I guess it depends on your definition of fallen? I personally think the “Anakin died and became Vader” strict dichotomy is pretty silly.
It also depends whether we’re talking about before Luke entered the hut or after Luke searched Ben’s feelings.
So how do you define “fallen”? I don’t think having bad thoughts counts as fallen. But maybe that’s just me 😉
Luke doesn’t know Ben’s thoughts, he knows his feelings and his future, which I think are more telling.
Whether feelings or thoughts (the distinction isn’t terribly important as far as I’m concerned), perceiving the future is another matter. As Yoda said, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”
And if Luke perceives that Ben might in the future fall, that is still different from perceiving that he is fallen.
But that’s not what Luke perceives. What he sees is a future where Ben does terrible things which leads his to a momentary lapse of judgement.
There’s no question of “Ben might fall” Luke makes it explicit that Ben had either already fallen or was deep in the process.
What Luke sensed in Ben’s feelings:
“I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I’d seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart.”
What Luke saw in Ben’s future:
“He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.”
Saying Luke merely sensed Ben’s “bad thoughts” is dramatically underselling the situation.
When you say “that’s not what Luke perceives,” that’s not true unless you’re saying the future is certain. And we know it isn’t.
I’m saying Luke doesn’t see a future where Ben might fall because he’s already at that point. What he sees in the future is something far more horrifying than just the simple “Ben might fall.”
Your argument is that the vision Luke beheld was horrifying. My rhetoric was more tame (antihyperbole!) but I didn’t deny that it was a terrible thing to behold.
No, saying what Luke felt was simply bad thoughts is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement doesn’t have to be making something out to be bigger than it is, it can go the inverse too.
What a lot of us have trouble accepting is that Luke accepted what he saw, especially after the fact. “Snoke had already turned his heart,” means what? In large part, our appreciation for Luke is perhaps supposed to make it really meaningful. But there’s so much work being done in that line that many don’t buy.
“Snoke had already turned his heart” means exactly what it sounds like. That’s not a vision of the future in motion, that’s Luke’s perception of Ben’s current situation in that moment. I don’t know how you can disregard that. As for accepting the vision of the future? Did he really accept it as gospel or was it just something that briefly sparked a horribly misguided idea in his mind? The film would suggest the latter.
If Snoke turned Ben’s heart, that calls out for answers to why and how. I recall discussions in this forum (before TLJ) on how lacking in credibility it was that Luke could realistically have been convinced to turn to the dark side in the OT. That seems an entirely reasonable argument and I’m fairly convinced by it. There just wasn’t enough established in the movie to explain why Luke would turn.
I’ve made a similar argument, but it’s not that I don’t believe it’s possible that Luke could turn (I think they set it up quite well in ESB), I just think they dropped the ball when it came to exploring the temptation Luke should be facing throughout ROTJ.
In TLJ, we’re not given anything except Luke’s assurance that Ben was lost. We don’t know what Snoke could have possibly done to take Ben beyond the point of no return. I’m not ignoring Luke’s statement, I’m saying it doesn’t really explain anything.
Why should we have anymore than that? We don’t need to know anything more about that for the purposes of this story.
It does matter for the the credibility of this story and the characterizations. It’s strange to me that you would advocate for a movie showing as little as possible. Efficient storytelling has its virtues but if one is to accept that Snoke had an iron grip on Ben (and that Luke, of all people believed it) it calls out for more. If you can see how ROTJ dropped the ball, I don’t know how that isn’t apparent here.
I can accept that Luke saw something so horrible that raw defensive instincts kicked in. Others here have a harder time with that, but it makes sense to me. Note that is different than Luke concluding that Ben was already fallen.
So you refuse to accept a fact that the film presents then?
When it comes to a story, saying that one “refuses to accept a fact” is a strange statement. Stories are not facts that must be believed. A good story makes itself credible. If there are holes or poorly established elements, that’s the story’s problem. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s enjoyment of the film, but there are gaps that don’t work for many of us.
This is not the story of how Ben was tempted to the dark side. He’s already Kylo Ren at the start of the film. I don’t know why you don’t see the distinction there. Yeah, we’re asked to take Snoke turning Ben to the dark side as a given. Why is that so hard to accept? I really don’t get why you won’t.
What I am addressing is Luke’s actions and thought processes. You’ve not seen me contest Ben’s turn to the dark side. That Ben was being tempted is established and accepted. Glad we cleared that up. An issue we have been discussing is whether Luke could have done something to save Ben. Specifically we are dealing with a scene that was shown from the past that is supposed to inform our understanding of both Luke and Ben. I have no trouble believing that after leaving Luke for dead Ben finally ran into the arms of Snoke. What is in dispute is that Luke concluded from Ben’s feelings alone that Ben was beyond his ability/desire to help him. And that is thin gruel in my view.
Luke had an instinctual reaction to seeing Ben had turned to the dark side. If Luke had managed to sneak back out of Ben’s room without Ben realizing that he had ignited his saber, I have no doubt Luke would have tried to work things up differently.
What doesn’t make sense is that Luke would give up afterward. And this goes again to the idea that Ben is lost and yet having no idea why that is. It begs for an explanation of exactly what Snoke did and of what Ben did to become beyond hope.
No and no. Luke didn’t quite give up, from his perspective going to the island to die and let the Jedi Order die with him was his solution to the problem (however misguided, of course). And I don’t quite think that Luke thinks Ben is “beyond hope,” he just doesn’t think he can help him.
And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.
The question is why Luke thinks he can’t help Ben.
Because of the way he failed him. I don’t think Ben is quite open to the kind of strategy Luke took with his father.
Back to the real question, again. We can only guess at what influence Luke might have had with Ben. In what way did Luke fail Ben? Simply that he didn’t see Snoke’s influence? Not saying that isn’t bad, but it’s more negligence than anything.
Um, he almost killed him? I don’t think Ben would be so willing to talk after that.
And since I forget to respond to this…
And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.
It’s still an exaggeration, so in my opinion it fits the definition.
I’m sorry but you are wrong. Understatement and exaggeration are opposites. An exaggeration is by definition an overstatement. We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case. For example, if you say, “Darth Vader was not a nice guy,” that’s not an exaggeration.
Since I guess today we’re quoting definitions in this thread for some reason:
Hyperbole
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
Exaggeration
a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.
I don’t deny that hyperbole is typically used for overstatements, but I think the definition can apply to understatements as well.