We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case.
Hahahahahaha.
I was hoping someone would appreciate that 😄 Had to be you.
It was funny but not “haha” funny.
In other words, not why I was laughing.
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.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
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.
If you look at all the rest of the information connected to that definition (and any other dictionary), it has to do with overstatement and amplification. Of course exaggeration can be used to express something being better or worse: “this is the best cake ever!” or “this is the worst cake ever!” That’s what the definition you quote is getting at.
The blue elephant in the room.
We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case.
Hahahahahaha.
I was hoping someone would appreciate that 😄 Had to be you.
It was funny but not “haha” funny.
In other words, not why I was laughing.
Oh hey look this is the new summary of the thread so far.
I win.
We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case.
Hahahahahaha.
I was hoping someone would appreciate that 😄 Had to be you.
It was funny but not “haha” funny.
In other words, not why I was laughing.
I didn’t think it was terribly funny, but it’s a sentence many might gloss over in reading. It’s no fun getting away with that kind of thing!
The blue elephant in the room.
I left this thread on page 14, and now I’m on the bottom of page 190.
Is it possible to have a short summary of the 176 last pages ?
Where were you in '77?
I left this thread on page 14, and now I’m on the bottom of page 190.
Is it possible to have a short summary of the 176 last pages ?
Actually there’s not much to say.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
Ultimately what you’re suggesting is a Luke that is near infallible and always makes the best decisions. I like when characters start the story in a different spot than where they end it. When Luke finally does apologize to Ben on Crait, it has so much more weight to it. We know the shame and anguish and doubt that Luke has had to overcome to finally get to this point.
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.
If you look at all the rest of the information connected to that definition (and any other dictionary), it has to do with overstatement and amplification. Of course exaggeration can be used to express something being better or worse: “this is the best cake ever!” or “this is the worst cake ever!” That’s what the definition you quote is getting at.
I guess I just don’t really care enough about this debate to look at other definitions or continue discussing it.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
Ultimately what you’re suggesting is a Luke that is near infallible and always makes the best decisions. I like when characters start the story in a different spot than where they end it. When Luke finally does apologize to Ben on Crait, it has so much more weight to it. We know the shame and anguish and doubt that Luke has had to overcome to finally get to this point.
Not at all, as my response above should indicate to you.
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.
If you look at all the rest of the information connected to that definition (and any other dictionary), it has to do with overstatement and amplification. Of course exaggeration can be used to express something being better or worse: “this is the best cake ever!” or “this is the worst cake ever!” That’s what the definition you quote is getting at.
I guess I just don’t really care enough about this debate to look at other definitions or continue discussing it.
I thought you had lot it drop a couple pages ago before raising it again. It’s only for your own edification if you ever do care to look it up.
The blue elephant in the room.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.
Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”
Ultimately what you’re suggesting is a Luke that is near infallible and always makes the best decisions. I like when characters start the story in a different spot than where they end it. When Luke finally does apologize to Ben on Crait, it has so much more weight to it. We know the shame and anguish and doubt that Luke has had to overcome to finally get to this point.
Not at all, as my response above should indicate to you.
Cool.
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.
If you look at all the rest of the information connected to that definition (and any other dictionary), it has to do with overstatement and amplification. Of course exaggeration can be used to express something being better or worse: “this is the best cake ever!” or “this is the worst cake ever!” That’s what the definition you quote is getting at.
I guess I just don’t really care enough about this debate to look at other definitions or continue discussing it.
I thought you had lot it drop a couple pages ago before raising it again. It’s only for your own edification if you ever do care to look it up.
I guess I should have, the whole reason I forgot to respond to that part was because it wasn’t important, it’s just my interpretation of the word. And I’m not Frink, I don’t even care about using hyperbole that much to begin with. The semantics of it isn’t the point of what I was criticizing there.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.
Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”
As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.
Ultimately what you’re suggesting is a Luke that is near infallible and always makes the best decisions. I like when characters start the story in a different spot than where they end it. When Luke finally does apologize to Ben on Crait, it has so much more weight to it. We know the shame and anguish and doubt that Luke has had to overcome to finally get to this point.
Not at all, as my response above should indicate to you.
Cool.
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.
If you look at all the rest of the information connected to that definition (and any other dictionary), it has to do with overstatement and amplification. Of course exaggeration can be used to express something being better or worse: “this is the best cake ever!” or “this is the worst cake ever!” That’s what the definition you quote is getting at.
I guess I just don’t really care enough about this debate to look at other definitions or continue discussing it.
I thought you had lot it drop a couple pages ago before raising it again. It’s only for your own edification if you ever do care to look it up.
I guess I should have, the whole reason I forgot to respond to that part was because it wasn’t important, it’s just my interpretation of the word. And I’m not Frink, I don’t even care about using hyperbole that much to begin with. The semantics of it isn’t the point of what I was criticizing there.
Hey, it’s not like I get a kickback from Webster’s. And there are no prizes to be won in internet arguments. My understatement all those years (?) ago wasn’t important to the argument anyway. And I agree overstatement/understatement doesn’t need to be taken so seriously.
The blue elephant in the room.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.
Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”
As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.
Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.
Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”
As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.
Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.
I can’t say that an overt act is required in every case. Although it makes sense that there will be an overt act that is the turning point for most people. That’s generally how things seem to work in the real world. Until a person has done a bad thing, there is still hope that they won’t do it, even if the temptation is very strong.
If there isn’t an overt act, I wonder what the turning point was that resulted in a person resolving to a life of darkness. I’m not saying Kylo wasn’t being corrupted (he clearly was). I’m only questioning the nature of his commitment.
When Ben left Luke for dead, killed the other padawans, and fled to Snoke, that could have sealed the deal (although the impetus would have been Luke’s moment of madness mistaken for murder, poignant perhaps).
We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.
The blue elephant in the room.
I posted that long block of text because it covers the scenes that relate to the current discussions. In TFA we hear from his parents that Kylo was already going down the dark path when he stared training with Luke. He wanted to be on that path. That is a frequent theme with him. He wants to be dark. I think it is safe to say that Luke saw that and knew it was too late.
There is a lot in both movies that reinforces that Kylo is on the path he wants to be. He idolizes Vader. I think this emphasis plus what Luke said is enough to make it a fact that it was too late before Luke ever entered Ben’s hut.
Luke’s hubris and ultimate failure is in thinking he could overcome something like that. His success had gone to his head. For some reason he waited until Ben was old enough to run into problems to start his training. And then Kylo was not only fallen, but he took some of Luke’s other students and killed the rest. How could Luke fail worse than that. All of his students gone in one night. Luke failed in so many ways that don’t seem all that significant until you add them together.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.
Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”
As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.
Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.
We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.
That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.
Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”
As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.
Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.
We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.
That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.
No, not just in that moment. In TLJ he believes that neither he it Rey can bring him back.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.
Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”
As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.
Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.
We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.
That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.
But you do think that if Luke hadn’t ignited his saber that night he would have tried to save Ben?
The blue elephant in the room.
I posted that long block of text because it covers the scenes that relate to the current discussions. In TFA we hear from his parents that Kylo was already going down the dark path when he stared training with Luke. He wanted to be on that path. That is a frequent theme with him. He wants to be dark. I think it is safe to say that Luke saw that and knew it was too late.
There is a lot in both movies that reinforces that Kylo is on the path he wants to be. He idolizes Vader. I think this emphasis plus what Luke said is enough to make it a fact that it was too late before Luke ever entered Ben’s hut.
Luke’s hubris and ultimate failure is in thinking he could overcome something like that. His success had gone to his head. For some reason he waited until Ben was old enough to run into problems to start his training. And then Kylo was not only fallen, but he took some of Luke’s other students and killed the rest. How could Luke fail worse than that. All of his students gone in one night. Luke failed in so many ways that don’t seem all that significant until you add them together.
There’s some discord between Ben being already lost and it being Luke’s fault. If Luke isn’t capable of saving Ben then any hubris is beside the point, unless Luke should have recognized that he should have given up and/or killed Kylo when he had the chance. I don’t think you’re saying that though.
I get Kylo’s temptation and all that. I’m less clear on Luke’s conviction that Ben was lost.
The blue elephant in the room.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.
Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”
As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.
Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.
We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.
That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.
No, not just in that moment. In TLJ he believes that neither he it Rey can bring him back.
Well first of all there’s no doubt Ben has shifted further to the dark in the years since Luke entered his hut. Second of all I think there’s a difference between “it’s impossible in general for him to come back” and “I don’t think it’s possible for us to bring him back.” Luke is in a state of despair, no doubt about it. I’ve already explained why Luke thinks he won’t be of any use in saving Ben’s soul. As for Rey, I think Luke’s thinking is more like the danger is not worth the risk.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.
Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”
As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.
Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.
We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.
That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.
But you do think that if Luke hadn’t ignited his saber that night he would have tried to save Ben?
I don’t see why not, I believe I suggested as much.
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.
And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.
As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.
As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.
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.
You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”
Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.
Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.
This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.
I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.
Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”
As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.
Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.
We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.
That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.
But you do think that if Luke hadn’t ignited his saber that night he would have tried to save Ben?
I don’t see why not, in fact I think I suggested this very thing.
Just wanted to confirm. Nice to find agreement.
The blue elephant in the room.
Still talking about Luke, I’ll try to clear things up a little bit. I don’t really have a problem with Luke not living up to be the legend he was made out to be. I just don’t understand, for example, how did the legend originate. Like I said in a previous post, his victories were mostly personal and (should be) unknown to the rest of the galaxy, except for destroying the first Death Star. But I can see how a myth or some mystery feeling would grow around him, given that most people probably thought that the mysterious nature of his activities and his sad devotion to an ancient religion were suspicious and weird. And mysterious and wizardry. Anyway.
What I really have a problem with is how he died and ultimately failed his goal, failed his whole purpose in the original trilogy, which was to rebuild the Jedi Order. That makes him a failure imo. Not only that but the movie also makes him betray his character arc in the scene with Kylo with unconvincing explanation as to why, and also present him as some sort of fool for making the exact same mistake that his mentors did years before, mistakes that he was aware were made. And what pisses me off is that all of this happened just so that Rey could have the exact same journey as Luke, specially now that we have the exact same scenario we had in the original movies.
And I still hold the opinion that Luke’s Jedi order would be completely different from the one seen in the prequel trilogy, because he was trained by a hippie Obi-Wan and an exiled much wiser Yoda - both of them being masters that learned from their mistakes and trained Luke differently. Luke was a Qui-Gon like Jedi, imo. Not a Obi-Wan or a Yoda.
Still talking about Luke, I’ll try to clear things up a little bit. I don’t really have a problem with Luke not living up to be the legend he was made out to be. I just don’t understand, for example, how did the legend originate. Like I said in a previous post, his victories were mostly personal and (should be) unknown to the rest of the galaxy, except for destroying the first Death Star. But I can see how a myth or some mystery feeling would grow around him, given that most people probably thought that the mysterious nature of his activities and his sad devotion to an ancient religion were suspicious and weird. And mysterious and wizardry. Anyway.
I don’t get why the tales of his bravery wouldn’t spread and balloon. And he had more victories than we saw in the films.
What I really have a problem with is how he died and ultimately failed his goal, failed his whole purpose in the original trilogy, which was to rebuild the Jedi Order. That makes him a failure imo. Not only that but the movie also makes him betray his character arc in the scene with Kylo with unconvincing explanation as to why, and also present him as some sort of fool for making the exact same mistake that his mentors did years before, mistakes that he was aware were made. And what pisses me off is that all of this happened just so that Rey could have the exact same journey as Luke, specially now that we have the exact same scenario we had in the original movies.
Luke didn’t fail, though. His goal was to become a Jedi (check) and to pass on what he learned (check). He will not be the last Jedi, and Rey won’t be a Jedi like him.
And I still hold the opinion that Luke’s Jedi order would be completely different from the one seen in the prequel trilogy, because he was trained by a hippie Obi-Wan and an exiled much wiser Yoda - both of them being masters that learned from their mistakes and trained Luke differently. Luke was a Qui-Gon like Jedi, imo. Not a Obi-Wan or a Yoda.
I’m sure Luke’s Jedi order was quite different because the circumstances were of course quite different. Which is probably what lead him to believe even more strongly that the mere concept of the Jedi needed to end.
Still talking about Luke, I’ll try to clear things up a little bit. I don’t really have a problem with Luke not living up to be the legend he was made out to be. I just don’t understand, for example, how did the legend originate. Like I said in a previous post, his victories were mostly personal and (should be) unknown to the rest of the galaxy, except for destroying the first Death Star. But I can see how a myth or some mystery feeling would grow around him, given that most people probably thought that the mysterious nature of his activities and his sad devotion to an ancient religion were suspicious and weird. And mysterious and wizardry. Anyway.
What I really have a problem with is how he died and ultimately failed his goal, failed his whole purpose in the original trilogy, which was to rebuild the Jedi Order. That makes him a failure imo. Not only that but the movie also makes him betray his character arc in the scene with Kylo with unconvincing explanation as to why, and also present him as some sort of fool for making the exact same mistake that his mentors did years before, mistakes that he was aware were made. And what pisses me off is that all of this happened just so that Rey could have the exact same journey as Luke, specially now that we have the exact same scenario we had in the original movies.
And I still hold the opinion that Luke’s Jedi order would be completely different from the one seen in the prequel trilogy, because he was trained by a hippie Obi-Wan and an exiled much wiser Yoda - both of them being masters that learned from their mistakes and trained Luke differently. Luke was a Qui-Gon like Jedi, imo. Not a Obi-Wan or a Yoda.
You know I share your view of Luke. This is probably a minority view in Star Wars fandom.
I have mixed feelings on Luke’s death. I would have wanted him to live if only to see a revived Luke in E9. I think disappointment is made more acute by not getting to see him portrayed in a more heroic way leading up to his death. Sure, this has to do with a general expectation but there’s nothing wrong with that. Without expectations this movie wouldn’t have been made, or would have been made in a dramatically different way.
The blue elephant in the room.
…