Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, UK
Co-Admin
Any EU material contradicted by GL's word is deemed to be wrong. That's how things are done around here, a policy we apply for consistency, The only difference with the EU forum is that we accept its continuity here also (though lesser to that of the films), whilst the film sections are film only, no EU allowed.
Yes, that in turn disqualifies a lot of EU from the canon. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's how it is.
Romantic love ABSOLUTELY falls into the 'leads to the Dark Side' area. Again, this is exactly what GL was saying. Anyone you have a romantic attachment to gives you the fear that you will lose them. Fear leads to the Dark Side.
And so assuming we are talking here about 'attachment' and NOT 'love', which GL specifically refutes as being the issue as Jedi are encouraged to love... well then:
Sorry, folks, this is just how it is in Star Wars. You don't have to like it but you DO have to lump it. It is also very much presented as being absolutely correct, based as it is on GL's philosophical beliefs. Disagree with his beliefs all you want- but in his universe, his way is king. He spelled it out plainly in the PT, he showed it plainly in the PT, and people's attempts to say 'Anakin just did it wrong' are just people trying to force malform what is on-screen into their own views rather than just accepting what he plainly shows. Attachment is forbidden, with good reason, and pretty much ALL romantic love come with attachment.
Do you honestly think you can have a romantic entanglement with someone where your attitude has to be "I won't mind if they die and I won't miss them?" To remind you, this is what Yoda tells Anakin it has to be like. What kind of romance would it be where you have no attachment? The answer- no romance at all.
You can discuss what you don't like about GL's take on love, attachment and Jedi- and there are always plenty of things about Star Wars that people can say they do not like- but everyone posting here must accept that within Star Wars canon, a Jedi becoming attached leads to the Dark Side (or at the very least leads to such an enormous possibility of doing so that it is to be avoided at all costs).
Neither that nor the canon policy in this forum is to be debated further.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Oct 7th, 2011 at 12:09 PM
This is correct. It's also very similar in the real world. Majority of people will do crazy things to protect someone they love, so I see why jedi forbid romance. However, sometimes it is hard to spend years around someone and not form some kind of attachment, and Obi Wan is a good example of that. Obi Wan admits his love for Anakin and even goes so far as to call Anakin his brother. It would be impossible for Obi Wan to feel that way about Anakin without being attached to him somehow. With any type of personal love comes attachment.
__________________ "The power of the dark side is an illness no true Sith would wish to be cured of" -Darth Plagueis
I love how my crotch sticks out more than my stomach. There was a time when that wasn't the case.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Yup. Pretty much every post-RotJ novel involves a Jedi that's in a romantic relationship. Leia counts.
And there goes a lot of the PT books. Obi-Wan with a girlfriend? "NO! Not canon!" There goes a couple The Clone Wars episodes too. Bastila Shan had offspring who played pivotal roles in The Great Galactic War and Cold War? Not anymore, 'cause those things never happened. Revan in love? As if. He doesn't exist.
Damn, Ush. Got a little Bolshevik blood in you?
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Any EU material directly contradicted by explicit statements from GL is deemed to be non-canon. That's how things are done around here, a policy we apply with consistency.
The canon policies of the EU are measures of first recourse for many of the posters I respect here. Gideon, before his ban, used the canon status of out-of-universe quotes to develop the foundation of his argument his favorite character ([SPOILER - highlight to read]: Marka Ragnos). Nai consistently synthesizes the different products into robust arguments, Advent carefully included every detail of KotOR in her final argument, and Lightsnake has a bevy of citations in nearly every post. The common thread with each of these posters is that their arguments are supported by evidence, and the easiest way to attack these arguments is to undermine the validity of that evidence. Advent argued for something like eight pages to defend the inclusion of details from KotOR as canon. Lightsnake, in a line by line argument, once disputed something like 4 screenshots in each of 3 comic releases. (I think it was following the Bane retcons.) This forum is founded on a coherent vision of canon, one that you authored in the rules section. I'll quote it once more:
(Emphasis mine.)
The policy is clear. The books are canon, as is anything that GL says regarding Star Wars.
We agree that the things that GL says are canon. A past version of you even agrees that the books are canon. It seems to me that since we are following the same rules, this will be a fairly straightforward dispute to settle. All that you have to do is substantiate your claim that GL has said specifically that "having an attachment means you fear to lose it and that leads to the Dark Side." You will also have to prove that this applies to every type of emotional relationship, as that was the topic of the discussion referenced in the OP.
Things that will fulfill this requirement:
Sourced and/or linked quote by GL indicating that every single emotional attachment leads to the dark side, or that every single romantic relationship involving a Jedi leads to the dark side
Video Clip of interview with GL claiming the same
Specific scene/timestamp in commentary claiming the same
Things that do not fulfill this requirement:
Any quote by GL that indicates less than absolute correlation between love and the dark side
Any quote by GL that specifies Anakin's Fall rather than the nature of the dark side in general
I believe that covers the bases. If you can prove that GL has publicly stated that every emotional attachment leads to the dark side without fail, then I will be happy to admit that you are correct. However, I do not believe that an interpretation of GL's words is enough to damn thousands of pages of published, licensed work to discontinuity.
Source and specific quote?
This looks like a Yoda derivative, who is neither omniscient nor the creator of the universe.
Where does GL specifically refute this being the issue? If you are referring to Anakin's line in AotC then I'm sure you will recognize the difference between a quote by the creator of the universe and a hormonal teenager with a life-long unhealthy fixation trying to get into Padme's pants.
Where does he make these philosophical beliefs clear?
I see two things here. The first is that you are pointing at the PT as evidence for your interpretation, which (as we've established already) is not canon. The second is that you are putting qualifiers on your assertion that "having an attachment means you fear to lose it and that leads to the Dark Side." If it is your contention that most attachments make you fear to lose it and lead to the dark side, then the absolute statement is broken and I would encourage you to look into the various EU offerings depicting very healthy relationships among the Jedi.
This is the position of the PT era Jedi Order. However, your claim is stronger than their claim. You have asserted that it is "simply a cosmological fact within the Star Wars setting" that "having an attachment means you fear to lose it and that leads to the Dark Side." "A cosmological fact," my friend, is something that requires a GL quote (that you have yet to supply) or a pristine body of evidence (that is not to be found, given the myriad relationships of the EU).
I will certainly accept that if and only if GL has ever stated that [i]every single conceivable relationship involving a Jedi will inexorably lead that Jedi to the dark side.
I agree. There can be no debate until you supply the much-vaunted statements by GL.
That's it, Zampano. You've crossed the line after being explicitly told not to question anything.
Ever.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
I thought that was a rhetorical flourish, like "it's undeniable that Sidious is the most powerful Sith, or, "it's undeniable that [x]", or, "Faunus is thin."
Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, UK
Co-Admin
Good Lord, anyone approaching this who thinks Yoda is NOT being used as an omniscient narrator to get GL's point across when talking directly about The Force and having been presented as the wisest of all has serious issues in understanding drama. Lacking an ACTUAL narrator, Yoda is being used as a narrative device to tell us, directly, how the system objectively works. The fact that some of you could think that Zampano's post was a good one speaks poorly. There is a completely maladjusted sense of what logic is around here. As soon as you try the argument "Yoda is not omniscient' when looking at this particular issue, you've immediately ruled yourself out of reasonable contribution to any possible debate.
My ruling is, absolutely and unequivocally, that the film has made GL's canonical intent clear and I class trying to argue it on the grounds of "that's only what the characters within the setting think" is an utter waste of time.
Thread closed, and I will close all further threads trying to argue in that fashion also.
And yes, a lot of the EU contradicts GL and hence has dubious canonical status. That is not my fault.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Oct 7th, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Oct 7th, 2011 11:50 AM
