Star Wars: Episode VIII: The Last Jedi

[epilogue]

lol @ “established and verified truths” in art interpretations

You’re missing part of a longer conversation about the guy Joey and I were discussing.

There is no interpretation. Lucas write that Anakin is redeemed. It’s the entire point of that ending.
The other ending would have been much better with Yoda and Kenobi helping Luke battle the emperor and Vader. He’s not redeemed in that one but it would have been a way more satisfying conclusion.

I mean, I totally agree he was absolutely redeemed and it was clearly the intention. But I think attacking people for being “contrarian” is wrongheaded, and people are welcome to their own interpretations even if I think thy suck.

I wasn’t attacking him. It’s a podcast guy who is wonderful to listen to and really insightful but who occasionally says dumb shit (ie-‘there are no stone giants in middle earth! It’s a ridiculous notion!’ atolkien wrote Stone giants into the hobbit and yet the guy contradicts him. In a podcast. About Tolkien.) that’s just one example. There are others.
You should listen to a few of the guys podcasts. I think you’d love him. Then probably want to kill him.

But you can understand how "This guy can suck a bag of dicks" could be construed as an attack right?

[dimejinky99]

lol @ “established and verified truths” in art interpretations

You’re missing part of a longer conversation about the guy Joey and I were discussing.

There is no interpretation. Lucas write that Anakin is redeemed. It’s the entire point of that ending.
The other ending would have been much better with Yoda and Kenobi helping Luke battle the emperor and Vader. He’s not redeemed in that one but it would have been a way more satisfying conclusion.

I mean, I totally agree he was absolutely redeemed and it was clearly the intention. But I think attacking people for being “contrarian” is wrongheaded, and people are welcome to their own interpretations even if I think thy suck.

I wasn’t attacking him. It’s a podcast guy who is wonderful to listen to and really insightful but who occasionally says dumb shit (ie-‘there are no stone giants in middle earth! It’s a ridiculous notion!’ atolkien wrote Stone giants into the hobbit and yet the guy contradicts him. In a podcast. About Tolkien.) that’s just one example. There are others.
You should listen to a few of the guys podcasts. I think you’d love him. Then probably want to kill him.

But you can understand how "This guy can suck a bag of dicks" could be construed as an attack right?

It’s funny when you get pulled up on RM vernacular if I used that bag of dicks comment in real life I’d be slaughtered for it.
Now we cant say it here?

[Leatherhead]

lol @ “established and verified truths” in art interpretations

You’re missing part of a longer conversation about the guy Joey and I were discussing.

There is no interpretation. Lucas write that Anakin is redeemed. It’s the entire point of that ending.
The other ending would have been much better with Yoda and Kenobi helping Luke battle the emperor and Vader. He’s not redeemed in that one but it would have been a way more satisfying conclusion.

I mean, I totally agree he was absolutely redeemed and it was clearly the intention. But I think attacking people for being “contrarian” is wrongheaded, and people are welcome to their own interpretations even if I think thy suck.

I wasn’t attacking him. It’s a podcast guy who is wonderful to listen to and really insightful but who occasionally says dumb shit (ie-‘there are no stone giants in middle earth! It’s a ridiculous notion!’ atolkien wrote Stone giants into the hobbit and yet the guy contradicts him. In a podcast. About Tolkien.) that’s just one example. There are others.
You should listen to a few of the guys podcasts. I think you’d love him. Then probably want to kill him.

But you can understand how "This guy can suck a bag of dicks" could be construed as an attack right?

It’s funny when you get pulled up on RM vernacular if I used that bag of dicks comment in real life I’d be slaughtered for it.
Now we cant say it here?

I think it needs to be used more.

[epilogue]

lol @ “established and verified truths” in art interpretations

You’re missing part of a longer conversation about the guy Joey and I were discussing.

There is no interpretation. Lucas write that Anakin is redeemed. It’s the entire point of that ending.
The other ending would have been much better with Yoda and Kenobi helping Luke battle the emperor and Vader. He’s not redeemed in that one but it would have been a way more satisfying conclusion.

I mean, I totally agree he was absolutely redeemed and it was clearly the intention. But I think attacking people for being “contrarian” is wrongheaded, and people are welcome to their own interpretations even if I think thy suck.

I wasn’t attacking him. It’s a podcast guy who is wonderful to listen to and really insightful but who occasionally says dumb shit (ie-‘there are no stone giants in middle earth! It’s a ridiculous notion!’ atolkien wrote Stone giants into the hobbit and yet the guy contradicts him. In a podcast. About Tolkien.) that’s just one example. There are others.
You should listen to a few of the guys podcasts. I think you’d love him. Then probably want to kill him.

But you can understand how "This guy can suck a bag of dicks" could be construed as an attack right?

It’s funny when you get pulled up on RM vernacular if I used that bag of dicks comment in real life I’d be slaughtered for it.
Now we cant say it here?

What? I don't understand this post.

I don't have a problem with the phrase. Use it all you want. I was just commenting that your post about Alastair from before reads like you are attacking him. That's all. You say you're not, so fine. But it sure seemed like it when I read it. That's all.

[stip]

lol @ “established and verified truths” in art interpretations

You’re missing part of a longer conversation about the guy Joey and I were discussing.

There is no interpretation. Lucas write that Anakin is redeemed. It’s the entire point of that ending.
The other ending would have been much better with Yoda and Kenobi helping Luke battle the emperor and Vader. He’s not redeemed in that one but it would have been a way more satisfying conclusion.

Alasdair Stephens generally argues against the intent of the author and prefers to allow people to draw interpretations drawn by a reasonable reading of the text.

[stip]

what was the crux of his argument about why Anakin wasn't redeemed? I don't know if I listened to that Q+A

[LoathedVermin72]

lol @ “established and verified truths” in art interpretations

You’re missing part of a longer conversation about the guy Joey and I were discussing.

There is no interpretation. Lucas write that Anakin is redeemed. It’s the entire point of that ending.
The other ending would have been much better with Yoda and Kenobi helping Luke battle the emperor and Vader. He’s not redeemed in that one but it would have been a way more satisfying conclusion.

Alasdair Stephens generally argues against the intent of the author and prefers to allow people to draw interpretations drawn by a reasonable reading of the text.

Totally agree with this

[bune]

Why would you argue against the intent of the author, though? Is this one of those "the curtains are yellow because the author was depressed" "fuck you Sally, I just like yellow" kind of things?

[dimejinky99]

what was the crux of his argument about why Anakin wasn't redeemed? I don't know if I listened to that Q+A

It’s on a live q&a on the story and Star Wars page. He’s answering a question so it’s rather rambly by comparison to his usual prepared material. He’s just answering in the fly and going down a rabbit hole. Here’s the link to it.

https://itunes.apple.com/ie/podcast/sto ... 0357768021

[LoathedVermin72]

Authors are notoriously poor judges of their own work. Intent is fine and all but that doesn’t mean they succeed, and it doesn’t invalidate the interpretations of others if they get something different from the final work of art. Many authors themselves will tell you this.

[dimejinky99]

Why would you argue against the intent of the author, though? Is this one of those "the curtains are yellow because the author was depressed" "fuck you Sally, I just like yellow" kind of things?

I’d agree generally but the intent of the author ends as soon as you read it and have your own interpretation. What I was talking about earlier was that he’s directly contradicting the author about facts/characters/rules within universe. Both in Tolkien and Star Wars. Applying interpretation where there’s no room for it.

[LoathedVermin72]

I would say Vader’s redemption falls under interpretations, not universe rules.

[dimejinky99]

I would say Vader’s redemption falls under interpretations, not universe rules.

Everything in. Star Wars is true from a certain point of view
It’s a hair splitter but the best argument is Anakin killed Vader by killing the emperor, a far greater evil than any evil he had himself done. So he’s resurrected as aankin and redeemed for his final act. And also for saving his son and rediscovering his compassion and love as a bonus.

The interesting thing coming your POV is the way Luke talks about him in TLJ.
As the evil. Clearly they haven’t communicated ever in the force.

[Anders]

He also ends the sith, and brings balance to the force.

[dimejinky99]

He also ends the sith, and brings balance to the force.

True.
Anakins redemption for me is one of those things that isn’t up for interpretation or debate. We could debate who decided he’s redeemed and allows him become a ghost what are the mechanics or criteria to allow that etc but the the film is called the Return of the Jedi. The title isn’t referring to luke and the Jedi order. It’s referring to Anakin. The end of the film is his redemption on screen. There’s not much room for debate.


Cue someone finding room

[Anders]

Return Of The Jedi is not only about Anakin. It's about Luke, Anakin and the Jedi (plural).

[dimejinky99]

Return Of The Jedi is not only about Anakin. It's about Luke, Anakin and the Jedi (plural).

It’s the cleverest of all the titles cos it means all those things. But mainly it refers to Anakin. A la return of the king in LOTR.

Luke doesn’t become a Jedi until he faces Vader and rejects Palpatine and the dark side.
‘According to the official Starwars.com biography of Luke Skywalker, the film "Return of the Jedi" ends with the return of Anakin Skywalker. It follows that the 'Jedi' mentioned in the title is Anakin rather than Luke or "The Jedi Order".

There’s a thing.

[Anders]

The caption of the picture in the official Luke Skywalker bio on Starwars.com, showing Luke with his friends the Battle of Endor:

Returning to his friends, Luke saw a trio of Force spirits -- Obi-Wan, Yoda and Anakin, redeemed by his sacrifice. Luke's love for his father had saved the galaxy, and brought about a chance to restore the Republic and the Jedi Order.

And:

«Luke: I am a Jedi, like my father before me.
Palpatine: [angrily] So be it... Jedi!»

[stip]

He also ends the sith, and brings balance to the force.

That was stuff added into the prequels after the fact though (which is to say we are reinterpreting events after the fact and not necessarily in line with the original purpose). And that's fine (we all do it) but it does leave some wiggle room.


While he ends the sith, it's never explained what balance in the force means in star wars (I hate this phrase) nor is it clear that this accomplished (how does destroying the sith bring balance?) Actually examining these ideas in a substantive way is one of the more interesting elements of the film.


Having said that, based on the in universe rules, the appearance of Anakin as a force ghost seems to speak to redemption if only light side Jedi can access this power. Did he (Alisdair) question redemption in that the idea of redemption in the literal sense (no longer being damned - which is not a concept star wars plays with) is not possible/necessary in the universe. Or did he mean redemption in a less theological sense?

[Anders]

He also ends the sith, and brings balance to the force.

That was stuff added into the prequels after the fact though (which is to say we are reinterpreting events after the fact and not necessarily in line with the original purpose). And that's fine (we all do it) but it does leave some wiggle room.


While he ends the sith, it's never explained what balance in the force means in star wars (I hate this phrase) nor is it clear that this accomplished (how does destroying the sith bring balance?) Actually examining these ideas in a substantive way is one of the more interesting elements of the film.


Having said that, based on the in universe rules, the appearance of Anakin as a force ghost seems to speak to redemption if only light side Jedi can access this power. Did he (Alisdair) question redemption in that the idea of redemption in the literal sense (no longer being damned - which is not a concept star wars plays with) is not possible/necessary in the universe. Or did he mean redemption in a less theological sense?

Luke brought it up to Rey in TLJ, that the force was in balance for a while (until Snoke interfered).