Dropping Defenses

"In the novelization, it remarks that Galen Marek dropped his defenses (i.e. holding onto Palpatine)" - Ant.

So what do you guys think. Does the novel referencing Marek dropping his defenses refer to him lowering his Force defenses as he puts all his energy towards a final attack or does it refer to him letting go of Palpatine?

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

Why wouldn't it make sense? He put everything he had into that final attack which would include the energy he had been previously using to shield himself from his and Sidious's lightning.

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
So what do you guys think. Does the novel referencing Marek dropping his defenses refer to him lowering his Force defenses to enact an explosion and ultimately sacrificing himself or does it refer to him letting go of Palpatine?

Originally posted by The Force Unleashed
"No!" the apprentice cried, dropping his defenses to strike one last time at the Imperials.

Not sure.... it seems so vague!

Lmao. 👆

Now that you edited your post it does make sense. ¬¬

By his actions and all, the first option is the more probable imo.

Thank you Tenebrous. I appreciate that you're being unbiased in the matter.

You too Neph.

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
does it refer to him letting go of Palpatine?

Releasing Sidious from his grip.

It means Ant's a sore loser.

Vitiate >>> Revan.

I'm totally reliable and unbiased, Synd. 🙂

Heh.

Of course. As is everyone on KMC. 😉

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
Vitiate >>> Revan.

Fear not, though. My argument is flexible enough to address even your misconceptions as fact and yet still yield my results. 😱

Regretfully, I'm studying for AP Physics ATM, so I'll get back to you tonight. If I forget, PM the link to remind me / bump the thread. 👆

I am. You're not even willing to be universal with your flawed logic.

Do it then. I'm sure it'll be based on the various contradictions throughout the versions.

If you like.

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
You're not even willing to be universal with your flawed logic.

No.

Quotes that confirm already established information are fine.

Quotes that clear up an area of uncertainty are fine.

Quotes that establish a precedence or create an answer to a question that didn't have one before are fine.

Quotes that contradict established limitations are not.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Isn't that the definition of your quote policy, lmfao?

Just be ready to debate. I'll PM you about 8:00 P.M. Pacific time.