Rey Solo

I talked about the new Phasma novel days ago, now I'm going to talk about the new Leia novel. Why? Because they've been said to thematically be tied to The Last Jedi.

Spoiler: Leia Princess of Alderaan (2017)

They just introduced Leia at age 16 having a boyfriend (Kier) who dies when he tries to save her in the canon. She kept a lock of his hair as a memento that she keeps in her keepsake box that was in Bloodline (2016). They've just inserted this dead boyfriend tragedy into the canon for the early life of Leia out of nowhere. What's my point? Same exact thing can happen with a 'dead' daughter. Tragedy just follows Leia everywhere.

It can happen again with 'Rey' being a part of the backstory of Leia and Kylo Ren and Han and maybe Luke.

Kiri Hart, head of the Lucasfilm Story Group: “Leia says to Obi-Wan [in Star Wars (1977)], ‘Years ago, you served my father in the clone wars’. I had no idea that was going to turn into a whole thing. You’re watching that and just thinking, ‘That sounds cool.’ It makes the history of the place feel real.” “There can be gaps in the timeline or biography of a character, and we track all these things, obviously. [But] it’s something the group cares about a lot. You don’t want to know everything. And when you do fill something in, it needs to feel worthy, surprising and exciting.” “Not every Star Wars story should be told, and not every gap should be filled. Star Wars is full of ellipses.” (December 12, 2016)


Leia teaser poster - The Last Jedi (See also: The Force Awakens)



The author turned that seemingly innocuous tiny hair keepsake in Bloodline into this whole tragic adolescent backstory in her next SW novel about Leia.

 

Whether true or false, I think that's a lot of fans' rationale.

Cool to have someone not be afraid to voice it, who is apparently looked on as a bit of a guru to many, though.

 

Maybe. I'm sure the guy knows his stuff. It's just, as much as I agree that Rey and Kylo do share some similarities to Jacen and Jaina, I don't think that alone is enough, yet it seems to be the bulk (if not the entirety) of Fauskanger's argument.

A lot of fans have read the Legends stories about Jacen and Jaina, and many have made that connection. Many want that connection. Even I think it could be cool, if written well. I'm just not sold that this is enough, though.

 

That's the thing. They are like the twins and also Revan and Bastila (clothing especially) from The Knights of the Old Republic.

 

If Rey is a Solo:

1. Did Leia know or suspect this to be the case in TFA and if so, why did she show no concern for her, talk about her with Han or indeed tell her who she was?
2. Did Han suspect this and if so why did he try dump her once and plan to leave her with Maz?
3. When Han and Leia talk about why their son fell, why didn't they mention this important and tragic incident?
4. If Leia never felt the death of her daughter, why would she just assume her dead and not be looking for her (in TFA novel she explains that she cannot sense where Luke is BUT KNOWS that she would know if he were dead).
5. Why didn't anyone comment on the fact that Rey would look like her mother, is strong with the Force and is the age that this solo child would be and at the very least, muse that she might be the lost daughter no one sensed die?!

 

Part of the thing with TFA is that it's a whirlwind of a day. The characters are constantly facing some sort of catastrophe, and the one moment of breathing room they have (Maz's castle, before the attack) does allude to some sort of backstory to Rey, before it's interrupted by the arrival of the First Order.

I'm not saying Rey is for sure a Solo, Skywalker, or anything- but I find it reasonable enough that Han didn't ask her about her parentage in the heat of battle. Even on SKB, I think everyone thought they'd go home safe, like they always have.

 

Although I think she's Luke's, I will observe Leia's greatest strength and weakness is her ability to ignore any personal tragedies if she's fighting for what she sees as the greater good. And she's always fighting for the greater good.

I say greatest weakness because she ignores them even when they're actively sabotaging her.

 

Doesn't really answer my points though...

 

TFA is realy fast paced film, all things put together, action goes wild, it was also first SW film after many years, and nme with the feeling of old Star Wars, we were all wooooaH!!!,...but underneath there is story from the past definitely , one that is not told.
That much mystery over Rey...to much mystery for random girl abandoned by incognito parents. To much. She must be someone's child.

 

You contradict yourself in the very next sentence.

Yup, exactly.
Judging from the interviews Lucas gave and how he ran his company (essentially turned Star Wars into a neverending well of fortune from merchandise) he's an intelligent man. But sadly Lucas is not a good writer, or at least he wasn't when he made the PT and inserted these extraneous and contradictory elements (like this propehcy) to the story.
Killing Sidious won't end the sith at all. There were sith before him and there will be after him. The fact that momentarily there is none won't bring suddenly balance.
It would contradict with the lore established by the first 6 movies...

Yup. Has been and will be. Sidious's death didn't change this. It's a neverending cycle. And I believe this is what the ST might going to address.

Yeah... No.
I agree with you that it was the original message Lucas presented with the OT, but the PT changed everything.
By over-politicizeing the lore, Lucas has brought something to the story that he imo shouldn't have... A financial context.
My job requires me to be in picture with many aspects of finance, so I consider myself a hobby-economist.
The PT presented us an interessting society. In TPM we learned that the monetary system of the Republic is in fact quite similar to ours, (they haven't abandoned money like in Star Trek for instance). They have currecies and banks (see: banking clans in AotC), maybe even a central bank. A seemingly capitalist soceity.
What does that mean? It means that in order to establish its financial stability, it was essential for the Empire to gain control over the banks. That comes to the conclusion that the financial world of the Republic was heavily invested in the Empire (especially in it's top and presumably incredibly costly Death Star projects).
The destruction of the first DS probably hit the ecnomy very hard, but the system didn't collapse. Quite contary to that, they started another DS project, only this time they didn't have 18-20 years and the station itself was much bigger (hence much more expensive). So, the destrction of the 2nd DS and the temporary take over of the Rebel Alliance (a terrorist group not supported by anyone really), probably caused the biggest economic crisis the Galaxy has ever experienced. That means that the RA probably wasn't even able to maintain control over the centrum, yet alone the entire Galaxy...

Civil wars, independence movements and overall chaos. That is what came after the Empire, not "balance". For comparsion see Iraq after Saddam.

 

The last as in "the last at this current time" - much like "the last Jedi".

Considering the mess LucasFilm have made of this films since his departure, I think such an assessment of Lucas' abilities are ill-judged. The prophecy was in no way contradictory. It predicted a moment in time where someone of great power would be born and destroy those that caused a great imbalance:

Anakin was born. He was powerful. He destroyed the beings that were oppressing the galaxy. Balance was restored.

It wasn't the destruction of people called Sith per se that brought balance - but rather the destruction of those beings who were oppressing the galaxy. The nature of the Sith is that they will always strive to create imbalance and their power gives them a good chance of succeeding. This is what occurred in Sidious' case. He managed to take over the galaxy and thus spread evil everywhere. In doing this he was the driving Force behind the imbalance and upon his and Vader's destruction, this oppression quickly ended. One could also make an argument that his demise sent a disturbance through the Force that effectively diminished the power of the Dark Side itself returning it to a state of balance with the light rather than power over it.

But the greater point is that this is all allegorical. It's a metaphor for the message Lucas was telling his audience: that love conquered the darkness and peace returned.

Sidious' death did change this. When he died, balance was restored. Luke (and Anakin) had done their Jedi duty and destroyed those that spread evil everywhere and caused imbalance. Does that mean the Force cannot go out of balance again? No. Does it mean another force user couldn't teach themselves the ways of the Sith? No. But that can happen. It does happen. The point is that when ROTJ ended that the likelihood was that there would be a great period of peace. However, so they could make the ST this peace abruptly ended and we will learn in TLJ what mistakes the heroes made to allow this to happen.

2 points:

1) I thought it was canon that period of relative peace occurred in the galaxy?
2) Bringing balance isn't about bringing absolute peace. It's about creating a level playing field for light and dark. There would still be evil. There would also be good. But neither would have power over the other. Evil wouldn't be everywhere. So yes, there would likely be disharmony to some extent but not to the point where the Force would be out of balance.

You're making an argument for the dictator in the above statement. The risks post Sidious or indeed Saddam were there but not inevitable. Leaving such people in power would inevitably mean oppression and destruction. Using this metaphor, Luke and Anakin removed the dictator but the heroes thereafter didn't do the job properly and ensure that the darkness couldn't fight back and take over again.

It was right to remove Saddam in of itself. But the post-war planning was dire and inexcusable. This lead to perhaps an even greater evil - ISIS. Likewise, in the GFFA, the Jedi/Rebels destroyed the Empire but didn't do enough to stop a greater evil returning - Snoke and the First Order. As a result the Force has gone out of balance again. This doesn't render the prophecy a contradiction but rather, inevitably, diminishes it's importance somewhat. But that was the price that had to be paid for the ST to be made.

 

from Bloodline we can gather than it's been an unsteady ride since the fall of the Empire, with different factions bucking for power and the New Republic fraught with dissention. but--having every bit as much success as failure, so YES, you could consider it a balance, and one without any Force-user pressing advantage (except maybe Leia at the card tables ~ hahaha).

is it "perfect" for everyone? no ~ that's a fallacy of people's assumptions about balance. even nature in balance is as destructive as it is generative.

 

Indeed. That's kind of what I suspected. Before the ST you walk away from RotJ assuming that there will be a period of peace (simplistic). But with the ST we have to consider what would likely have happened after the end of the Empire. No serious person would think it would be paradise in the GFFA. But yes, the point is that when there isn't a powerful dark side faction ruling over the galaxy (or on the cusp of taking over) then there would be balance. Good and bad things would occur. The danger now of course is that the FO will take over and do a better job at bringing an eternal darkness than the Empire/Sith did...

 

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Destroying the sith and bringing balance to the Force obviously means permanent destruction. Why would a 1000 years old prophecy prophesize about a temporary victory over a random sith?

It contradicts with the cyclical and neverending fight between light and dark. It also makes no to sense considering that for a thousand years before TPM there were no sith apparently, yet the jedi still had to bring balance somehow. How were they suppsed to do that?

One could make that argument, but it wouldn't be true. All you need is a jedi who turns and becomes powerful.

A metaphore that was true between 1983-1999. The new lore 100% contradicts with that. Lucas's real goal was to insert this contradictory plot tool into the story in order to make the prequels important. Except it didn't. You can't just unwrite a story by artificially altering it in a different story.

It's like I talk to a wall... No argument, just parrotting the same things over and over again, like some badly programed robot.

Which renders the prophecy 100% pointless. Agan, it's up to the ST to fuilfill it (if it's even possible), because in the current lore it isn't.

See and read my post about the financial state of the Republic and this time try to understand it. Or present counterargument. Just stop parrotting the crap pls.

Since the ST completely renders the prophecy pointless, I only took the first six movies into consideration. Going by the OT only, it did, going by the PT+OT it didn't. Again, see the above.

That makes little sense to me. So if there is war, death, povery, and chaos but not caused by the sith (although it's still linked to their activities) you consider it balance?

I merely made an impartial observation. Destroying the Death Stars and killing Sidious would very likely result in the permanent downfall of the Republic... Unless someone takes over again only to collapse again later. It's a neverending cycle as long as the jedi and sith fight against each other.

Yup. And what would happen in the Galaxy would be MUCH worse. Imagine the same situation except without any post- war US presence (nor any outsider aid) along with a never before seen economic crisis...

It absolutely does. The propehcy never made any sense, but since it's part of the lore, we must take it into consideration. That means it's yet to be fulfilled...

 

I mean, the answer is "they were too busy to worry about this at the time".

The value of that answer is certainly up for debate, but I personally think it's a reasonable enough explanation.

 

That's exactly what it was and always has been. The original early drafts of Star Wars spoke of a "son of sons" who would bring an end to a long period of darkness. That is the story of Episodes 1-6. When Lucas wrote 1-6 he didn't plan on the story continuing so the prophecy held a place of higher esteem. However, with the ST being made the choice had to be made:

Contradict and throw out Lucas' films or simply diminish the importance of the prophecy (which was only ever about one moment in time anyway).
Show me where the prophecy meant "permanent destruction"? If that were the case, why would Luke ever need to "pass on what he has learned"? There would be no need for the Jedi. But of course, bringing balance isn't a permanent thing. New enemies will arise. The Dark Side will always exist. It's just a case of keeping it at bay. Luke and co. simply failed at this post RotJ.

It doesn't contradict that. It was simply about ending a period of darkness that was predicted to occur at some point.
The Jedi pre TPM didn't believe the Sith existed but knew that it isn't only Sith that can disturb the balance (see: Snoke).
Anyone that commands the Dark Side and oppresses the galaxy can cause imbalance. It just so happened that in ep 1-6, it was the Sith that did this and Anakin put an end to it. The ST seems to be showing us that despite balance being restored the challenge is to keep it that way, otherwise worse times are ahead.

The balance in TPM was only starting to slip. Evil was growing. The Jedi could feel it. By the time the Clone Wars start and the Sith are on the cusp of taking over, as it says at the start of Rots, "evil is everywhere" and thus the Force is out of balance. It stays that way until the Sith are wiped out. But the opportunity for prolonged balance is thrown away when Luke's apprentice falls and the FO emerge in the Jedi's absence.

Not sure I follow. My point was that when the Sith were wiped out, the Dark Side itself didn't have a conduit from which to exert its power.

How does it contradict anything? Again, tell me where it says the prophecy was a permanent thing?

It's hard to explain something so simply and explicit in any other than simple terms. Sidious' demise brought balance. That's what happened. Clearly.

No, it renders it a prophecy. A prophecy is a mere prediction based on some kind of supernatural insight. The prophecy came true - but the balance didn't last long - if it did there wouldn't be an ST! Something had to give -either Lucas' story was to be altered (which would diminish the saga anyway) or the prophecised balance was simply not to last all that long. They went with that option. I don't see the issue.

Eloquently put.

I did read it. You wasted 5 mins of my time. Things weren't perfect in the republic. But that isn't required for balance. Balance is between light and dark. Good and evil will always exist. Imbalance is caused when the dark side takes over.

The PT brought a greater context to the GFFA, yes. But your point isn't really going anywhere. With the PT it was likely, if considered, that the Republic post ROTJ wouldn't be a paradise. Without the PT, if considered, the Republic post ROTJ wouldn't be a paradise.

No, that's not my point.
If there is war and poverty etc but it's not "everywhere" and the galaxy isn't oppressed, then there would be a balance. This would be a normal state for the GFFA.
However, whenever evil doers take over, be it Sith or Snoke, and oppress the entire galaxy and spread evil far and wide, then there is imbalance.

Evil will always exist. The point is that the heroes, the Jedi, must keep these forces at bay so they don't take over and destroy the balance. But even if the jedi do this to the best of their ability, it doesn't guarantee an end to that cycle.

Well, it seems that there were some big problems for Luke and the new Republic to deal with. Eventually they both failed and the FO rose to power. But immediately after the fall of the Empire there was a time of relative peace where neither good nor evil dominated.

You still haven't explained why it doesn't make sense.
The prophecy was a prediction about someone bringing balance to the Force. It happened.

 

Not all Dark Siders are Sith. At the time of ROTJ balance was restored.

The ST is how they keep the balance. Peace can happen but be lost. Things can be calm but then upset.

In many religions there are repeating cycles. Balance/Imbalance. For SW, Anakin the Chosen One was the destroyer. He was Redeemed by his son. Stopped the Sith whose actions endangered all things in imbalance of the Force. The lull in the Cosmic Force ends when The Force Awakens.