.

however i also think he has the perfect face for dramatic makeup and love him exploring that too. we should also have a moment for some of the editorial looks he’s had which make him look incredibly striking. i think one of my favourites was the boy album shoot, this dark dramatic glitter. ugh so good

specifically for magazine make up he’s had i loved the crazy dark smoky one for the magazine, along with again, some inner corner action from the fault magazine shoot for wfttwtaf

and here to finish, some honourable mentions below for some really nice looks that i have enjoyed and would like to highlight:

[sibylsleaves]

established relationship buddie hcs + the art you rbed a few hours ago makes me NEEEED a halloween ep after they get together where they go fully insane over a couples costume (they wanted to do a group costume with christopher but he refuses to participate because he’s A Teenager Now Dad Jeez) (but eddie buys him a costume anyway just in case) anyway. buddie canon halloween costume would have me dead on the street

after 7x06 this is canon as far as I'm concerned. and you're absolutely right, Chris would REFUSE to participate on principle. he's way too cool for matching family costumes.

One year it's Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. The next it's Maverick and Iceman from Top Gun (Eddie has to show Buck the movie because he's never seen it.) The next David Bowie and Freddie Mercury. Hen and Karen get competitive with them and they go to greater and greater lengths every year to figure out what the other couple is going as so they can one-up each other. They each try and use Chimney as a spy/pawn because Chimney has no skin in this game (Maddie being a Canonical Lazy-Ass Costume Person...she's just like me fr...)

One year they call a truce so they can all do a group costume. I haven't decided what the group costume is yet. MarioKart characters??

[stupidsexpotflanders]

“Your loved ones have been used to lure you into Kronos's traps. Your fatal flaw is personal loyalty. You do not know when it is time to cut your losses. To save a friend you would sacrifice the world.”

This was said about Percy,but I feel like it fits Silena like a glove. I don't see her as much of someone who cares much about causes and principles - franky,I don't see her giving much of a fuck about the Titans and the Olympus downfall on itself.

According to TLO,Silena always acted in benefit of herself and loved ones. She became a spy because of Luke - she said he was nice,good-looking and promised her they would save lives - most likely,her loved ones. When it comes to Aphrodite and the Olympus,there was no care for them - whether positive or negative - when Silena decided to be the spy. The opposite of love isn't hatred,but indifference. Therefore,I can easily see Silena choosing the Titans because it's either "the trustworthy nice and hot guy who takes care of youngsters" and "a camp with so many stupid feuds,besides a bunch of indifferent immortal childish men and women".

At some point,Silena didn't want to be the spy anymore. Maybe she thought the Olympians would be the lesser evil. Or she had many friends at CHB and didn't feel like risking them more than she did. There's even a chance that Aphrodite managed to intervene and change her daughter's mind. However,Silena was threatened into keeping her spy work - one of the threats was to "tell everyone". Therefore,Silena was a bit of a coward due to her prefering to risk peoples' lives than ruin her own reputation. Of course,this is a difficult choice,but doesn't paint her in a good light.

Silena Beauregard not only refused to participate in the "rite of passage",but she banished it. Therefore,it's pretty clear she values personal bonds and doesn't really like faking them for the lolz. Besides,she's clearly driven by emotions(an example of that is in TTC,when she wanted to "pulverize" the Huntresses of Artemis for saying that love is worthless. Therefore,Silena didn't have a gruge against her mother at that point). Those traits are why I think Silena was always driven by loyalty to some people. An example of that is the fact that her siblings were kept in relative safety - in TLO,the Aphrodite cabin was untouched. Another one is how Silena decided getting people killed was less important than losing friends. To top it all,it makes her delightfully hypocritical.

I've always liked Silena in the books,she managed to be a great mix of strong and weak,selfless and selfish,caring and callous,gentle and short-tempered,emotional and cold.

[horizon-verizon]

Would you describe aegon as a ‘good/deep/complex’ (and more along those lines) type of character in the book? I’m curious to know your opinion as this is how so many Aegon fans describe him.

"Good" as in morally good? Obviously no. As in "well-written"? Eh, so-so.

A)

I may have written a long meta about him HERE, but I thought this was so that it could make clear that he still is a spoiled raping prince who feels entitled to having power--even with him saying Rhaenyra should have--by the principle of him being male. As in "heart of hearts". As one Tiktoker I-recently-listened-to-but-can't-remember-the-name-of said, Aegon II is Rhaenyra's literary foil in that he is the result of how a patriarchal society creates its own enemies in men, creates a rapist, etc. Therefore, he's "complex" in his representational value more than as a person himself.

I see him refusing to be king at first and deferring to Rhaenyra being older/sister/chosen heir as him not really wanting the actual responsibilities and commitment of being a leader and wanting to live in a male-privileged state of ennui forever.

B)

I also think that when some people use the word "good", they want to say they find that character emotionally compelling or "relatable" but do not want or know how to explain what they find so emotionally compelling. Or what they relate to. "Emotionally compelling" vs "relatable" is sometimes kind of the same, bc the reader is matching with traits, behaviors, and motives they experience(d). But sometimes "emotionally compelling" is recognizing a character's core desire, how it developed, understanding how they could be so passionate, desperate, etc., and admiring their determination, endurance, etc. Others say "good" to say "was this character's development logical from their experiences and does it, therefore, seem natural and emotionally realistic". And others say "good" as in "was there a fair distribution and relations of social dynamics between these sort of characters and those sort of characters"--for example, how writers write their men vs. their women comparatively to their other men and women; some claim Rhaenyra is the least well-written female Targ bc she doesn't do the strategizing as they wished she does or because she herself was not as forward-thinking or compassionate as they want a leader/a female leader to be.

C)

I think GRRM could & should have made Rhaenyra at least come up with parts of the dragonseeds or capture of KL's with Daemon and her son even with Luke's death [scroll down to section B] (the black council advised her and deliberated on the message vs outright violence with her only saying that she forbade her kids to fight in a confrontation with the greens while said greens were in KL).

I say "parts" bc I wouldn't have believed, personally, that without a POV showing me how she did it, Rhaenyra (or ANYONE) could have pushed aside her grief at Lucerys' death to think very straight to come up with a sophisticated plan without advisers.

GRRM does have a habit of making debilitating grief the means of disallowing women/potential female leaders from addressing certain critical problems in his writing [scroll down to section B],

BUT I also think (if he left Aelora and enough of other women alone simultaneously) it's unfair to expect a person, man or woman or enby--to "pick themselves up" and be the perfect leader and push away all their grief and STILL come up with plans that will "save the day" without that taking a toll on their psyches. Again, parents can and have maimed/killed to preserve their kids' lives with little to no compunction. It's a visceral/sometimes strongly reflexive bond some people will never get or have because some are infertile, dislike kids/babies and were not paternal (this word is used for the general inclination towards nurturing and parenthood), or simply do not want children (which is fine, it'd be weirder if everyone did). But they don't have to "get" it to know that it's not wise to not antagonize a caring and protective parent.

D)

In view of Aegon having raped many women who he has a lot of sociopolitical power over, and rape being a crime/act so heinous that I think that it merits death, exile, or castration, I find it hard to understand why people wish to relate positively to the emotions and motivations of him in particular when the evidence in the show is clear AND in the book, with a personality and position as his, rape is never going to be far from his "fondling". We know this from our own stories of rape culture and overly-privileged rich boys and fraternities. We know mothers can snd do often cover for their sons. Why would it be different for Aegon & Alicent, esp when we've seen that Alicent is all for usurping Rhaenyra and endangering her & her kids' lives?! (book & show). Well, it can only be the persons have misogynist ideas of women:

cannot stand women being actual people with flaws and searching for power without having been rape victims to "make up" for that loss of control

want women to exist to "calm" men down from their naturally violent tendencies so those men can rule "empathetically" or not become tyrants

So they naturally go to stan a rapist over a woman who had consensual sex with all of 3-4 men in the show and 2-3 men in the book for all of her life AND was the one actually usurped and lost children due to the other sides' plots and ambitions.

[corvus-ace]

what in the name of the force is the ahsoka show,,,,

listen. i am by no means a star wars expert. sure, i'm familiar enough with the movies, the clone wars, and a few of the other shows (mostly bad batch and mando, and while i did watch all of rebels i don't remember a whole lot) but i definitely haven't deep dived through enough of the lore that i'd call myself an expert. but boy oh boy do i have some issues with this show

ahsoka - her character has always been determined and fierce. immature and rash sometimes, sure, but she's always meant well. she is definitely her master's padawan. based on what i've seen so far, which is the first four episodes, that's all gone. ahsoka left the jedi order because the order didn't trust her, and to her that meant she couldn't trust herself either. since then she's always followed her own principles. but in this show she doesn't seem to have maintained any of that. she, like luke in the book of boba fett, seems to be suddenly super attached to the old jedi ways???? and it just makes zero sense to me because both ahsoka and luke have had such strong bonds with the people they care about (anakin, rex, leia, han, etc) and that's always given them strength. hell, luke's attachment to anakin was the whole reason the empire fell! and now that's just,,,, gone???? where's the fiercely skilled, heart-of-gold ahsoka that refused to kill any of the 501st men she spent years fighting alongside even though they had turned on her, the apprentice who trusted her master so implicitly that even when the world was against her, she knew he would be by her side, and he came through for her? where's our snips????

sabine - i don't have as much of an obsession with rebels as i do with clone wars, but i remember her character distinctly enough. she's a mandalorian, of course, incredibly skilled and versatile, though also stubborn. but i do remember that through the course of rebels, she learned from the rest of the crew, particularly kanan; he taught her how to use the darksaber by teaching her parts of the jedi training he had already taught ezra. he taught her to develop her patience and to become one with the weapon. that patience has disappeared completely. i also don't know yet what happened between sabine and hera, or between sabine and ahsoka, but either way, from the last i saw of her outside this show, i definitely don't remember sabine being the type to run away from her problems instead of blasting through them forcefully. very disappointed

and finally hera - what the hell happened???? hera is a passionate, rebellious figure, intensely protective of her family and other loved ones but still following her convictions without wavering. that is not the hera i have seen in this show. she feels so unbelievably flat, not quite docile (she still fought back pretty well against the droids and imperial loyalists) but other than that she's far too quiet of a character than she's ever been before and i hate it

anyways that's all, i lowkey hate this show but i'm too committed to finishing it at this point if only for potential new nightsisters lore + more carson teva scenes (cause he is at this point the only new republic character i respect at all and i love him) so uhhhhhh guess i'll fix-it fic the shit out of all this later lmfao

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Family Gatherings At Christmas

by J.C. Ryle

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." - Luke 2:11

Family gatherings at Christmas, we all know, are very common. Thousands of firesides are crowded then, if at no other time of the year. The young man in town snatches a few days from business, and takes a run down to visit "the old folks at home." The young woman gets a short holiday, and comes to visit her father and mother.

Brothers and sisters meet for a few hours. Parents and children look one another in the face. How much there is to talk about! How many questions to be asked! How many interesting things to be told! Happy indeed is that fireside which sees gathered round it at Christmas, "the whole family!"

Family gatherings at Christmas are natural, and right, and good. I approve them with all my heart. It does me good to see them kept up. They are one of the very few pleasant things which have survived the fall of man. Next to the grace of God, I see no principle which unites people so much in this sinful world, as family feeling.

Community of blood is a most powerful tie. I have often observed that people will stand up for their relations, merely because they are their relations, and refuse to hear a word against them, even when they have no sympathy with their tastes and ways. Anything which helps to keep up family feeling ought to be commended. It is a wise thing, when it can be done, to gather together at Christmas "the whole family."

Family gatherings, nevertheless, are often sorrowful things. It would be strange indeed, in such a world as this, if they were not. Few are the family circles which do not show gaps and vacant places as years pass away.

Changes and deaths make sad havoc as time goes on. Our Christmas gatherings on earth must have an end one day. Our last earthly Christmas must come. Happy indeed, is that Christmas which finds us prepared to meet God!

[steveezekiel]

SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY 1

"I know this because I AM A MAN UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF OTHER MEN. AND I HAVE SOLDIERS UNDER MY AUTHORITY. I tell one soldier, ‘Go,’ and he goes. And I tell another soldier, ‘Come,’ and he comes. And I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and my servant obeys me.” Luke 7:8 (Easy-to-Read Version)

1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 AND I went up by revelation, and COMMUNICATED to them that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the GENTILES, BUT privately to THOSE who were of REPUTATION, LEST BY ANY MEANS I MIGHT RUN, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN." Galatians 2:1,2 (NKJV)

About our text, the above Bible passage, Paul said, he went up to Jerusalem to communicate or share the Gospel he was preaching among the Gentiles, with those who were of reputation—that he might not run, or labour, in vain.

In other words, If those who were ahead of him, whom he shared the Revelation which he claimed to receive from Christ Jesus with (Galatians 1:11,12), refused to attest or agree with it, It means all his work or labour among the Gentiles would be amounted to a waste.

It is the part of church pattern, or tradition, or a way of doing things, that whoever claim to have received a Revelation, or a vision, or a calling; that such should receive a validation or an approval, so to speak, from those who have been ahead of him or her in the work.

Paul wanted to be sure that he had received right. That he might not be heretical.

This is where the issue of relationship, or Submission, to someone for mentoring or apprenticeship comes in.

This principle is biblical and it is good for whoever is just starting or the up and coming One in the Ministry work. However, the principle has been abused or bastardized by some people. a. They have used it to manipulate and control the lives of some others who sincerely submitted to them for mentoring. b. They, such mentors, would want those who submitted to them to do their bidding or wishing, even when that is contrary to what God has instructed the person; the mentee, or the protege, or the apprentice, who submitted to them, to do. c. Such mentors have taken an advantage of those who sincerely submitted to them, to learn about the work, the assignment given to them by God, how to go by it.

Relationship in life and ministry could be a plus, If you find yourself in the right one—relagionship.

If you are in a right relationship that is ordained by God, it would add to you—cause you to have a better result.

That said, the greatest relationship which whoever is being used of God should have is, the relationship and fellowship with God.

Although the relationship with other people, humans, could be necessary and needful for the learning and the activation of your goals in life.

What is the Relationship?

In a simple term: Contacts and interactions between people of like interest—is called Relationship.

It is also a mutual dealings, connections, or feelings that exist between two parties, people, or whatever.

To relate means to be in touch, to contact, and to be involved with one and other, in the matters of life and Ministry.

Right Relationship is crucial, vital and needful, to realize your goals and objectives in life. Whilst a wrong relationship could be detrimental; devastating, heart-breaking, dream killing, and vision destroying.

A relationship would either make you or break you, no relationship would leave you neutral (Genesis 13:14,15).

A wrong relationship is detrimental to your progress and success in life and Ministry.

A wrong relationship could break you altogether, regardless of your gifts, your expertises, and the divine Grace.

If you actually wanted to be blessed, and retained or kept your blessings; Then the responsibility is on you to make quality choices of Relationships.

Someone who keeps a good company would not run dry. Such would not wither. He would constantly be refreshed, and experienced Fulfilment (Psalm 1:1-3).

Any confidential talk you had with an unbeliever, or a believer who lives in the flesh, would be a trap in disguise. a. A wrong relationship could give an access to the devil, to tamper with your life, both the present and the future. THUS, do not give a place to the devil (Ephesians 4:27), by allowing a wrong person in your life (1 Corinthians 15:33). b. A wrong relationship could even rob you of your place in God's eternal Kingdom.

The choice of the company you keep is your responsibility. No relationship could take place without the agreement of the parties involved (Amos 3:3).

Right relationships are supposed to result in progress.

That is the acid test for the right choice. Wood does not sharpen irons, so any iron that relates with a Wood, becomes blunt and the Wood also suffers reduction in size—it is chopped off. An Iron can only sharpens another iron (Proverbs 27:17).

None of the parties involved in a wrong relationship profited in any way.

I. Relationship with someone higher than you in the work of Ministry.

This is a type of master-servant Relationship. a. This was found in the Ministry of Elijah, he mentored Elisha, and the latter eventually collected double portions of the Anointing on him (1 Kings 19:16,19-21; 2 Kings 2:1-15). b. The Similar case is found in the Ministry of Paul; he mentored, Timothy, Titus, and some others (Acts 16:1-3; 1 Timothy 1:2,3; 2 Timothy 3:10,11; Titus 1:4,5). c. Above all, It was found in the earthly Ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, He trained and mentored the twelve disciples, who later became the twelve Apostles of the Lamb (Mark 3:13-15; John 20:21).

Thus, relating with someone who is higher than you in the Ministry work is biblical, but in some quarters, It has been abused.

You will not fail in Jesus' name.

Should there be any ailment in your body, I declare your healing now in Jesus' name.

The Hold of sicknesses and diseases is broken in your life in Jesus' name. Peace! TO BE CONTINUED

[itsyourchoicedevotionals]

Love Laws

“Teacher, what is the most important commandment in the Law?” Matthew 22:36CEV

The McGuffey Readers were the books I started learning how to read with as a child. In fact the readers were the ‘go to books’ for schools from 1836-1960.

McGuffey Readers contained the old English verse of the Ten Commandments: “Above all else love God alone; Bow down to neither wood nor stone. God’s name refuse to take in vain; The Sabbath rest with care maintain. Respect your parents all your days; Hold sacred human life always. Be loyal to your chosen mate; Steal nothing, neither small nor great. Report, with truth, your neighbor’s deed; And rid your mind of selfish greed.”

By writing these Laws in simpler language, it’s easy to see how these Ten Commandments are the secret of happiness. Jesus put it this way— “Treat others just as you want to be treated”Luke 6:31CEV. Should everyone follow just these ten laws —all of life would be solved. Jesus looked at the laws and described the most valuable Laws as those regarding loving God, self and people— see Matthew 22:37-39— the love laws.

My brother raised his children with the actual spanking coming only for infractions of the Ten Commandments, not from infractions of their house rules or disobedience to their rules. He told me it was easy to teach the children how to live with respect for those in your circle of influence, when you made God’s Laws the principles of importance.

I look at the utter chaos in our nation today knowing 99% of our problems would be non-existent IF everyone followed God’s Ten Commandments. Instead we see greed, lies, hatred, strife, murder or character assassination ruling the land. Wicked, evil people can’t be expected to live any other way than against the Laws of God.

Believers can be expected to live much differently. We could live like the evil people of the world do— in Adam— our entire minds wrapped around get even and get more. God expects His followers to do better and live like Jesus, asking God to not hold His murderers guilty for murdering Him. Stephen the first church martyr did likewise. Our salvation for all of this is in one verse— “ I have strength for all things in Christ Who empowers me [I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him Who infuses inner strength into me; I am self-sufficient in Christ’s sufficiency]” Philippians 4:13AMPC. We cannot do as God expects alone.

Why would we be expected to live much differently? Because we are supposed to be living in Christ. Can we follow the most important down to the least important Laws knowing Yahweh will take care of us, provide for us, win for us? Although we know— will we allow Him to do all of this for us? Or will we take matters in our own hands; leave the love laws again; and not trust Him to conquer our foes? It’s your choice. You choose.

LET’S PRAY: Lord God more often than not we don’t realize how deeply ‘in’ You we’re really hidden. Fear coaxes us out into the open where we’re sitting ducks. Help us to fight with Your Words and win, in the name of Jesus Christ I pray.

by Debbie Veilleux Copyright 2023 You have my permission to reblog this devotional for others. Please keep my name with this devotional, as author. Thank you.

[antianakin]

Out of curiosity how do you think the Caretaker Luke AU of yours would work out if Luke were the last living Jedi? In other words, Luke has to be the one to rebuild the Jedi Order himself.

How successful do you think Luke would initially be at it with a pacified Anakin in his care?

Oh that's an intriguing twist. A devastating one, but intriguing.

I imagine the only Force sensitive students he'd be able to recruit would be the VERY desperate or the very young and orphaned. Basically I don't think any parent is going to pass off their child to someone with Darth Vader hovering over their shoulder (Luke can't just leave Anakin behind on an isolated planet, he HAS to be with Anakin at all times). Or if they did out of fear of Darth Vader's wrath, I feel like Luke would be able to pick up on that and would then have to refuse to take the child out of principle because it's not actually being done willingly anymore.

He MIGHT get lucky enough to find a Force sensitive orphan somewhere who's young enough to not know who Darth Vader is. He MIGHT get lucky enough to find an adult who has nothing left to lose and so is desperate enough for say food and shelter to accept the hovering Sith that goes along with the deal (they're about to die of starvation or something else anyway perhaps so death by Sith might actually be quicker and less painful depending on the circumstances).

How well this would go with Anakin just kind-of simmering away in darkness nearby at all times is... questionable, depending on how your interpretation of the Force looks. Like how much does Anakin's inability to let go of his anger and fear and grief and guilt impact Luke's ability to teach these new Force sensitive students? Are the students just as impacted by those negative emotions and darkness as Anakin is, kind-of like a second hand smoke giving someone lung cancer? Does Luke completely fail because Anakin's presence actually completely undoes everything he tries to teach anyway because none of the people he brings in are strong enough or prepared enough to protect themselves against Anakin's darkness in the way Luke's been taught to do?

But it's also just as likely he never finds ANY Force sensitive people willing to take him up on the offer willingly for as long as Anakin is attached to him at the hip. He builds a community maybe, he works on a school, he reads the texts and practices and comes up with lessons and what not, but he has no one to teach. Not until Anakin finally dies and he can go out and speak to parents of young children on his own. Which honestly might actually be the kinder thing to happen for all three of them.

Quite honestly, I just can't see a successful new Jedi Order or Jedi school being built with Anakin sitting at its center alongside Luke, my heart and mind rebel against it. Even if the possibility is there for Luke to somehow end up miraculously successful, I don't want it. The Jedi have suffered enough, they do not need this, too. So Luke waits or he fails, that's how successful he is if he has to do this alone. The Jedi Order has to wait.

The last alternative I can see is that effectively the responsibility passes away from Luke and on to Leia. Because there's quite literally nobody left. There are other politicians presumably who can help build up the New Republic, but there is absolutely nobody left to help the Jedi Order rebuild and Leia is convinced by someone to train with Luke until she's trained enough to basically start her own Order. They set up some sort of system to go out and find Force sensitive people, to try to find students who need them, and Leia takes them somewhere else, somewhere she doesn't even tell Luke about just to be safe. They start creating their own little community and Leia passes on what she knows as she trains with Luke and then takes over training the new students when she's finished her own. And so it goes much like the original AU, Luke just has to wait until Anakin dies and then he has a happy community to join that's been learning and growing without him.

And yes, this means that Han and Leia would not get married, they wouldn't have kids. Which quite honestly is an AU for them I like better anyway, happy endings don't all have to be marriage and kids. They can still be in a relationship together, they can love each other and work something out, it just looks a little different.

Leia becomes the face of the Jedi Order so that Luke can protect Anakin and protect the rest of the galaxy FROM Anakin. He sacrificed his ability to create the new Jedi Order so he could take on that responsibility but Leia understands how important it is to regain the Jedi's presence in the galaxy and in the Republic, so she takes that on herself when no one else can.

[wolint]

FRESH MANNA

SOCIAL CONFORMITY

Genesis 18:19

Everybody freeze! We do. Stand here, stand there! We do. Que up, we do! Why? Because someone says so. We’re programmed daily on every side to do what is expected of us but not necessarily what we want or should do.

Yet we have become a nation of people who never question why we do whatever we are told to do.

What is conformity then? Conformity is the process whereby people change their beliefs, attitudes, actions, or perceptions to match those held by groups to which they belong or want to belong or by groups whose approval they desire.

Conformity has important social implications and continues to be actively researched.

God created mankind as a society—initially, as one man and one woman, and thereafter as an ever-increasing family. To be human is therefore to be inherently social.

As we see it today, social conformity has become a huge social problem with people following directives and suggestions without questioning.

Luke 6:31 essentially says: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or said another way: treat others the way you want to be treated. It doesn’t sound like a hard thing to do—showing respect to receive respect—yet so many people have such difficulty doing it in public spaces and political arenas.

But that’s not how things work now, is it?

Society tells us what to do in so many capacities that contradict the word of God. God does not coerce people to reject Him; He allows us to do the only thing we want to do-sin, and He allows us to do it with a great deal of variety and creativity. God does not coerce people to accept Him but persuades us with tactics that cannot be refused. God is in control, but humans make real choices. Somehow, God’s control and human freedom are perfectly compatible.

As Christians, we must have been brought up by biblical, godly standards and must continue to be discerning. Discernment involves using Godly wisdom and the Holy Spirit’s guidance to figure out how to apply biblical principles to societal issues of conformity.

As we know, Romans 12:2 says not to follow social conformation without questioning and discernment because the present evil age still tempts Christians, so we must resist its pressure. Our minds must be made new to be able to discern or understand God’s will rather than follow directives and suggestions sheepishly without discernment.

In 2 Corinthians 6:17, the Lord commands us to come out from among them, essentially, saying come out of conformity, do not partake of suggestive directives that are contrary to godly laws.

1 Peter 1:14 puts it clearly, that “as obedient children, we should not be conformed to the desires of our former ignorance. That means our obedience should only be to God, His laws, standards, and principles and not obediently and blindly conform to man-made systems contradicting God.

We must learn to ask critical questions of what’s expected of us, to make sure we’re not just going with the flow of whatever we’re told.

Don’t do things without knowing and understanding why you’re doing them, don’t do things just because someone says everyone must do it. Let God’s Spirit and voice lead you and not suggestive and directive voices.

PRAYER: Lord, may I not follow and conform to the patterns and systems of society and the world that are abhorrent to you in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Shalom

Women of light international prayer ministries.