You know what I hate? When readers claim there’s an ambivalent ending of a book because the author doesn’t force feed it to you.
Except sometimes the author 100% does force feed it to them and they still can’t grasp it.
I’m referring mostly to the death of characters. For example there are heated debates about whether or not Winston dies soon after the end of the 1984. As if it is not painfully obvious that’s what happens. Earlier in the book we hear about a group of men who were executed by Big Brother. It’s said they were arrested and pled guilty to a bunch of horrible crimes and were released (exactly what happened when Winston was captured). They were seen in the chestnut cafe (y’know the same one Winston frequents after being released) where a song comes on (the same one that comes on at the end of the book) and all three men are seen looking at Big Brother’s picture and crying (like Winston does when he discovers he loves Big Brother).
But even if you forget that detail there’s still the knowledge that Winston was told “we’re not going to kill you until you love Big Brother” and the last line of the book was that Winston loved Big Brother.
There’s a similar issue with possibly my favorite book of all time: Ghachar Ghochar
The last line of the book is literally someone (who has been built up as this all knowing guy) walking up to the narrator and saying something along the lines of “sir you should wash your hands, you have blood on them.” The character is referring to the actual blood from the broken glass but come on people. That mixed with the huge conversation his family had about how to kill someone the proper way. And yet when we read it in class even my professor was asking what people thought happened to the wife. Saying it was up to interpretation and there were many possible answers.
No! Just because we don’t see the light leave their eyes in scene does not mean they could be alive!!! Writers should be able to trust their readers. And readers shouldn’t be constantly worried that writers are trying to fake them out.
And you know what? I blame popular movies these days. Not to be a crank academic but like. If you see a building blow up with someone inside they should just be dead okay? I shouldn’t have to think “yeah but the writers are just trying to scare us they didn’t actually kill that character off.” But I have to think these things because now we have Loki back from the dead for the fifth or sixth time and Boba Fett got swallowed by a monster in the eighties and yet here he is with his own show.
Writers should be able to kill people off screen and not have people going “well we don’t know”
But they can’t do that because shitty companies like Disney feel the need to squeeze money out of every character while still trying to have actual stakes. So they only sort of die. They got away from the explosion just in time, or they’re just in a coma (stranger things), or they crawled out of the monster’s stomach after everyone left or it’s their clone with that person’s consciousness (Star Wars) or it’s another timeline’s version of them or he was legally dead for three days but was brought back or the heart monitor was tampered with to fake his death (marvel). This is actually terrible, terrible writing okay? Occasionally a death fake out can work but nine times out of ten it’s just stupid. Because now we have people saying “we don’t know for sure he’s dead because we never see the body and even then who knows”
Anita in Ghachar Ghochar is dead. So is Winston Smith in 1984. Both writers actively killed these characters. They did not leave it “up to interpretation” just because they didn’t show the blood spill from their head.
This is probably elaborated on a lot more in detailed meta, but for all of the shit that Lucas has pulled and all of his questionable decisions, Palpatine is probably his greatest triumph as a villain within narrative. Yes, he is absolutely a cartoon with no redeeming qualities, and Anakin definitely has a more dynamic character arc, but it's still incredible.
Star Wars as a franchise is associated with war and wartime: laser sword battles, epic forbidden romance, last stand trench runs against powerful enemies. It's all action, stylized violence and "rule of cool." There is good character writing and plot of course, but the public perception of Star Wars as a whole is about the cool space wizards and laser guns.
So it's absolutely curious that Lucas, in a trilogy that he said was geared towards children, had his villain do none of the things that made Star Wars so famous. Palpatine never fought ever. Except in Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine's horrible crimes all stemmed from his politics, and his cunning. Part of the Jedi's blindness to Sidious was that he was playing them on a field that they didn't expect: politics.
The Jedi are not politicians, nor have any interest in politics; the movies make this painfully clear. (The fact that the Council just goes and attempts to execute Palpatine, a popular leader who was "democratically" elected-I will give the Jedi credit; Palpatine is a monster, and killing him then and there was probably necessary- shows that there aren't the most politically minded) Palpatine literally does more damage to the entire galaxy that has repercussions for a generation- seriously, people like Biggs probably lived and died within the Empire- than Anakin could ever do during Operation: Knightfall or even as his tenure as Vader. And the Jedi can't do anything to stop it because they refused to play the game. In fact, one could make the argument that refusing to play only meant that Palpatine could carry out his agenda even faster.
It's almost like the bad guy won because any damage wreaked by an army of space wizards can be done a thousandfold by one politician. And it's like the lesson is that if you turn a blind eye to the injustices in your government, the corruption festers until it turns into something unspeakably horrid, and by then it'll be too late.
As much as I dislike the route they went in tros I do think I wouldn’t have disliked it as much if.
1. They kept Rey as a nobody. Having Palpatine lie and having her not taking the Skywalker name
2. Had Rose be in the group instead of Chewie or the worm thingy at the beginning of the movie (let the new cast have more screen time)
3. Have Ben be with Rey during the final fight instead of being blasted into a hole, and if he had to die (which I won’t get into) have the epilogue be Rey searching for a way to resurrect him instead of burying lightsabers…Finish what Anakin started with triumphing over death.
Completely agree with all of this!
Rey should have been a nobody, and they shouldn’t have even entertained the idea of her being a Palpatine. I would have loved for her at the end of her journey to come to the conclusion that just Rey is enough. I think that would have been so powerful.
Yes yes yes!! Rose should not have stayed back at the base for the entire movie doing... I don’t even know what she doing? Klaud was such a pointless character??? Like... why would they take him on a mission instead of Rose? She should have 100% been involved with the main crew. And yes to letting the new ST characters have more screen time!
Rey and Ben defeating the villain together is what should have happened. It doesn’t make sense for Rey to be able to do it on her own. They told us their dyad is a power like life itself. They are two that are one. They need to be together for great things to happen.
Ben should not have died. That is the main thing that breaks the story. (Also Kylo Ren symbolically died and Ben was reborn... but that’s another story.) Unless, as you said, they were planning to bring him back. Have the ending be Rey hearing Ben call out to her from the WBW or something along those lines. They could have made it feel like an ending of this chapter, but left the door open for the next chapter. Leaving us feeling hopeful.
Finish what Anakin started with triumphing over death.
E. K. Johnston's dedication to writing books that could be so good but just miss everything that would make them good would be admirable if. it was anything to admire
Who is your most disliked star wars character and why 👀
Oddly enough I don't tend to dislike characters. The most I get is indifference, just a complete non-opinion.
Actually wait no
Rush Clovis
I suppressed my memories of those episodes so hard I forgot he existed. Though it's more the writing choices rather than the character himself I dislike. I'll admit, I only ever watched the Clovis episodes once and that was several years ago so I don't remember them very well at all.
I think mostly I just dislike that the writers used him to get Padme and Anakin both to behave in ways that are entirely out of character for their movie counterparts, and it pisses me off to no end. Like, I'm fine with characters acting ooc, but only when the writers give me a convincing reason to why they're behaving that way. I actually find that really interesting! For me it's less a question of if someone is acting out of character and instead what would it take for them to behave this way realistically? And those episodes episodes failed spectacularly at that.
Honestly, it's probably the wasted potential more than anything else that annoys me.
'what's wrong with him' 'they made the citadel arc have actual relevance to the plot of animated sw besides the underrated ani + ahsoka character moments and having ani and tarkin interact' 'oh that's good why is he pacing his enclosure and snarling' 'they didn't actually give it any closure they just made a side character relevant again and while he is admittedly a good addition as a character to the bad batch they still never gave any closure on the citadel arc despite it ending on what is essentially a cliff hanger' 'ohhh.'
Ok i love Star Wars but i feel like a problem it has is we just can’t comprehend the mass of a galactic civilization.
The empire is kind of an analogy for attempted world domination I guess, but the republic and the confederacy/separatists kind of seem like two conuntries, even tho it’s meant to be like two political parties that multiple planets/countries are part of (maybe like the allies and the axis in wwii?) I also don’t know really anything about Star Wars pre phantom menace in the timeline sooooo idk how the galaxy was organized before.
And then there’s the fact that Star Wars treats entire planets like they are just countries. That’s what I mean when I say we cannot comprehend the existing in such a large society. People go to a planet and hang out in like one city in Star Wars and call it a day.
we never really explore different climates on different parts of a planet. We rarely see different cultures on one planet. (You’re telling me the entire planet of Naboo is only inhabited by the Gungans and the Naboo??? Yeah right) we don’t explore much differentiation in dialects or anything like that either.
And since aliens are a thing, i think we should have planets where so many different species and races coexist. Bringing back Naboo, how cool is it that humans and Gungans naturally exist on the same planet? (I think they do anyways, please don’t kill me if actually one of those people migrated to the planet at some point.) There should be more planets with tons of specie diversity!
idk maybe people don’t care as much as i do, and I should give Star Wars creators some slack since galaxy building is a lot more challenging than just world building, but I feel like we don’t get to see the rich depth of a whole galaxy.
Your position on redemption stories is well documented. But how do you feel about stories where a character is offered redemption and rejects it?
I can't think of one that's like.. notable? It's so commonplace in thriller, adventure, and high fantasy that it's basically a ticky box. I would hazard a guess more superhero movies (and comics) have such a moment than don't. It's paint by numbers and it's the most boring option. It's also usually the reactionary option.
To introduce a redemption arc and then subvert it by having the character explicitly, wilfully shoot it down while going on to be evil forever is most often done in a way that is intentionally shitting on the entire concept of redemption being possible. There are certainly exceptions, but those are mostly found in formal tragedy and are basically never about commitment to evil. Genuine rejection of goodness per se will always result in a flat character.
'Haha, you fool, I just love being evil!' is never an interesting answer to the question posed by a redemption narrative.
just saw a youtube short that was like "you thought he was the villain but he's really the victim 😢" about darth vader and im once again just like. no he was definitely the fucking villain lmao
i asked for star wars heir to the empire for my bday, and the first chapter having grand admiral thrawn destroy a fleet by identifying the species through the artistic design of its planet was brilliantly slimy and a really interesting first impression
the popular perception of Commander Fox's and Palpatine's relationship is just one that lacks all interest to me. There's no way Fox would be doing Palpatine's paperwork, Palpatine's worked like 60 years to get this plan into motion, he's not going to shove off unimportant duties on some random guard, no matter how high up he is. I also don't think he'd be abusive to the guard, in any way. Palpatine is not uniquely prejudiced against clones. He's literally just only for himself.
I think the real interesting relationship (to me, anyway, everyone's got preferences) is one where Fox is idk, maybe suspicious for how much he doesn't do. Sure, him and the Supreme Chancellor have a cordial working relationship, and duties on Coruscant are a lot easier than fighting out on the front, but aren't things almost too easy at times? Why does the Chancellor decline protection so often? Is there someone holding something over him? Is someone blackmailing the Supreme Chancellor of the Republic? What's going on?