About Padmé's Death

[chameleon_irony]

In response to this post by Tricia and Lex at FANgirl Blog:

What's wrong with Padmé Amidala losing the will to live at the end of Revenge of the SithWhat happened to her on that day would have sent many a normal person into an extreme clinical depression, the kind where you - yes - lose the will to live. And it's consistent with her

Comments

[irnan]

The real problem with how Padmé dies is lack of medical/biological realism.

THIS, in huge ways, because all the realistic aspects of the PT hinge on Padme: her job, her plans, her ideals. She is the centre around which that part of the story turns (whereas the Jedi as Space Wizards are of course the centre of the fantastical aspects). Abandoning that when she needs to die and die quickly is inconsistent worldbuilding.

But partly also, and for me even mostly, this: the Star Wars prequels don't give female fans many options. Because the fact that she is the only woman in the movies who gets a significant part makes her a statement. Her characterisation is a statement, her story is a statement; not just about Padme as a person, but about the minority/group that she's made to represent by being the only member of it on the screen. So the statement ROTS makes about 'women', via Padme: if your bloke leaves you, you die

[chameleon_irony]

*warning for verbal vomiting and an unintended rant

[irnan]

I never analyse fiction on the meta level, because in my opinion there is something offensive about the idea that sane, grown-up people are so deeply affected by what they see on TV or in books as to mindlessly interiorize it or model themselves after it.

"Thou shalt not might reach the head; but it takes once upon a time to reach the heart". Of course people model themselves after stories. His Dark Materials had a greater effect on the way I think and the kind of person I am than anything I ever learned at school, or uni, or work. And that's one story out of the hundreds I've consumed since childhood. Stories are supposed to affect you, to change you, to teach you, to open your eyes and show you another way of looking at the world, or another way of behaving, another system of values. That's their function. On an individual level as well as on a societal one. If they don't influence people there's no point in telling them.

I operate with the assumption that people can be trusted to know better than to take fiction as gospel.Which

[chameleon_irony]

If they don't influence people there's no point in telling them.

Says who?

To me the point of telling them is that thinking them up and telling them is fun in itself. Same about reading them. When I want to learn, I'll take a class or open a textbook. When I open a novel or watch a movie, I want to have fun. Learning something in the process is nice, but not necessary.

That's their function.

The function of stories is entertainment.

No, I get it: there are different ways of seeing everything. There's nothing wrong with that. Problems happen when we refuse to accept that our view of reality isn't the only one, or as one of my teachers likes to say, "when we mistake our reality for everyone's reality, if there even is such a thing".

His Dark Materials had a greater effect on the way I think and the kind of person I am than anything I ever learned at school, or uni, or workYes. It's true for you. Personal experience is not a valid basis for generalisations about what people in general do, and even less about what is "supposed" to

[irnan]

The function of stories is entertainment.

Says who?

I operate with the assumption that people can be trusted to know better than to take fiction as gospel. We should never forget that people possess judgment and free will and aren't passive receptacles of culture.

Personal experience is not a valid basis for generalisations about what people in general do, and even less about what is "supposed" to be.

So you operate on an assumption that people can be trusted in a certain way as pertains to stories - which is based on your personal experience of them - but your personal experience of the way you enjoy/read stories is not a valid basis about what stories are "supposed" to be.

Yes, of course I want to be influenced and changed by outside things. To me, the idea of remaining exactly the way I am right now, to staying the way I am right now for the rest of my life - thirty forty fifty sixty years - is Hell itself

[chameleon_irony]

There's changing, and then there's being changed. The former is inevitable and usually good, though you can also change for the worse. The latter means giving something or someone power over who you are.

The trick lies in deciding which influences you want to accept and which you don't.

That's safer, but still...

There are other ways to change: acting/experience/doing things, introspection, learning.

an implicit statement that I know better than they do

You know better than they do who you are, who you want to be, and what's good for you. That's all it's safe to assume you know better than they do.

(But you're not going to change my mind about stories - ever. ;) That's a thing I chose to hold on to.)

Likewise. It doesn't help that my opinion on stories developed from my way of living the role of (fanfiction) writer for many years.

so Harry Potter and Star Wars are not about persuading the viewer or the reader that Love Conquers All, at least for a little while?Only their creators know what they are really about. But what

[irnan]

There are other ways to change: acting/experience/doing things, introspection, learning.

But of course - yet all of these things, I would say, involve outside influences. There are so many of my experiences I haven't had control over - I've given basic consent and then it all blew up in my face and I came out the other side the person I am today. Uni, for example. I sign up for a moot court and a year later I've been dragged halfway around the world and worked myself half to death and been made to have experiences that I never would have thought to without the influence/presence of these certain people in this certain time, and not a whit of it did I control. It's the same with stories, for me.

(Although I will say that it took a correspondingly long time, afterwards, to sort out of myself what I was prepared to take with me and what I wasn't.)

You know better than they do who you are, who you want to be, and what's good for you. That's all it's safe to assume you know better than they do.How? That bothers me, and I don't know if I

[chameleon_irony]

I knew you were going to bring up that point: what is influence and where does it begin/end? ;)

how do I know that I am who I want to be if I don't allow myself to be presented with other options?

You don't. But how would anyone else know it? Your knowledge of yourself is far from perfect or complete, but it's more complete than other people's knowledge of you... unless you really lack self-awareness. ;)

That the act of being interested involves acceptance: as logical, or as true, or whatever.

Something can be logical without being true or right.

[irnan]

Haha, yeah - are we both being influenced by this argument, etc. ;)

Your knowledge of yourself is far from perfect or complete, but it's more complete than other people's knowledge of you... unless you really lack self-awareness.

I guess that's a pretty fair assessment.

Something can be logical without being true or right.

"Logic is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't always beat actual thought". That's Pratchett... But I think for me, to find something interesting is to... to treat it as something that may be true. That may apply to me. At least for as long as it takes to formulate a counter-argument! You give it a chance, and then you counter-argue, and then see which wins out.

[irnan]

Also, you should check out Marina Warner - you might find her stuff interesting. I'm halfway through From the Beast to the Blonde and her analysis of the societal function of fairy tales is really fascinating.