#me: she is sure she’s fundamentally unloveable long term | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

gffa · 5 years ago

Photo

OKAY, IF I’M GONNA DO THIS, I’M GONNA DO IT PROPERLY. WHICH MEANS YEAH IT’S GONNA GET REALLY LONG. A couple of things to say ahead of time: Lucasfilm’s Story Group has always said CANON > WORD OF GOD when it comes to these matters, so when I quote canon examples from supplementary materials that contradict what he says, that’s LF’s official position, but that doesn’t mean that an influential person like Dave’s views couldn’t affect how things will be shaped in the future, like Deborah Chow listening to this may be influenced by it on the Obi-Wan show, despite that Master & Apprentice contradicts him. It’s an incredibly murky area! Mileages are going to vary. Another thing to keep in mind is that Dave Filoni never worked on The Phantom Menace, that was long, long before his time at Lucasfilm (which I think he joined sometime around 2007? and TPM was released in 1999), that he has worked with George more than probably anyone else, but we cannot and should not treat him as infallible or the True Authority on things, because even Dave himself has said things like: “I mean, I know why I did that and what it means, but I don't like to explain too much. I love for the viewers to watch stuff and come up with their own theories -- and they frankly come up with better things that I intended.” --Dave Filoni, Entertainment Tonight 2020 interview Or, in the same episode as the above Qui-Gon interpretation:

So, when I dig into this, I’m not doing this out of a sense of malice or even that I suddenly hate Dave or don’t appreciate all the incredible things he’s brought to SW, but in that I disagree with his take, Dave understands that he doesn’t always get it right, that he enjoys that fans come up with different things than he does and sometimes he likes those even more. There’s room for both of us and, for all that Dave mentions George a lot (and, hey, fair enough, the guy worked with George and I’m just quoting what George Lucas has said) doesn’t mean that this is straight from George, especially because I have never seen George Lucas utter so much as a peep about how the Jedi were responsible for Anakin’s fall. He has explicitly and frequently talked about how Anakin’s fall was his own choice, as well as I’ve never seen him say anything Jedi-critical beyond “they were kind of arrogant about themselves”. I have read and watched every George Lucas interview I could get my hands on and maybe I’m still missing something, but that’s literally the extent of him criticizing the Jedi I have EVER seen. (It’s from the commentary on AOTC where he put in the scene with Jocasta to show they were full of themselves, but I also think it’s fair to point out that Obi-Wan immediately contradicts this by going to Dex for help, showing that it’s not necessarily a Jedi-wide thing.) Before I go further, I want to say: this is not a post meant to tear down Qui-Gon, he is a character I actually really do love, but the focus is on showing why the above interpretation of him is wrong, which means focusing on Qui-Gon’s flaws. He has many wonderful qualities, he is someone who cared deeply and was a good person, I think things would have been better had he lived! But Anakin’s choices did not hinge on him, because Anakin’s choices were Anakin’s, that has always been the consistent theme of how George talks about him, the way he talks about the story is always in terms of “Anakin did this” or “Anakin chose that”, and the Jedi are very consistently shown as caring, they believed very much in love and Dave’s own show (well, I say “his own show”, but honestly TCW was George’s baby primarily and he had a lot of direct, hands-on say in crafting it, through at least the first five seasons) is plenty of evidence of that. I’m not going to quote the full thing because this is already a monster post, I’m just going to focus on the Jedi stuff, because I like the other points a lot, but if you want the full text, it’s here. The relevant part is: “In Phantom Menace, you’re watching these two Jedi in their prime fight this evil villain. Maul couldn’t be more obviously the villain. He’s designed to look evil, and he is evil, and he just expresses that from his face all the way out to the type of lightsaber he fights with. What’s at stake is really how Anakin is going to turn out. Because Qui-Gon is different than the rest of the Jedi and you get that in the movie; and Qui-Gon is fighting because he knows he’s the father that Anakin needs. Because Qui-Gon hasn’t given up on the fact that the Jedi are supposed to actually care and love and that’s not a bad thing. The rest of the Jedi are so detached and they become so political that they’ve really lost their way and Yoda starts to see that in the second film. But Qui-Gon is ahead of them all and that’s why he’s not part of the council. So he’s fighting for Anakin and that’s why it’s the ‘Duel of the Fates’ – it’s the fate of this child. And depending on how this fight goes, Anakin, his life is going to be dramatically different. “So Qui-Gon loses, of course. So the father figure, he knew what it meant to take this kid away from his mother when he had an attachment, and he’s left with Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan trains Anakin at first out of a promise he makes to Qui-Gon, not because he cares about him. When they get Anakin, they find him on Tatooine, he says “Why do I feel like we’ve found another useless lifeform?” He’s comparing Anakin to Jar Jar and he’s saying “this is a waste of our time, why are we doing this, why do you see importance in these creatures like Jar Jar Binks and this ten-year-old boy? This is useless.” “So, he’s a brother to Anakin eventually but he’s not a father figure. That’s a failing for Anakin. He doesn’t have the family that he needs. He loses his mother in the next film. He fails on this promise that he made, “mother, I’m going to come back and save you”. So he’s left completely vulnerable and Star Wars is ultimately about family. So that moment in that movie which a lot of people I think diminish, “oh there’s a cool lightsaber fight”, but it’s everything that the entire three films of the prequels hangs on, is that one particular fight. And Maul serves his purpose and at that point died before George made me bring him back, but he died.“ --Dave Filoni I’m going to take this a piece at a time to show why I really disagree with the content of both the movies and The Clone Wars supporting what Dave says and, instead, contradicts it a lot. The rest of the Jedi are so detached and they become so political that they’ve really lost their way and Yoda starts to see that in the second film. He doesn’t explain what this means, but I’m pretty sure that he’s referring to this conversation: OBI-WAN: “I am concerned for my Padawan. He is not ready to be given this assignment on his own yet.” YODA: “The Council is confident in its decision, Obi-Wan.” MACE WINDU: “The boy has exceptional skills.” OBI-WAN: “But he still has much to learn, Master. His abilities have made him... well.... arrogant.” YODA: “Yes, yes. A flaw more and more common among Jedi. Hmm... too sure of themselves they are. Even the older, more experienced ones.” MACE WINDU: “Remember, Obi-Wan, if the prophecy is true, your apprentice is the only one who can bring the Force back into balance.” OBI-WAN: "If he follows the right path.” None of that has anything to do with being “detached” and, further, I think this is something that’s come up with Dave’s view of Luminara a lot, because he’s described her (re: the Geonosis arc): “We were trying to illustrate the difference between the way Anakin is raising his Padawan, and how much he cares about her, and the way Luminara raises her Padawan. Not that Luminara is indifferent, but that Luminara is detached. It’s not that she doesn’t care, but she’s not attached to her emotionally.” Here, he says that the Jedi care, in the above, he says that the Jedi don’t care, which makes me think there’s a lot of characterization drift as time goes on, especially when fandom bombards everyone with the idea that the Jedi were cold, emotionless, and didn’t care. However, look at Luminara’s face in that arc, when she’s talking with Anakin:

That is not the face of someone who doesn’t care. She even smiles brightly in relief when Barriss is shown to be okay, that this really doesn’t convey “detached” in an unloving or uncaring way. (We’ll get to attachment later, that’s definitely coming.) (I’m also mostly skipping the political thing, because I think that’s just a fundamental disagreement of whether Jedi should or should not lean into politics. My view basically boils down to that I think ALL OF US should be leaning more into politics because we are citizens who live in the world and are responsible for it, and the Jedi are no different. This is evidenced by: - M&A’s storyline has Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan saving the day specifically because they play politics, that’s how they manage to free the slaves, through playing politics and being part of the Republic/having Senate backing. - The Clone Wars has shown that the Jedi believe “lasting change can only come from within” and “it’s every citizen’s duty to hold their leaders accountable” when Ahsoka teaches the cadets on Mandalore, as well as that politics are not inherently bad, given that Padme and Bail are working to make the system better or “create lasting change from within [the system]” - "Trying to serve the greater good does not always make you popular” says Padme Amidala in a very caring speech - Star Wars Propaganda makes the case that the Jedi might have won the war had they leaned more into politics. - Sometimes the Jedi get unfairly accused of playing politics when there’s just no good choice and they still have to choose one or the other.) But Qui-Gon is ahead of them [re: caring and loving] all and that’s why he’s not part of the council. This is flat-out wrong in regards to canon. Mileages are going to vary, of course, on how much one takes a novel into consideration, but Dave Filoni is not a fan with the luxury of deciding what is or isn’t canon, he works on Star Wars where canon is canon. Now, does that mean canon will never contradict itself, especially if Dave gets to write something for Qui-Gon? Of course not, SW isn’t immune to continuity errors and they themselves have never said otherwise, even when fans want to hold them to that standard. However, this is still pretty much a big “that’s not what happened” instance. In Master & Apprentice, the Jedi Council offer a seat to Qui-Gon on the Council, specifically BECAUSE he has different opinions from them and they welcome that. (Excerpt here.) “We hope it will also be our gain,” Mace replied. “Qui-Gon Jinn, we hereby offer you a seat on the Jedi Council.” Had he misheard? No, he hadn’t. Qui-Gon slowly gazed around the circle, taking in the expressions of each Council member in turn. Some of them looked amused, others pleased. A few of them, Yoda included, appeared more rueful than not. But they were serious. “I admit—you’ve surprised me,” Qui-Gon finally said.“I imagine so,” Mace said drily. “A few years ago, we would’ve been astonished to learn we would ever consider this. But in the time since, we’ve all changed. We’ve grown. Which means the possibilities have changed as well.” Qui-Gon took a moment to collect himself. Without any warning, one of the turning points of his life had arrived. Everything he said and did in the next days would be of great consequence. “You’ve argued with my methods often as not, or perhaps you’d say I’ve argued with yours.” “Truth, this is,” Yoda said. Depa Billaba gave Yoda a look Qui-Gon couldn’t interpret. “It’s also true that the Jedi Council needs more perspectives.” Ultimately, Qui-Gon is the who turns them down and gives up a chance to shape the Jedi Council because he doesn’t like the shape they’re taking. That he does become less political, but this is after he’s argued that the Jedi should be working to push the Senate harder, so when he has a chance to help with that, he turns it down. It has nothing to do with caring and loving, it’s about Qui-Gon’s desire to not have to deal with the work himself, when he wants to be more of a hippie Jedi. (I’ve written a lot about Qui-Gon in M&A, why I actually think it’s really spot-on to someone who can be both really kind and really kind of a dick, but it’s not the most flattering portrayal, even if narrative intention likely didn’t mean what came across to me. I think this post and this post are probably the most salient ones, but if you want something of an index of the web that’s being woven with all the various media, this one is good, too.) So he’s fighting for Anakin and that’s why it’s the ‘Duel of the Fates’ – it’s the fate of this child. And depending on how this fight goes, Anakin, his life is going to be dramatically different. I have only ever seen George Lucas talk about Anakin’s fate in one instance and it’s this: “It’s fear of losing somebody he loves, which is the flipside of greed. Greed, in terms of the Emperor, it’s the greed for power, absolute power, over everything. With Anakin, really it’s the power to save the one he loves, but it’s basically going against the Fates and what is natural.“ –George Lucas, Revenge of the Sith commentary I’ve made my case about why I think Anakin’s fate is about that moment in Palpatine’s office, and so I’m not fundamentally opposed that “Duel of the Fates” is about Anakin’s fate, but here’s what George has provably said about the “Duel of the Fates” part of the story: - In the commentary for The Phantom Menace during “Duel of the Fates” and none of Dave’s speculation is even hinted at, there’s more focus on the technical side of things and the most George talks about is that it’s Obi-Wan who parallels Luke in going over the edge during the fight, except that instead of a Sith cutting off a Jedi’s hand, it’s a Jedi cutting a Sith in half, drawing the parallels between them. - He does say of the funeral scene that this is where Obi-Wan commits to training Anakin and how everything is going to go (though, in canon we see that Obi-Wan still struggles with this a bit, but Yoda is there to support him and nudge him into committing even more to Anakin, because the Jedi are a supportive community to each other). This is some solid evidence for that Obi-Wan is already caring about Anakin beyond just Qui-Gon. - Then here’s what he says about the “Duel of the Fates” fights and themes of them in "All Films Are Personal": George Lucas: “I wanted to come up with an apprentice for the Emperor who was striking and tough. We hadn’t seen a Sith Lord before, except for Vader, of course. I wanted to convey the idea that Jedi are all very powerful, but they’re also vulnerable — which is why I wanted to kill Qui-Gon. That is to say, “Hey, these guys aren’t Superman.” These guys are people who are vulnerable, just like every other person. “We needed to establish that, but at the same time, we wanted the ultimate sword fight, because they were all very good. It sort of predisposes the sword fight between Anakin and Obi-Wan later on. There’s real purpose to it. You have to establish the rules and then stick with them. The scene illustrates just how Jedi and Sith fight and use lightsabers.” “So Qui-Gon loses, of course. So the father figure, he knew what it meant to take this kid away from his mother when he had an attachment, and he’s left with Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan trains Anakin at first out of a promise he makes to Qui-Gon, not because he cares about him. We’ll get to the “attachment to his mother” thing in a bit--but, for now, let’s just say, George Lucas’ words on this are not that attachment to her was a good thing. Fair enough that “not because he cares about him” is up to personal interpretation, but canon has also addressed the topic of Obi-Wan’s treatment of Anakin and Obi-Wan stepped up to the plate on this. In addition to how we see Obi-Wan REPEATEDLY being there for Anakin and being concerned and caring about him, they specifically talk about Qui-Gon and overcome this hurdle.

No, Obi-Wan is not Anakin’s father figure, on that we definitely agree. Anakin never really even treats Obi-Wan like a father--he says “you’re the closest thing I have to a father” in Attack of the Clones, as well as he says Obi-Wan practically raised him in The Clone Wars “Crystal Crisis” story reels, but Anakin has never actually acted like Obi-Wan is his father--”then why don’t you listen to me?” Obi-Wan points out in AOTC--as well as Obi-Wan glides past those remarks, which I’ve always taken that he doesn’t want to reject Anakin’s feelings, knowing that Anakin can be sensitive about them, but neither does he want to confirm them. This does not mean Obi-Wan was not supportive, caring, and loving. He says, “I loved you!” to Anakin in Revenge of the Sith, he asks after him and if he’s sleeping well in Attack of the Clones, and even George Lucas himself said that the elevator scene was set up TO SHOW OBI-WAN AND ANAKIN CARE FOR EACH OTHER:

PUTTING THE REST UNDER A READ MORE FOR A BETTER LENGTH REBLOGGABLE VERSION, IF YOU WANT.

This is further evidenced by how the Jedi do see themselves as family, they just don’t need to put it into strict nuclear family dynamics: - “You were my brother, Anakin! I loved you!” [–Obi-Wan Kenobi, Revenge of the Sith] - “We are brothers, Master Dibs.” [–Mace Windu, Jedi of the Republic - Mace Windu] - “Did your parents bicker?” she asked. “The adoptive ones, I mean.” A slow smile broke across Ashla’s face, curling first one side of her mouth and then the other. Whatever she was remembering, Kaeden could tell it was good. "All the time,“ Ashla said, almost as if she were talking to herself. [–Kaeden Larte, Ahsoka Tano, Ahsoka] - Vos, brought to the Temple even younger than most, felt that he had hundreds of brothers and sisters, and it seemed that whenever he went into the dining hall he ran into at least half of them. [Dark Disciple] - “It was not his birthplace, exactly, but the Jedi Temple was where Quinlan Vos had grown up. He’d raced through its corridors, hidden behind its massive pillars, found peace in its meditation hall, ended-and started-fights in rooms intended for striking blows and some that weren’t, and sneaked naps in its library. All Jedi came here, at some point in their lives; for Quinlan, it always felt like coming home when he ran lightly up the stairs and entered the massive building as he did now.” [Dark Disciple] Brothers, sisters, and other more non-traditional kinds of family are not lesser and Obi-Wan and Anakin absolutely were family, just as the Jedi are all family to each other, so, no, there was no “failing” Anakin, except in Anakin’s mind, perhaps. (In that, I can agree. But not on a narratively approved level, canon too thoroughly refutes that for me.) Rebels as well pretty thoroughly shows that non-traditional families are meaningful and just as important--we may joke that Hera is “space mom”, but she’s not actually Ezra or Sabine’s mother, Kanan is not actually their father, and even if they sometimes stray into aspects of those roles (as the Jedi do as well in the movies and TCW), that they don’t need that traditional nuclear family structure. Mentor figures--and Kanan is Ezra’s mentor--are just as meaningful and needful as a “dad”. And I’m kind of :/ at the implication that anyone without a dad/father figure or mom/mother figure is being “failed”. When they get Anakin, they find him on Tatooine, he says “Why do I feel like we’ve found another useless lifeform?” He’s comparing Anakin to Jar Jar and he’s saying “this is a waste of our time, why are we doing this, why do you see importance in these creatures like Jar Jar Binks and this ten-year-old boy? This is useless.” Whether or not Obi-Wan is being genuinely dismissive in this movie (I think you could make a case either way), the idea that Qui-Gon is better than Obi-Wan about this, as shown through Jar Jar isn’t exactly very supported given how Qui-Gon and Jar Jar first exchange words:

QUI-GON: “You almost got us killed. Are you brainless?” JAR JAR: “I spake.” QUI-GON: “The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.” Qui-Gon is just as bad as everyone else to Jar Jar, he’s not somehow elevated above them. It’s also baffling because, Dave, I have watched your show. The Jedi are specifically shown to be kind to people and creatures, not considering them “useless”. Henry Gilroy (who was the co-writer for The Clone Wars and frequently appeared in featurettes on the same level as Dave Filoni) explicitly draws this to The Jedi Way, that “life is everything to the Jedi“, when he said this about the Ryloth episodes:

(Caps cribbed from Pan’s blog, because I cannot make another gif, save me, please.) Henry Gilroy in an Aggressive Negotiations Interview: "Obi-Wan truly is a Jedi in that he’s like, ‘Okay, I’m not going to murder these creatures [in the Ryloth arc of The Clone Wars]. They’re starving to death. They’ve basically been unleashed against these people as a weapon, but it’s not their fault. They’re just doing what they do. They’re just animals who wanna eat.’ "So the idea was–and I think there was an early talk about how, 'Oh, yeah, he’ll go running through them and slicing and dicing them and chop them all up or whatever, and save his guys. And I’m like, 'Yeah, but that’s not really the Jedi way. He’s not just gonna murder these creatures.’ "And I know the threat is [there], to save one life you have to take one, but the idea of him [is]: why can’t Obi-Wan just be more clever? He basically draws them in and then traps them. "It says something about who the Jedi are, they don’t just waste life arbitrarily. And someone could have gone, 'Oh, yeah, but it would have been badass if he’d just ran in there with his lightsaber spinning and stabbed them all in the head!’ And 'Yeah, you’re right, I guess he could be that, but he’s trying to teach his clones a lesson right then, about the sanctity of life.’ "That is the underlying theme of that entire episode. Which is: A tactical droid is using the people as living shields. Life means nothing to the Separatists. The droids. But life is everything to the Jedi. And even though he doesn’t have to say that, it’s all through the episode thematically.“ It’s also Obi-Wan who teaches Anakin about kindness to mindless creatures in the Obi-Wan & Anakin comic:

"These beasts are nearly mindless, Anakin. I can feel it. They are merely following their nature, they should not die simply because they crossed our path. Use the Force to send them on their way.” Now, fair enough if you want to say Obi-Wan was taught by Qui-Gon, but also Qui-Gon is dead by that point and Obi-Wan growing into being more mature is his own accomplishment, not Qui-Gon’s, especially given that we see Qui-Gon himself being pretty dismissive to Jar Jar in TPM. This isn’t unique thing either, Padme is incredibly condescending to Jar Jar in “Bombad Jedi” and expresses clear annoyance with him to C-3PO when sighing over him. Jar Jar is a character you kind of have to warm up to, pretty much the only one we’ve seen consistently being favorable to him is Yoda (and maybe Anakin, though, Anakin doesn’t really interact with him a ton) and Mace Windu warms up to him considerably in “The Disappeared” and even specifically is shown to be teaching him and helping him, which is a huge theme of the Jedi and how much they care.

So, ultimately, the point I’m winding my way towards is--the other Jedi do show kindness and consideration to Jar Jar Binks, including characters like Mace Windu, so if you’re judging the Jedi based on that, the conclusion of Qui-Gon somehow being more compassionate and loving is really pretty thoroughly disproved by The Phantom Menace and The Clone Wars themselves. So, he’s a brother to Anakin eventually but he’s not a father figure. That’s a failing for Anakin. He doesn’t have the family that he needs. He loses his mother in the next film. He fails on this promise that he made, “mother, I’m going to come back and save you”. So he’s left completely vulnerable and Star Wars is ultimately about family. You could be charitable and say this is just from Anakin’s point of view that it’s a “failing”, but within the context of what Dave’s saying, it’s clearly meant as a more narratively approved take, not just Anakin’s point of view, and I really, really dislike the idea that Anakin--or anyone, really--needs a traditional nuclear family, ie a “mom” and/or a “dad”, or else it’s a “failing” for them. Setting aside that the idea that Qui-Gon would need to be Anakin’s dad to be kind to hi (which is ?????) is contradicted by The Clone Wars as well. Yes, Qui-Gon is warm with Anakin in several scenes, which is what Dave is presumably drawing on to show that Qui-Gon believed the Jedi should be caring and loving, but you know who else is warm to younglings? OTHER JEDI COUNCIL MEMBERS.

Those two scenes have the exact same kind of warmth to them. Ie, THE JEDI ALL BELIEVED IN BEING LOVING AND KIND, NOT JUST QUI-GON. The things evidenced to show Qui-Gon was loving and kind are evidenced just as much in other Council members, in Dave’s own show. As a bonus--have Mace Windu, known Jedi Council member, being super kind and loving towards a young Twi’lek girl he just met in a canon comic:

But I know that this is about the way the Council treated Anakin in The Phantom Menace testing scene, but here’s the thing--when I go back and I watch that scene and the Jedi aren’t ever mean to him, they’re neutral in an official testing situation, where they are trying to determine if he’s able to adapt to the Jedi ways. They never once say he’s bad for holding onto his fear, only that he does--which Anakin digs his heels in and gets angry about, he can’t really even admit that he’s afraid and that’s a huge deal for the Jedi. I’ve made a longer post about it here (and here), but the basic gist is: - That scene has Yoda giving the famous “Fear leads to the dark side” speech which is almost word for word how George Lucas describes how the Force works, showing the Jedi are narratively correct - “Confronting fear is the destiny of a Jedi” may be from the sequels, but it is thoroughly supported by the movies and TCW and Rebels and even supplementary canon material, including that the Jedi literally design their tests around both Masters and Padawans for it (Ilum, the Jedi Temple on Lothal, etc. - Anakin cannot admit to his fears in that TPM scene - We have examples of Jedi younglings do admit to their fears and the point isn’t not to have them, but to face them--the younglings in “The Gathering” are the most blatant example of this, but it’s also pretty much the entire theme of Jedi: Fallen Order, especially when Cal goes to Ilum to face his fears and get another kyber crystal. The point isn’t that Anakin--who has very good reasons to be afraid! nothing in the story or the Jedi have said he didn’t!--is wrong or bad, but that he’s not a great fit for the Jedi life because he is “unwilling to accept [Jedi philosophy] emotionally”. And they’re right about this, because this is how George Lucas describes Anakin in commentary: “The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that he can’t hold onto things, which is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn’t willing to accept emotionally and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he’d have been taken in his first year and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn’t have this particular connection as strong as it is and he’d have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them.” --George Lucas, Attack of the Clones commentary And so this brings us to A T T A C H M E N T, which, yeah, we’ve been having this discussion forever, but I’m going to state it again: Within Star Wars, ATTACHMENT IS NARRATIVELY A BAD THING. It is consistently tied to possessive, obsessive relationships, to greed and an unwillingness to let things go when it’s time (letting go is a huge theme in Star Wars) and equating love with attachment is fundamentally wrong according to George Lucas’ Star Wars worldbuilding: “The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth,” he continues, “They’re not supposed to form attachments. They can love people-- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can’t form attachments. So what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death.” --George Lucas, The Making of Revenge of the Sith If attachment and love were the same thing, then he would be saying, “They should love their enemies, they should love the Sith. But they can’t love.” The way George makes the distinction shows that, no, attachment and love aren’t the same thing at all, attachment is not caring. Further, there’s another instance of him showing there’s an important distinction between relationships and attachment and the association of attachmets with possession: "Jedi Knights aren’t celibate - the thing that is forbidden is attachments - and possessive relationships.” --George Lucas, BBC News interview So, yes, when Anakin is attached to people, it is directly tied to obsession, possession, and greed, all things of the dark side: “He turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things. He can’t let go of his mother; he can’t let go of his girlfriend. He can’t let go of things. It makes you greedy. And when you’re greedy, you are on the path to the dark side, because you fear you’re going to lose things, that you’re not going to have the power you need.” --George Lucas, Time Magazine “But he has become attached to his mother and he will become attached to Padme and these things are, for a Jedi, who needs to have a clear mind and not be influenced by threats to their attachments, a dangerous situation. And it feeds into fear of losing things, which feeds into greed, wanting to keep things, wanting to keep his possessions and things that he should be letting go of. His fear of losing her turns to anger at losing her, which ultimately turns to revenge in wiping out the village. The scene with the Tusken Raiders is the first scene that ultimately takes him on the road to the dark side. I mean he’s been prepping for this, but that’s the one where he’s sort of doing something that is completely inappropriate.“ --George Lucas, Attack of the Clones commentary ATTACHMENT IS BAD IN STAR WARS AS THEY DEFINE IT. Finally, I’m going to circle back to: Because Qui-Gon is different than the rest of the Jedi and you get that in the movie; and Qui-Gon is fighting because he knows he’s the father that Anakin needs. Because Qui-Gon hasn’t given up on the fact that the Jedi are supposed to actually care and love and that’s not a bad thing. Here’s the thing about this: You know who else, by this logic, Qui-Gon should have been a father to? OBI-WAN KENOBI. This isn’t said as “Anakin specifically needs a father” (which I think would be an interesting idea to bandy about and I’m not disagreeing, though, it’s complicated because of what Anakin refuses to accept emotionally), it’s said in a bigger context, that Qui-Gon is better than the other Jedi because he understands the need for fathers (and thus this ties into Return of the Jedi) and he’s ahead of the other Jedi, who apparently think loving and caring about people are bad things, but Qui-Gon does not treat Obi-Wan like his son. Or, if he does, he’s not exactly a stellar dad about it. Within Master & Apprentice, there’s an incredibly consistent theme of how Qui-Gon thinks supportive things about Obi-Wan, but never says them aloud. He thinks he should talk to Obi-Wan about the upcoming decision to be on the Council and then never does. He could have explained why he kept Obi-Wan training the basics but he never does. There are multiple instances showing that Qui-Gon is actually really, really bad at actually handling a young apprentice who needs him to talk to them about important things. Qui-Gon continues this in From a Certain Point of View where he still never talked to Obi-Wan about everything that happened, even after he became a Force Ghost. Damn, damn, damn. Qui-Gon closed his eyes for one moment. It blocked nothing; the wave of shock that went through Obi-Wan was so great it could be felt through the Force. Qui-Gon hadn’t thought Kirames Kaj would mention the Jedi Council invitation. It seemed possible the soon-retiring chancellor of the Republic might not even have taken much note of information about a new Council member. --Master & Apprentice That comment finally pierced Qui-Gon’s damnable calm. There was an edge to his voice as he said, “I suspected you would be too upset to discuss this rationally. Apparently I was correct.” “I thought you said my reaction was understandable,” Obi-Wan shot back. “So why does it disqualify me from hearing the truth?” Qui-Gon put his hands on his broad belt, the way he did when he was beginning to withdraw into himself. “…we should discuss this at another time. Neither of us is his best self at the present.” --Master & Apprentice Obi-Wan walked toward the door, obviously outdone. “At the beginning of my apprenticeship, I couldn’t understand you,” he said. “Unfortunately, that’s just as true here at the end.” Only yesterday they had worked together as never before. How did Qui-Gon manage to get closer to Obi-Wan at the same time he was moving further away? Just before Obi-Wan would leave the room, Qui-Gon said, “Once, you asked me about the basic lightsaber cadences. Why I’d kept you there, instead of training you in more advanced forms of combat.” Obi-Wan turned reluctantly to face him again. “I suppose you thought I wasn’t ready for more. The same way I’m not ready to believe in all this mystical—” “That’s not why.” After a long pause, Obi-Wan calmed to the point where he would listen. “Then why, Qui-Gon?” “Because many Padawans—and full Jedi Knights, for that matter—forget that the most basic technique is the most important technique. The purest. The most likely to protect you in battle, and the foundation of all knowledge that is to come,” Qui-Gon said. “Most apprentices want to rush ahead to styles of fighting that are flashier or more esoteric. Most Masters let them, because we must all find our preferred form eventually. But I wanted you to be grounded in your technique. I wanted you to understand the basic cadences so well that they would become instinct, so that you would be almost untouchable. Above all, I wanted to give you the training you needed to accomplish anything you set your mind to later on.” Obi-Wan remained quiet for so long that Qui-Gon wondered if he were too angry to really hear any of what he’d said. But finally, his Padawan nodded. “Thank you, Qui-Gon. I appreciate that. But—” “But what?” “You could’ve said so,” Obi-Wan replied, and then he left. --Master & Apprentice "I owe you that. After all, I’m the one who failed you.“ "Failed me?” They have never spoken of this, not once in all Qui-Gon’s journeys into the mortal realm to commune with him. This is primarily because Qui-Gon thought his mistakes so wretched, so obvious, that Obi-Wan had wanted to spare him any discussion of it. Yet here, too, he has failed to do his Padawan justice. --From a Certain Point of View, “Master and Apprentice” (Further, in Master & Apprentice, Qui-Gon thinks that the Jedi give Rael Averross--who is HUGELY paralleled to Anakin--too many exceptions, were too soft on him because he came to the Jedi later than most and has trouble thinking of them as his family, and he thinks they should have been stricter with him.) It’s also readily apparent within The Phantom Menace itself:

You can take some charitable views of this scene, that Qui-Gon was pushed into a corner where he had few other options (and this is the view I generally take even!), but this is after the entire movie where he’s never once indicated that Obi-Wan was ready, has instead indicated that he still has much to learn (not just of the Living Force, but in general), as well as made it clear that he’s still teaching Obi-Wan, like on the Trade Federation ship. And I do think Obi-Wan got over this because he understood, because Obi-Wan actually is a very selfless person, he clearly cares (which is furthered by how we see him warm up to Anakin very quickly), but look at their faces. This was not a good moment, and they do somewhat make up, where Qui-Gon says that Obi-Wan has been a good apprentice, that he’s wiser than Qui-Gon and he’ll be a great Jedi--but if we’re counting that as Qui-Gon being this great Jedi, then you can’t say Obi-Wan failed Anakin, given that we show him doing the exact same thing, except better. He tells Anakin, “You are strong and wise and will become a far greater Jedi than I could ever hope to be.”, echoing Qui-Gon’s words, but also he never threw Anakin aside for someone else. This is kind of a major undercurrent throughout The Clone Wars, where Obi-Wan never takes another apprentice, where he continues to teach Anakin, to support him, even to the point of occasionally co-Mastering Ahsoka with him. “This has been quite a journey for our Padawan.” Qui-Gon’s treatment of Obi-Wan in this scene isn’t the worst, he’s kind about it later (though, he never actually specifically apologizes for this), but we can see that this is a moment where Qui-Gon hurts Obi-Wan and knows it. And you know what George Lucas has to say about Qui-Gon? This: “So here we’re having Qui-Gon wanting to skip the early training and jump right to taking him on as his Padawan learner, which is controversial, and ultimately, the source of much of the problems that develop later on.” –George Lucas, The Phantom Menace commentary There’s nothing about Qui-Gon being right or better than the other Jedi, but instead that Qui-Gon’s actions here are a source of much of the problems that develop later on. So, ultimately, I liked some points Dave made in that speech, it’s a beautiful and eloquent one, but I thoroughly disagree with his interpretation of George’s intentions for Qui-Gon and I thoroughly disagree that that’s what the movies, The Clone Wars (DAVE’S OWN SHOW), and the supplementary canon show about Qui-Gon and the other Jedi. I still stand by my appreciation of Dave’s contributions to SW as a whole, I think he does a really good job at making Star Wars, but he doesn’t always get everything right and this is one thing where I think the canon and George’s commentary show otherwise, as much as I love his desire to defend the prequels’ importance in the story. Because, my friend, I have felt that every single day of my SW life.

#anakin skywalker #qui gon jinn #jedi order #george lucas #dave filoni #meta #long post #really long post

997 notes · View notes

pass-the-bechdel · 6 years ago

Text

Homicide: Life on the Street season five full review

How many episodes pass the Bechdel test?

36.36% (eight of twenty-two).

What is the average percentage per episode of female characters with names and lines?

31.18%

How many episodes have a cast that is at least 40% female?

Three (episode twelve ‘Betrayal’ (40%), episode sixteen ‘Valentine’s Day’ (41.17%), and episode seventeen ‘Kaddish’ (50%)).

How many episodes have a cast that is less than 20% female?

Zero.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Fifty-three. Fifteen who appeared in more than one episode, two who appeared in at least half the episodes, and one who appeared in every episode.

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

ONE HUNDRED. Twenty-six who appeared in more than one episode, seven who appeared in at least half the episodes, and four who appeared in every episode.

Positive Content Status:

The overall quality of the representation is changing with the quality of the show itself; it’s still solidly good stuff, and there are some distinct highlights across the season, but in totality it feels less incisive than it has in the past, and less self-aware (average rating of 3.09).

General Season Quality:

As above - still solidly good stuff, some distinct highlights, but less incisive and less self-aware as the writing caves to the pressure to be more generic and ‘traditionally entertaining’. There’s still no single episode here that I would call ‘bad’, but the comparison to previous seasons definitely comes up lacking.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) under the cut:

My opening credit sequence!!! Let us all take a moment to bow our heads and remember the scratchy black-and-white montage of the original, CLASSIC opening titles, with the faces of the characters looming ominously out of the shadows. It set the mood for the show perfectly, it was iconic, it was perfect. In their increasingly hilarious desperation to make the show into something flashy and generic for the masses, the network has henceforth replaced that wonderful sequence with a bizarre rainbow array of neon lights and random crime-y words overlaying stock images of crime-y stuff, complete with nice, glowing, DEEPLY NINETIES shots of the cast being zoomed past the camera. It’s awful. It’s funny. It’s infinitely more dated than the original titles could ever have been. And it has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with the show. No grainy shots of Baltimore landmarks. No artistic interplay of light and darkness. No barking dog (how DARE they take that from me!). Where the old sequence prepared the viewer for a show about serious unlovely business, this replacement caws: “CRIME! CRIME CRIME! Bright colours! Pretty people! Crime stuff! Popping, exciting, colourful crime! Nineties! CRIME!” Welcome to season five of Homicide: Life on the Street. It’s not as good as the previous seasons.

Now, in fairness, the show hasn’t changed in any major fundamental way (which makes that new opening credits sequence even more embarrassing, like the execs really thought a ‘cool’ header would convince audiences that the show was hip and fun now), and this is still both solid viewing in its own right, and better viewing than most of its contemporaries (and a lot of what’s on today, for sure). I’d also like to acknowledge something that is kinda being lost in translation due to my (STILL TERRIBLE) decision to make these posts summary-only, and that’s the actual number of named-and-speaking female characters per episode. Because the average when compared to the number of men on the floor isn’t that inspiring (as noted in previous posts, it’s still shockingly high compared to the standard set by other shows of the time/genre), but the number, independent of its comparison to men? The most common incidence this season was to have seven female characters in any given episode (eight of the twenty-two episodes this season boast that many). There are two episodes this season with eight women in compliment, and four others which managed six; the lowest number of women in any episode was three (which happened twice). Of course, when the flip side of that is a number of men which only once dipped into single digits (’Kaddish’, a balanced eight and eight), you still wind up with a less than thrilling average. But having six or more women around for the vast majority of the season? That’s practically unheard of, even in most modern shows - even some female-driven shows don’t always boast so many, though they make up for it (usually) with 1. less male characters, and 2. more story and screen time for their female characters - I won’t pretend that Homicide’s women get a comparable amount of narrative time and attention as its men, but it is not to their exclusion. To have so many women around is especially rare in anything male-dominated or masculine-coded (like, oh, everything that counts within the ‘crime’ genre), and for far too many shows, three women in an episode is a surprisingly large number, not the absolute minimum. Whatever other criticisms I have (and I’ve got ‘em!) for this season, that thing I’ve acknowledged before, about how this show manages to be fairly nonchalantly inclusive of women despite the odds? That still holds true.

MEANWHILE, IN CRITICISM LAND: this season feels a lot more serialised than previous seasons have, and I - normally a vocal supporter of serialised television over episodic - do not love it. The episodic nature of the show is a given - cases come and go - and as such, the thing that increases the serialised approach here is an increase in personal dramas, and specifically, an increase in narratives that take place outside of work and sometimes entirely independent of it. Obviously, the characters always had personal lives, and sometimes their personal lives impacted their work, and sometimes that impact rolled out in a protracted fashion over multiple episodes or even a whole swathe of a season (I’m mostly thinking about the disaster of Beau Felton’s marriage and his descent into alcoholism which formed such a significant part of his story in season three). The difference was that in previous seasons, these personal life developments felt more like they existed simply because these things happen in real life, and the focus was predominantly on the way that such events interact with the work the characters do, because that’s what the show is about, after all: life as a homicide detective, not life as a person who also incidentally happens to be a cop. I don’t hate any of what they were doing in this season, and some of it has serious merit, but altogether it does feel a lot more dramatic and distracting than what has come before, more manufactured, and more like it exists to create conflict in the characters lives instead of just letting them be who and what they are, and let the story come naturally from that.

We’ll start with Pembleton: in the season four finale, Pembleton had a stroke. This season begins with his first day back on the job - such as it is - and it’s not smooth sailing. Pembleton’s ability to perform his duties is physically impaired, he’s limping, he doesn’t have a full range of motion, he can’t drive, and he’s stuck on desk duty until he can re-qualify on the gun range. But he’s also having cognitive difficulties: he has a major stutter, his memory struggles even on small things like names, numbers, or simple spelling that he has known since childhood, and his mind wanders or makes leaps not pertinent to his current situation (as when he fails his first attempt at the gun range after becoming distracted by the dual meaning of the word ‘magazine’). Remembering Stan Bolander being evaluated before receiving approval to return to active duty after being shot in season three, it’s hard to imagine Pembleton receiving the same seal of approval under these circumstances. By the end of the season, he’s getting along just fine and it’s like the stroke never happened, and whether that degree of recovery is realistic or not, I feel like it’s unrealistic for him to have been sent back to work when he was not even close to being capable of actually doing the work. I feel like the writers were too busy indulging in the range of side-effects that a stroke can have in order to make the consequences dramatic, they overplayed the whole idea and then had to walk it back in order to have the character be functional within the narrative. Pembleton’s stroke has everything to do with the dramatic potential of disabilities, but nothing to do with a realistic assessment of the long-term consequences those disabilities might have on his ability to work or play like he used to, and that’s a sad disappointment for the veracity this show once represented.

Meanwhile - though I welcome the decision to include Pembleton’s wife Mary in the story more often - the strain on the Pembleton marriage reaches critical mass, and it’s not hard to see why: though Pembleton says the words out loud to other characters (”Mary’s been so good with everything”, etc), he’s erratic, self-absorbed, and inconsiderate in his home life, and his behaviour toward Mary reflects little gratitude or even recognition for the colossal amount of work that she has put in to both caring for Frank after his stroke, and caring for their newborn child born not long before said stroke. Mary is an unsung superhero in the Pembleton home, and it’s understandable that Frank is very preoccupied with his own recovery, but it’s not acceptable that he fails to respect the struggle that Mary has been through at his side. Even after she leaves him, Frank doesn’t really seem to acknowledge his own shortcomings - Mary didn’t leave him because he had a stroke and she couldn’t deal (he was ‘better’ by this point), she left him because she was done with being ignored and having herself and their child treated like completely secondary considerations in Frank’s life, after his own self-image - and when he petitions Mary to return, it’s still all in terms of what having his family around means to HIM. He’s miserably eating Mary’s cooking from the freezer and feeling sorry about the fact that she’s not there to make him more, and he wants her back because he loves her, sure, but also because being a husband and father is part of his self-image, and that’s what his entire personal arc this season boils down to, stroke, job, separation, and all: it’s about Frank Pembleton’s all-important concept of self, to the exclusion of any concern, respect, or basic recognition for the other people in his life and their own wants or needs or value as individuals whose lives do not actually revolve around him.

Pembleton also has dramas with his partner Bayliss, which is par for the course at this point and mostly pretty useless as a result: how many times has one or the other of them declare that they don’t want to be partners anymore, and then they dance around one another for several episodes before admitting that, yeah, actually they do want to work together after all? Brodie hangs a lantern on it, but that doesn’t make it any more compelling to watch. What is more compelling - and actually a well-earned character revelation which makes a huge amount of sense when compared to past evidence - is Bayliss’ confession that he was sexually abused by his uncle when he was a child. Bayliss actually mentioned it - in an obfuscated fashion, substituting ‘cousin’ for ‘uncle’ and claiming not to remember what happened - back in season three when he and Pembleton were talking about whether or not they’d ever had a gay-questioning moment, and in that context we can see how Bayliss’ homophobia has manifested from that experience, as well as his disdain for anything he considers sexually ‘perverse’ - Pembleton has accused Bayliss of being sexually repressed on more than one occasion, and this revelation shows us that the repression is not out of ignorance or puritanism so much as it is a gut reaction to anything which reminds him of the childhood abuse he has tried so hard to hide. That doesn’t make it ok for him to be a homophobe, but it explains, and it’s necessary for Bayliss to make peace with his past in order to be open-minded and understanding of others moving forward. As much as I applaud that storytelling, the decision to have Bayliss ‘confront’ his uncle and then start taking care of the man after seeing the squalor in which he now lives kinda turns my stomach. It would be one thing, to have Bayliss take the high road and decide that compassion was more important than hate, forgiving his uncle and then moving on with his life, but what he does instead involves physical and emotional labour for his uncle’s comfort, it has cost in money, energy, and the potential to jeopardise Bayliss’ job as he is repeatedly ‘out on errands’ instead of working, and on one occasion the uncle even calls him at work and asks him to come out to his place NOW and bring him stuff, which Bayliss does after initially refusing. The whole situation plays not like compassionate forgiveness and healing (even though the show frames it that way), it looks and smells exactly like the uncle taking advantage of Bayliss’ good nature for his own gain (not just enjoying what he is given, but actively demanding and pushing for more), and that is alarming and disturbing. Of all the ways this particular facet of the plot could have played out, I am extremely troubled that this is what they went for, without any reflection upon the decision.

In a whole ‘nother direction, we have Kellerman, and his partnership with Lewis, and y’all, I am baffled. Kellerman spends half of the season on administrative duties, like Pembleton, but in his case it’s because he’s being investigated by the FBI for allegations of corruption dating back to his time in the arson unit. As with the rest of the story decisions in this season, I don’t object to this on principle, it isn’t a bad narrative arc or piece of character exploration (or deconstruction, as it turns out), but I am kinda amazed and confused that the show took BOTH of its power couples partnerships out of commission for half the season (in Lewis and Kellerman’s case, it’s actually effectively the entire season - they only partner onscreen for four cases, and one of those is a single scene, not an actual episode plot). After the Lewis/Kellerman partnership was such a breath of fresh air last season, I can’t help but feel like their separation this season was a completely deliberate decision to stop them from, what? Stepping on Bayliss/Pembleton’s toes? Bayliss and Pembleton are the only surviving partnership from the show’s first season, and even then they were framed as the ‘main’ partnership on the show - did someone get antsy about the fact that season four had used Lewis/Kellerman so effectively? Did they shoot themselves in the foot on purpose? It certainly fucking feels that way to me. It feels like they tanked Kellerman’s whole character and ruined his partnership with Lewis so that Bayliss/Pembleton could still be the big shots, and that’s very unnecessary; part of what made the first season work so well was that the cast felt more balanced, and even if there was kiiinda a ‘main’ partnership, that didn’t stop the rest of the partnerships from having almost equal footing and almost equal representation in episodes. Lewis/Kellerman has been the only pairing since the originals that has felt meaningful, like there’s a real working chemistry between the characters and not just ‘these two were written together for the episode, because’ (as with, say, Munch/Russert in the second half of last season, which I often forget was even a thing because it was such a nonentity). I’m so mad about this. Pro tip: I will get madder, next season.

Anyway: Kellerman’s arc. It’s not bad, in and of itself (though I could have absolutely done without the ill-advised visit from the Kellerman brothers, that was crap from every angle). But surely, having Kellerman’s life/career unravel regardless of his innocence is an arc they could have achieved in a more intensified fashion, one that sidelined him for less of the season? Surely there was a better way to do this than to just waste him for eleven episodes? I’m not going to wish away the arc in its entirety, because despite being mostly frustrating, it did deliver us the best episode of the season in the form of ‘Have a Conscience’, Kellerman’s first episode back on the job after being cleared of any wrongdoing, and the only episode to truly use the Lewis/Kellerman partnership in the way that the previous season did. Down on the seeming futility of their work and the lingering damage that has been done to his reputation, Kellerman contemplates suicide, and for twenty minutes of screen time, Lewis works his way around to talking him down. The show hasn’t done this kind of contained, lengthy, focused storytelling since the unparalleled ‘Three Men and Adena’ back in season one, and it is a more than welcome return to that format, volatile and tense and insightful, sometimes ugly, but always honest. And it hits all those good male bonding beats, all that lovely vulnerability in Kellerman that made me so happy in season four, and both Lewis’ desire to be open and connecting in the moment, and his tendency to spook and shut down after things get too real (there’s something really heartbreaking about Lewis’ discomfort in the following episode, when Kellerman tells him not to worry because he’s seeking professional help - as much as Lewis is haunted by Crosetti’s death and the question of whether or not he could have done anything to prevent it, he can barely look Kellerman in the eye after being confronted with what it means to help someone through crisis). For one episode, though, we have Lewis and Kellerman as we loved them in season four, being honest about their feelings and listening and supporting one another, and when Lewis gives Kellerman his jacket to keep him warm out in the chilly open air, it feels natural and right, it feels truthful, all toxic masculinity set aside so that they can get through this thing, like partners, like friends. That episode, I wouldn’t trade for a less dramatic Kellerman arc; the rest of his content in the season? Could have been better. Could have been so much better.

The other thing Kellerman had going on this season was a romance, which wasn’t too bad because the basic chemistry was there and the romance itself didn’t override or derail any other stories happening, so I’m not gonna go into it: the important thing is who the romance was with, and that would be Dr Juliana Cox, the new chief medical examiner and the new Other Woman on the show since Russert is largely absent for the majority of the season. Cox is pretty great, which was a bit of a surprise to me since I had never like Michelle Forbes in anything before and I was worried she’d ruin everything (nothing against her as an actor, she’s just always played aggressively disagreeable characters any other time I’ve seen her so I was accustomed to going ‘URGH, it’s you’). Not unlike when they introduced Russert, they do overplay Cox’s identity as a Strong Independent Woman when she first shows up, but I’m ok with it since they use the opportunity to have Cox call men out on their bullshit (the case in her introductory episode involves murdered prostitutes) and lay down the law like a total boss. It may be a little heavy-handed, but it gets the job done, and in fairness, that degree of mettle and ready combativeness if tested doesn’t dissipate over the course of the season, nor does it feel unrealistic: the true test for any new character introduced to this show is whether or not they have the naturalism and believability to fit in, and I approve Cox on those grounds: she is a character deserving of this show at its best.

To wrap this discussion with a few more gripes and one last nod of praise: one of the problems with the more serialised storytelling and the way it revolves around the personal lives of select characters is the huge void this creates between the cast members who seem ‘important’, and the ones who don’t. Howard is still a great, self-possessed character, but the lack of any narrative for her - personal or professional - in this season is egregious. Because previous seasons were more balanced in their attention and harped on long-term personal arcs less, it didn’t matter if a character didn’t seem to have a ‘point’ on the show besides just existing, because existing is the main thing that people do: Howard doesn’t have to legitimise her existence with drama, she’s just gotta be who she is and how she is and let life take care of the rest. As soon as you start letting dramatic events take precedence, however, it starts seeming weird if everyone isn’t having them, and characters start to appear useless if they aren’t generating any drama (this is how unrealistic soap-opera storytelling happens). Kay Howard is and remains better than that, but I wish they had just let her go out on some cases and basically Do Stuff, it doesn’t have to be dramatic. Just let her do her damn job, on screen.

Speaking of underused characters, if the writer’s wanted to do the whole FBI-investigation-sidelines-a-character-for-half-a-season trick so badly, why didn’t they target someone who barely does anything to start with, someone we won’t miss in the regular rotation? Someone like...Munch. As is, the only ‘Munch episode’ in the bunch is ‘Kaddish’, which isn’t bad, but it does include some terrible flashbacks to Munch’s highschool years that are basically just every single highschool cliche ever, and the episode revolves around Munch’s old crush who has now been brutally raped and murdered, and excuse me if the continued obsession with Munch’s fixation on the fuckability of women is not my idea of a good time (ESPECIALLY when it is focused around the way he shared that desire with a number of other men in connection with this particular (VIOLENTLY! MURDERED!) woman). In context, the aspect of the episode which deals with Munch’s relationship with his Jewish faith feels completely disconnected from the rest of the content. I’m not happy about it. I’m also not happy about Brodie, still being a whiny little creep who can also add ‘spying on Howard and filming her with her boyfriend without either party’s consent’ to his roster of misconduct; as much as I have enjoyed ‘The Documentary’ in the past, under the slightest scrutiny it’s actually a total mess of an episode (and Brodie appears to be a terrible documentarian, even accepting that we don’t see every moment of what he’s made), and the entire concept is actually very plot-holed and a poorly-imagined idea of a fourth wall breaker. And speaking of misconduct, I gotta flag a pattern that’s emerging: in ‘Narcissus’, Gee doesn’t want to investigate local black community activist Burundi Robinson, despite allegations that he’s pimping out the women under his care and that he’s recently sanctioned the murder of one of his own in order to cover it up. While Gee comes around after his initial hesitation and pursues the investigation, the fact that he hesitates in the first place out of a desire to ‘protect the good Robinson is doing in the community’ is frustratingly deaf to the fact that Robinson prostituting the women in his care and ordering men killed if they try to speak out against it is obviously NOT GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, GEE. This reminds me directly of the arc in season three (which I flagged at the time) with the gay congressman, whose ‘good work as a politician’ was enough for Pembleton to try and help cover up the fact that he was also A VIOLENT DOMESTIC ABUSER. To a lesser extent, they also played this in season four when Bayliss tried to talk himself out of arresting a doctor for negligent homicide after she failed to provide proper care to a patient because she didn’t feel he deserved it - Bayliss’ insistence that the doctor should be allowed to stay in practice because ‘she saves people’s lives’ is at odds with the fact that she deliberately didn’t save this one, and as with the other examples here, the fact that someone does good work in one form does not entitle them to a free pass to do evil elsewhere. The dissonance bugs me, and I don’t know why the showrunners think that these are worthwhile dilemmas to present. Moral quandaries certainly exist, but these are not them.

ANYWAY I promised to end on praise, so here it is: Beau Felton. I’m not saying I’m glad he’s dead, because that’s a sad tragedy, but the way they handled it was excellent, and the delivery of such a twist at such an unexpected time - when we could easily have assumed, after two seasons’ absence, that Felton would never be seen and scarcely be mentioned again - was so well pitched to feel shocking, heavy, and meaningful, when it could so easily have played like a cheap trick, just one last unnecessarily dramatic turn (it was also the closest we got to a ‘Howard story’, though that’s a stretch really, she’s involved but it’s not about her). It was a tall order, to pull off the death of an old regular character off-screen without feeling contrived, but here we are. I’ve complained quite a lot about this season, but the magic ain’t gone, not yet. Not yet.

#Homicide: Life on the Street #Homicide: Life on the Street season five #HLOTS #Bechdel Test #female representation #full season review

5 notes · View notes

gracewithducks · 8 years ago

Text

“I didn’t know it” (Genesis 28:10-19a)

We have been spending this summer with the families of Genesis, and today we continue the story of Jacob, one of the twin grandsons of Abraham and Sarah.

Last week, we heard about the day that Jacob’s brother Esau came in from the field, and Jacob traded Esau a bowl of stew in exchange for Esau’s rights as the oldest son.

Many years passed, and when the twins turned 40, Esau decided it was time to settle down. So he took for himself two foreign wives – women who, while they may have been very nice women, worshiped other gods, and lived with different values than the family dream of blessing the whole world.

And now we are getting closer to today’s scene. Isaac is growing old, and it’s time for him to give his blessing to the son who will take his place as the head of the family once he’s gone. He sends for Esau, his oldest, to come and receive his blessing. But Rebekah calls for Jacob, and she helps Jacob to disguise himself, so that he might fool his father and receive the blessing instead. Perhaps Rebekah is remembering what God told her when she was pregnant: that her younger son was destined to lead, and her older son would serve him. Maybe she fears that, if Esau takes his rightful place as heir, the family calling will come to an inglorious end. Or maybe she simply wants to push her favorite son, Jacob, into his brother’s place.

Whatever the reason, Rebekah and Jacob succeed in their plan: Isaac gives Jacob his blessing: “May God give you the dew of heaven and the fatness of the earth… Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!”

They are powerful words, the blessing that should have fallen on the eldest son. Jacob leaves, wearing the mantle of this stolen blessing, and is soon followed by his brother, coming to receive his own. When Isaac and Esau figure out what has happened, Isaac trembles and Esau cries out bitterly – and the rivalry which has defined his life, the brother who has dogged his heels since birth, finally pushes him over his edge. And he starts to plot Jacob’s death; he plans to wait until their father has died, and then he will get rid of his twin and finally stand alone.

When Rebekah realizes what Esau has planned, she makes her own plan: she told Isaac that she was afraid that Jacob, like Esau, would marry a local woman – so she wanted to send him back to her own family, to find a better wife. So Jacob leaves, but really, he is running to save his life.

And this is where we find him today. Jacob has travelled a hard day’s journey away from his home, and the sun is setting; he needs to find a place to stay the night. But he left in such a rush, in such a hurry, he hasn’t brought anything with him; he has no bedroll, nothing to use to make camp. He does the best he can, taking a rock for his pillow, and he lays down to sleep.

This, I think, has to be the lowest point in Jacob’s life. This is where, if I were him, I would be tempted to look around myself and wonder how it all went so wrong.

I wonder if Jacob stewed in the bitter irony, that – while he finally had everything he’d ever wanted, while he had succeeded in securing his brother’s birthright and his father’s blessing – in the very same instant, he’d lost it all. Birthrights and blessings mean very little when you’re in the wilderness, with nothing but a rock to pillow your head.

I wonder if Jacob tried to point fingers and place blame – because, sure, he was a grasping and tricky fellow, but he had help along the way. He couldn’t have taken Esau’s birthright if Esau hadn’t been so willing to give it up. He wouldn’t have tricked his father, perhaps, if his father had spared some more attention and affection for him, the second son, all long. And it was his mother’s idea, after all, to dress Jacob up in his brother’s clothes and trick dad into giving the blessing to the wrong son. Sure, Jacob made some poor decisions, but he certainly had some help along the way.

Jacob may have even blamed God – it’s not unusual to rail against heaven, especially when life seems so unfair. After all, it was God who had told Jacob’s mother, even before the twins were born, which one would carry on the family line. Would it really have been so hard for God to have arranged things so that Jacob just came out of the womb first? That sure would have simplified life for everyone. Or else, couldn’t God have spoken, not just to Rebekah, whose visions could be ignored as the ramblings of a pregnant woman, but to Isaac, to Esau, to Jacob, too? Just so that everyone was on the same page, and Jacob didn’t feel pushed to resort to trades and tricks along the way?

Maybe, in the wilderness, alone under the stars, with stones digging into his back and strange sounds filling the night, maybe Jacob started to realize just how much he’d taken for granted in his life. Even as the second son, he’d never been hungry, never been abused; he had never been abandoned and never been unloved. Sure, his family wasn’t perfect; sure, his parents played favorites and his brother drove him crazy… but there’s nothing like distance to make you realize that there’s no place like home.

And now Jacob is running for his life. He doesn’t know where he will end up; he doesn’t know what the future holds, whether he will ever make it home again.

This is Jacob’s dark night. It’s, literally, the dark night of his soul[1]: the night of suffering, of loneliness and despair; the night when all has been lost, and hope is hard to hold onto; the night when God seems so far away you can start to wonder if God was ever with you at all.

And then Jacob falls asleep, and he starts to dream. In his dream, Jacob sees a ladder, a set of steps, reaching from earth all the way up to heaven. And there were angels, messengers from God, going up and down on the ladder.

I remember growing up singing, “We are climbing Jacob’s ladder!” and it was this triumphant and joyful song, a song about how we were climbing our way up into heaven, one step at a time. But I don’t know that that entirely captures what this dream was about. For one thing, this isn’t Jacob’s ladder at all… and he certainly never climbs it. I wouldn’t have been surprised if, knowing Jacob, his first response on seeing a ladder into heaven would be to grab ahold and start climbing. Jacob’s whole life he has been looking for ways to get ahead, to trick and trip his way to the top.

But he doesn’t climb the ladder. Maybe he can’t. Maybe heaven is one place that we can’t sneak into; we have to be invited in.

Maybe Jacob sees just how tall that ladder is, and it only serves to reinforce just how far away God really is.

Maybe he sees those messengers coming and going from heaven, and he starts to wonder, to hope: maybe one of those messengers is carrying a message for him.

And then something happens: God appears. Not far away in heaven, but right next to Jacob, standing beside him, there in the wilderness, God appears. Instead of sending a messenger, God speaks directly to Jacob. Instead of scolding Jacob, instead of chewing him out for the mess he’s in, God reaffirms Jacob’s place in the story of faith: “I am the Lord, the God of your fathers Abraham and Isaac. I will give this land to you and to your descendants. Your family will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread to the corners of the earth, and in you, all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

In Jacob’s darkest night, when he feels most alone and forsaken by God, the Lord gives him this vision, and the Lord says, “Behold, I am with you and will keep you; I will not leave you, wherever you go...”

And Jacob wakes up, and he says, “Surely God is in this place, and I did not even know it.”

Surely God is here, and I did not even know it. Even in our lowest, most desperate moments, even when we are furious with God, when we are disappointed, when we are doubting, when God seems so far away that we start to wonder if God was ever here at all – even there, even then, even when we do not know it, God is surely with us still.

I was recently reading the work of a theologian who has struggled with traditional understandings of the atonement – traditional understandings of what it is that Jesus does for us, and what Jesus’ death really means. And he argues that a fundamental part of our humanity is, in fact, our god-forsakenness: it is this experience of being abandoned by God, feeling alone, full of doubt, crying out in angst because – when we need God most, God is profoundly silent and unreachably remote.

And when God comes as Christ, it is this aspect of our humanity that he enters, experiences, and redeems: [2] God experiences god-forsakenness… God, in Christ, cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”… God, in Christ, enters the dark and long and lonely night of grief – and so, when we find ourselves there, even when it seems that God is nowhere to be found, especially when it seems like God has abandoned and forgotten us – it’s there, precisely, that God is with us, alongside us, promising: “I am with you, wherever you are, and I will never leave you, no matter what.”

When our son was sick, people came out of the woodwork asking to come and anoint and pray for him. And as a general rule, we said no. For too many, it wasn’t about Carl at all; it was about them, about the notch in their belt or the gold star in their crown: I went and visited the cute little sick boy; I laid on hands and prayed for him. But especially near the end, when we were coming to terms with the fact that he wasn’t going to get better – it didn’t help us to have acquaintances of acquaintances reaching out, sure that their prayers, their hands, would be all it would take to turn things around. Their relentless denial of reality wasn’t helping us at all.

But then an old friend of mine sent a very different request: she asked if she could bring me a home-cooked dinner, and she also asked if it would be okay if, while she was there, she anointed and prayed for me.

I must have said yes, though I have no memory of it, and I’m still not sure why; that’s not usually my thing – pastors pray for others, right? And we keep our own hurts hidden away. But I must have said yes, because this old friend came, bringing shepherd’s pie and someone who could be trusted to hold and watch my little boy so I could, for just a few moments, let someone else carry his weight.

And we sat in the corner of the room, and my friend started praying for me. She prayed that I would have comfort, and strength, that I would be surrounded by God’s love, that I would be filled with peace that passes understanding.

And then she started having me repeat after her. And I squirmed, because – sure, I have the kids repeat after me every week, but I’m not usually a “repeat after me” kind of person. But I didn’t want to be rude. I don’t remember a lot of it – she probably had me say things like “I believe that God loves me” and “I believe that God cares for Carl as much as I do” and other affirmations of faith.

I don’t remember for sure, but there is one line that I remember clearly, one that struck to my core and stuck with me in the days to come: she said, “I reject the lie that this is hell.”

I reject the lie that this is hell.

And that one just about choked me. Because I had, more than once, described what we were experiencing as just that: as hell. We were in hell, the place of unending suffering, the place where suffering has no rhyme or reason or redeeming value; in hell, where it’s hard to breathe, and God doesn’t answer your strangled prayers, and you start to wonder if God is even listening at all.

I reject the lie that this is hell, I repeated. And she went on: “I reject the lie that God is not here.”

I reject the lie that God is not here.

It sure felt like God had abandoned us. That dark little hermetically sealed hospital room felt about as far away from God as I had ever been, where my son cried, and there was nothing I could do but cry with him.

I reject the lie that God is not here.

Where else would God be, God the Son, who suffered – but with my suffering son? Where else would God be, God the parent, who watched God’s own son die – where would God be, but there, alongside the weary mother, who had to do the same?

I didn’t dream of heaven that night, and I never saw God standing behind us in that hospital room. But I kept breathing, even after my son stopped; and there are days, I think, when that’s miracle enough. That grief, that god-forsakenness, is not where our story ends.

This is the paradox of our faith: even when we cry out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – it’s there, in that moment, that God is as close as God has ever been.

Surely God is here, and I didn’t know it – said Jacob, in his own dark night. He still didn’t know what the future held; he still didn’t know what hardships might lie ahead. He didn’t even know about God entering our forsakenness in Christ, about God suffering with us, so we never have to cry out alone. Jacob knew none of it. But he knew that, no matter how alone he felt, God was with him.

And even in our darkest nights, God is with us. Whether we come to those places because of our own poor choices, whether we find ourselves there because of the ways our parents have failed us or our siblings have used us, whether we find ourselves in the dark valley simply because life can be cruel, and suffering random, and at some point, we all will walk that way – whatever the reason, whatever the grief, God is there.

When we suffer, God cries out with us. When we are betrayed, God knows how it feels. And when we feel most alone, it is there that we should expect to see God’s face most clearly – it is there that we find, to our surprise, that God is not far away at the top of an unsurmountable ladder, but God is right beside us, whispering the promise: I am with you always, even to the very end.

I don’t know where you are today. Maybe your life is going well, the sun is shining and all is right in your world, and even the very idea of a dark night is so far removed from your experience right now that it’s hard to even imagine – and if that is you, friend, be blessed; may God give you joy and peace and may you be filled with gratitude for this glorious moment, and may you have compassion for those who aren’t where you are, and may you never forget that life changes quickly, so take nothing for granted.

Maybe, however, you’re in a very different place today. Maybe you can relate to Jacob, in the wilderness, filled with grief and regret, lonely, with a rock for your pillow and no hope for tomorrow. Maybe you are in that dark night: and even the sunshine seems too bright, when your soul is in a place so dark. Maybe your greatest act of courage was getting out of bed this morning. Maybe it feels like a miracle that you are here at all.

And if that’s where you are today, I am praying for you. I am praying for God to bless your sleepless nights; I am praying that you will find peace in the middle of the storm, and strength to keep your head above the waves until the water recedes. I am praying that you will know that God has not forsaken you, but God is with you, even now. And I am praying that God will find a way to speak to your heart – in your waking, or in your dreams – that God will give you the strength to keep going, to keep breathing, and trust that every dark night ends, and morning will come again.

Surely God is where you are – whether you know it or not. God is with you, and always will be. This is not where your story ends. You are not forsaken; you are beloved, and you are not alone.

God, you hear our cries in the dark night; you know our agony, when we struggle to go on, and your presence seems so very far away. Help us. Use our restless hours of sleep to restore our weary souls. Whisper into our hearts, in our waking and in our sleeping, that you are here. Help us to have compassion on our own suffering, and to have faith that this is not the end. Weeping may last for the night, but morning always comes again. Help us to hold on ‘til then. In the name of Christ, who entered our pain, and who weeps with us and walks with us even now, we pray; amen.

[1] The phrase “dark night of the soul” is originally from John of the Cross, and a similar experience of feeling forsaken by God – not as a result of lack of faith, but as a common experience along the faith journey – is also described by St. Therese, St. Paul of the Cross, and St. Teresa of Calcutta, among others.

[2] Tony Jones, A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin.

1 note · View note

toolsforthejourney-blog · 8 years ago

Text

June 2017 Boundaries

June 2017

BOUNDARIES

To my family, friends, fans and seekers…

I would like to write about boundaries.

Language is an ever-changing practice. Whether spoken or written, English has been evolving (some would say “devolving”) for centuries. There are a lot of words used today that didn’t exist 50 years ago. Most of these are buzzwords, or turns of phrase, which are now used commonly.

Take the Middle English words, “Hale, and well met!” Today we would say, “How are you doing? Hope you’re well…,” or some similar form of greeting. Hale, and well met has nearly been forgotten.

With the rise of therapy and behavioral expertise, the term boundary has entered the vernacular. It’s not just spoken by those who professionally practice some form of counseling, but the word is being used by nearly everyone.

What is a boundary?

In family therapy BOUNDARY is a term used liberally and has many applications. It can establish the autonomy of a person from those they come in contact with, like family, coworkers, fellow students, neighbors, lovers and so forth. A boundary can be used to keep a person emotionally safe in a relationship of any kind, or used to define the intricacies of a romantic relationship. And while technically a boundary is meant to establish and maintain a healthy relationship, all too often they are erroneously applied as a barrier of entry for a person on the receiving end of its misapplication.

While I’m sure that most therapists mean well and have an intrinsic love for people (no doubt this love for people caused them to enter the field in the first place), they can’t possibly oversee or govern the installment of the boundaries they recommend to their clients. They can’t even determine the veracity of their client’s testimony in their office. They most often hear a one-sided account. It’s tough to get to the truth that way…

Back to boundaries! The word boundary is spoken so freely in society today, as though people were familiar with them and their proper usage. In looking at a number of therapists’ blogs, it seems clear that boundaries are meant “...to regulate relationships, while maintaining them in a more emotionally healthy way,” but that is seldom the outcome — I have observed.

Please remember as you read this, that I am largely writing to Christians, believers and followers of the Way: the way that Jesus lived by example for us and commanded us to emulate in our own lives. He set the high watermark for doing life, and every idea, word and deed must come under His authority for those who follow Christ.

The question I raise is this: did Jesus set boundaries with people?

Many people today speak of Jesus meek and mild, as He is often depicted in paintings holding a child, surrounded by puffy white sheep, or touching someone lovingly with healing hands. These examples of Jesus are at best insufficient, and at the worst misleading. The following are quotes from Jesus’ own lips, as He addressed some religious control freaks, known as Pharisees –

Matthew 12:34 “Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”

Matthew 23:33 “Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?”

John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.”

Matthew 23:27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.”

Jesus meek and mild? I think not…

His response was always perfectly measured and applied to the situation that He faced. When He spoke to someone who was unloved and maltreated by society, He spoke affirming words. When He spoke to someone in need of forgiveness, He spoke reassuring words. But when He spoke to religious hypocrites, His tone was decidedly confrontational.

But one thing He never did, was deny someone access to Him in the name of a boundary.

Everyone was welcomed, whether or not they were in agreement with Him, meant Him good or evil, wanted to do for Him or take from Him. He was completely accessible, and still is today by faith alone. My only knowledge of Jesus ever setting a boundary was with the great Deceiver and Accuser, satan.

(See Matthew 4:10)

What was originally meant by therapists to be beneficial within a relationship, has morphed and been contorted into a weapon; a barrier; a wall. It saddens me to see how easily we give up on each other, in families, in places where we work, in neighborhoods, in ministry and even in marriages. One day two people are building a life together, dreaming together, making babies together, and the next they are filing for divorce. The boundary becomes the justification for NOT doing life with their former friend, family member, neighbor, spouse.

I must add that any sort of legal action against someone you supposedly love(d) can easily become a tool of a personal war, a bludgeon of retribution. Jesus commanded us to “do unto others as we would have them do unto us.” A boundary that doesn’t work for both parties, and concurrently toward reconciliation between them, is a farce. Legal actions taken against a mate places a “boundary” between two former lovers; relationship ceases as a legal barrier is erected.

I would ask every modern Christ-follower to take a close look at Jesus’ life and response to opposition. He truly loved the people that opposed Him and wrongfully treated Him. And yet He still allowed them access, all the way to the cross where He died for the sins of the world.

2Corinthians 3:6 …who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Boundary indeed…

The next time you hear her speak of the boundary she needed in order to protect herself, think back to Jesus’ style of openly relating to everyone, no matter who they were.

I am further amazed at how we have allowed the behavioral science model of family governance to permeate the church. This 75-year old fledgling practice has supplanted pastoral care and true commitment to families that has existed for 2,000+ years, which is described at length in the living Word of God. There are even churches who sponsor boundary-setting seminars and other misguided responses to people they should have loved.

Why do people feel the need to erect a barrier between them and someone else?

Here are a few of the reasons given by therapists who I researched on line –

· To keep from being hurt

· To protect ones’ sense of self and autonomy

· To instruct someone in their behavior

· To limit someone from acting inappropriately

· To create healthy respect within a relationship

· To identify the parameters of how a relationship should work

· To demand respect from the disrespectful

· To define and control the expectations within a romantic relationship

· To advocate for feminist ideals

Notice that none of these end the relationship.

Besides the flippant use of psycho-babble (for that’s what the word boundary has devolved into), I perceive boundaries to be mostly protecting ones’ own self-interests. It becomes, “...what I’m comfortable with, what I’m willing or not willing to do, to give or not give, to be or not be, to suffer or not, etc....,”and always defined exclusively by the user.

Jesus style of relating might be characterized as unassertive or co-dependant by modern society. Yet boundaries seem to be the opposite of the following –

Matthew 5:5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

Matthew 10:39 “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.”

Matthew 20:16a. “So the last will be first, and the first last…”

Luke 6:27-29 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. 29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either.”

I could offer many more such examples of NOT defending one’s self-interests with so-called boundaries. Is it not enough to know that Jesus Himself turned His other cheek toward those attacking Him as He practiced non-resistance?

He did it out of love, which is ALWAYS the opposite of self-interest.

I now speak prophetically to every Christian reading this blog: “If your relationship ends because of the “boundary” you have set, then its walls are too high, and the LORD would have you take it down, brick by brick, in order to reestablish the relationship, for we have been given the Spirit and ministry of reconciliation.”

2Corinthians 5:18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation.

Out of the love in His heart for everyone, Jesus would rather have allowed Himself to be abused than judge or condemn someone for his shortcomings. In the end, the all too common misapplication of a boundary is simply a way to control someone that you dislike or disapprove of, and with the boundary in place, a person can obtain power over the relationship.

Love is many things, but it always requires risk. To put up walls to keep people out requires no risk at all, and is NOT fundamentally in agreement with the Way.

Conversely, if someone breaks the law with their behavior there is always a legal consequence for that.

Paul the apostle wrote these words about what real love looks like, and we Christians would do well to reexamine our motives surrounding boundaries in light of them –

1Corinthians 13:4-7

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, DOES NOT SEEK ITS OWN, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 BEARS ALL THINGS, BELIEVES ALL THINGS, HOPES ALL THINGS, ENDURES ALL THINGS.

In other words, love doesn’t quit on people...

If we loved like Jesus, we would not be so easily provoked, instead we would forbear one another’s weaknesses; we would be able to bear up under whatever was done or said, even if it were a daily occurrence. We would believe the best in our people, no matter where they were currently in their life. This is the only way God can love us, for we, none of us, have arrived yet. And our attitude towards those who wrongfully abuse us, would be to expect and believe for an upward trajectory of improvement in them, while we endure their present state. This is real love, love costs us something; love demands something from us; love demands a sacrifice.

If we would simply love one another, the practice of boundary-setting to self-protect would fade away, like most of the buzzwords in language that come for a season and are soon forgotten.

As always, you can respond to this essay to my email address, calcio.christopher@gmail.com, or at my website, Innocente.us under the blog button in the pull-down menu, or simply at tumblr.com/blog/toolsforthejourney

Remember in everything, Father will have the final say.

Keep it out of the box,

Innocente

0 notes