the power of your intense fragility

I mean, the way they talk about Lyanna, you would think she was a slutty homewrecker who kidnapped Rhaegar from his ever loving home and family and not a 14 year old who was legitimately kidnapped and assaulted to bear a child.

Like the worst, like show level, bottom of a barrel, interpretation where Lyanna is happy to shove Elia and her children aside to get married on front of a septon in reject Reacher ware.

She doesn't want her family dead. She doesn't want her people dead. She doesn't want anyone dead and everyone gets dead while she is locked up and pregnant under armed guard.

Like whatever and whoever Lyanna Stark was, Rhaegar had one single purpose in his mind and her consent was not needed.

A love affair doesn't need months spent away in Dorne while Westeros burns. A ruined maidenhead isn't worth a war. Scandal and songs yes?

But Rickard Stark could always demand his daughter back.

Rhaegar had other intentions.

(And yes, Lyanna throwing a fit over the idea of Mya Stone but expecting Elia Martell to swallow and support a new little Northern Blackfyre is hypocrisy.

That doesn't leave anyone dead.

Rather they flip flop more than a dying trout and engage in more illogical absurdity while trying to claim the high moral ground and failing miserable.

It's ridiculous to talk about "distorting the canon" when we don't even have the full official story yet, especially when you're relying on hypotheticals: "If Elia had survived, she wouldn't have had to accept..."; "If Lyanna had married Robert, and he had suddenly developed a desire to care for his bastard children (something completely absent from canon), Lyanna wouldn't have accepted..." None of that is canon—it's all speculation, because these characters were created to die.

If you're upset about the popularity of a fictional character you don't like, you should take it up with the author. He's the one who chose to give Lyanna prominence instead of "Saint Elia." He's the one who made Jon Lyanna's son. He's the one who centered much of the story on the Starks and the Targaryens.

They didn't want people DEAD because of their boners.

Rhaegar was Summerhall written small. The first and last time he speaks in the actual books, the 'dragon must have three heads' and there must be 'one more' and it is only the second time the entire name of the series of dropped!

Who sits their ass on the Iron Throne is meaningless because all of humanity is under attack by ice zombies.

It is in the first prologue of the first book that was written over thirty years ago.

And yes Martin has some very serious issues writing women (see the Dead Ladies Club).

But most fans actually see and don't worship a married adult prince and his not even legal 'love' when the second to lat time on the canon Lyanna speaks she is screaming for her brother, begging to go home, and dies happy because Ned made a death bed promise to her.

Lyanna was sixteen when she died.

Sixteen and begging and screaming and pleading to go home in nearly the farest place possible while men and boys she knew from childhood died trying to get to her- and only Howland Reed kept her brother from dying.

Oaths to a dead prince meant more than the screaming, captive girl stuck in the tower.

And Jon, given his undead fire wight and warg probably status, is going to be sitting down to worship at his being a dragonseed.

If he ever finds out.

And that isn't the focus of the series.

I mean, Jaime Lannister, could tell Dany how many her father raped her mother because her self obsessed, incestuous parents married her off at thirteen and have better narrative value.

I mean, the way they talk about Lyanna, you would think she was a slutty homewrecker who kidnapped Rhaegar from his ever loving home and family and not a 14 year old who was legitimately kidnapped and assaulted to bear a child.

Like the worst, like show level, bottom of a barrel, interpretation where Lyanna is happy to shove Elia and her children aside to get married on front of a septon in reject Reacher ware.

She doesn't want her family dead. She doesn't want her people dead. She doesn't want anyone dead and everyone gets dead while she is locked up and pregnant under armed guard.

Like whatever and whoever Lyanna Stark was, Rhaegar had one single purpose in his mind and her consent was not needed.

A love affair doesn't need months spent away in Dorne while Westeros burns. A ruined maidenhead isn't worth a war. Scandal and songs yes?

But Rickard Stark could always demand his daughter back.

Rhaegar had other intentions.

(And yes, Lyanna throwing a fit over the idea of Mya Stone but expecting Elia Martell to swallow and support a new little Northern Blackfyre is hypocrisy.

That doesn't leave anyone dead.

Rather they flip flop more than a dying trout and engage in more illogical absurdity while trying to claim the high moral ground and failing miserable.

It's ridiculous to talk about "distorting the canon" when we don't even have the full official story yet, especially when you're relying on hypotheticals: "If Elia had survived, she wouldn't have had to accept..."; "If Lyanna had married Robert, and he had suddenly developed a desire to care for his bastard children (something completely absent from canon), Lyanna wouldn't have accepted..." None of that is canon—it's all speculation, because these characters were created to die.

If you're upset about the popularity of a fictional character you don't like, you should take it up with the author. He's the one who chose to give Lyanna prominence instead of "Saint Elia." He's the one who made Jon Lyanna's son. He's the one who centered much of the story on the Starks and the Targaryens.

They didn't want people DEAD because of their boners.

Rhaegar was Summerhall written small. The first and last time he speaks in the actual books, the 'dragon must have three heads' and there must be 'one more' and it is only the second time the entire name of the series of dropped!

Who sits their ass on the Iron Throne is meaningless because all of humanity is under attack by ice zombies.

It is in the first prologue of the first book that was written over thirty years ago.

And yes Martin has some very serious issues writing women (see the Dead Ladies Club).

But most fans actually see and don't worship a married adult prince and his not even legal 'love' when the second to lat time on the canon Lyanna speaks she is screaming for her brother, begging to go home, and dies happy because Ned made a death bed promise to her.

Lyanna was sixteen when she died.

Sixteen and begging and screaming and pleading to go home in nearly the farest place possible while men and boys she knew from childhood died trying to get to her- and only Howland Reed kept her brother from dying.

Oaths to a dead prince meant more than the screaming, captive girl stuck in the tower.

I have no desire to disrespect the Buddhist philosophy of detachment. I respect it a lot, in fact, and I've tried to incorporate it into my own writing about the Jedi.

It is also, very pointedly, not what we see from the Jedi Council in the prequels. Instead we see a nine-year-old child getting told he's wrong for being afraid for his enslaved mother. I'm much less anti-Council than a lot of people, but that is our literal first interaction with them in the prequels and I just don't think there's a way to square that with the supposed Jedi value of compassion. Then we have that reinforced by Obi-Wan telling Qui-Gon said nine-year-old child is "dangerous."

Could the Jedi have helped Anakin if he hadn't been so closed-off? Probably. Did they put any effort whatsoever into meeting him where he was? Not really.

anakin wanted to be a jedi to bring true freedom to himself, his mother, and his comrades. he's told to invest, be patient, sacrifice, and devote himself. he turns because the people who had the power to help him continuously chastise his urgency and dismiss his expertise as someone who lived under such violent and dehumanizing conditions. he turns because after all that devotion he's burying his mother on the planet she never escaped after having relentless dreams about her that his mentor repeatedly told him to ignore. he turns because the only people who actually let him feel anything were the woman he had to love in secret and the most evil person in the galaxy. the motivation of fighting for freedom is replaced by a deep need to hold onto what he managed to attain, to the jedi order and to padme, and when those things start slipping through his fingers, when they start pulling him in opposite directions, what does he have? where can he go? who can he talk to? everyone is telling him the same thing: "don't trust yourself. don't trust your feelings. i have the answers. listen to me."

leia describes tarkin as someone "holding vader's leash." darth vader is an attack dog, but palpatine didn't train him. the jedi did. the jedi stripped him of his humanity, his urgency, and his clarity. they insisted he needed their approval, their training, and their answers. he trusted the jedi with his dream, with his love and his life and his freedom. they said "we'll handle it," and every time they did, he lost something else. of course they rip children from their homes, isolate them from their families, and teach them not to have any attachments. if you're attached, you won't mindlessly obey. anakin skywalker was a good boy who wanted to do good for others. the jedi took that goodness and turned it into obedience. they set him up for palpatine to manipulate, a perfectly trained attack dog who has nothing left anymore. no mother. no wife. no heroes to dream about. just the one thing he has for himself, a blurry, desperate mess of feelings spinning out of his control because he's been taught that he's going to mess it up if he does what he feels is right.

from this post; reblogged tags by @lucyskywalker

First of all, thank you! I'm really glad the post resonated with you.

I actually agree with quite a bit of this, particularly your point about Obi-Wan's relationship with the Jedi Code. I think one of Obi-Wan's defining strengths (and simultaneously his defining flaw) is that he genuinely believes in the institution. He believes in the Code, in discipline, in restraint, and in doing what a Jedi is supposed to do. That makes him an exceptional Jedi, but it also means that when the institution's approach falls short, Obi-Wan often falls short with it because his instinct is to trust the system rather than question it.

That's where I think the contrast with Qui-Gon is really interesting. Qui-Gon consistently prioritizes the individual in front of him over institutional expectations. Obi-Wan, especially in the Phantom Menace, usually does the opposite. It's not that Obi-Wan lacks empathy altogether, but that his first instinct is often duty, whereas Qui-Gon's first instinct is compassion. In the movies, their characters are framed incredibly straightforward: Qui-Gon is described as a maverick and a student of the Living Force, while Obi-Wan is portrayed as a more faithful follower of the Jedi Code. Jar Jar’s exile is a good example of that difference, because Qui-Gon responds to the outcast with compassion and chooses to help him, while Obi-Wan is much more likely to treat the situation as an inconvenience that needs to be solved quickly.

Those are two very different ways of engaging with the world. But with that said, I'm a little more hesitant to say Obi-Wan isn't compassionate at all. I think he is, but his compassion is often filtered through the lens of what he believes a Jedi should be. By the time of the prequels, he's spent nearly his entire life in the Order. Compassion, to him, frequently looks like protecting the mission, serving the Republic, or following the Code because he sincerely believes that's what ultimately helps the greatest number of people. The problem is that this kind of institutional compassion can fail spectacularly when someone needs deeply personal compassion instead.

But I do agree that Obi-Wan often seems to care more in the abstract than in a deeply personal way. He can be compassionate in principle, but when a real person in front of him is emotional, frightened, or needy, he tends to fall back on discipline and the Code. It's why Anakin and Obi-Wan are such a tragic mismatch. Because Anakin doesn't need another lecture about the Code, but someone who can meet him where he is emotionally.

Obi-Wan loves him, of this I don't doubt but he consistently responds to emotional crises as a Jedi Master before he responds as the closest thing Anakin has to family.

Its why I think that the "You're the closest thing I have to a father." / "Then why don't you listen to me?" exchange is so revealing. I don't think Obi-Wan is trying to dismiss Anakin. I think he genuinely doesn't realize that Anakin isn't asking for authority in that moment, but for reassurance. Obi-Wan hears "father" and thinks "teacher." Anakin says "father" and means "the only family I have left." They're having two completely different conversations without realizing it.

As for the examples from the Phantom Menace, I think they're worth talking about because they establish Obi-Wan's worldview very early. His frustration with Jar Jar, his skepticism toward Anakin, his repeated concern with getting back to the mission—those aren't isolated moments. They fit a pattern of someone who values order, efficiency, and discipline, sometimes at the expense of seeing the individual standing in front of him. Qui-Gon repeatedly interrupts that pattern by choosing mercy or compassion over expediency. I don't think that's accidental. The film deliberately contrasts the two approaches.

Where I'd probably stop short is saying Obi-Wan genuinely believed Anakin was a "pathetic life-form" in any lasting sense. I read that line more as Obi-Wan's dry, often cutting sense of humor mixed with genuine irritation. However, it's still an unkind thing to say, especially about a nine-year-old former slave, but I don't think it reflects the totality of how he saw Anakin. If anything, it reflects another flaw of his character: he often underestimates how much his words matter to someone as emotionally vulnerable as Anakin.

I also think Rots complicates Obi-Wan further. Using Padmé as part of the plan to confront Anakin is one of the clearest examples of how thoroughly how he is willing to risk a pregnant woman for the sake of his own goals/mission. I hesitate... to use the Clone Wars as an explanation because of the less than stellar characterization, but he is a general who's become accustomed to making impossible choices in impossible circumstances. That's not meant to excuse the decision, only to show how much the war has affected his ability to handle situations in such a cold way.

What I ultimately find so tragic is that Obi-Wan spends his entire life trying to be the perfect Jedi. He succeeds by almost every standard the Order values. He's disciplined, loyal, self-sacrificing, and devoted to peace. Yet the one relationship that mattered most to him was the one for which those very qualities were not enough. That's the irony of his character, I think he failed because the way he had been taught to express love was through guidance, correction, duty, and sacrifice, while Anakin needed something far more emotionally direct. Which was something Qui-Gon was sorta able to give (p.s. I really hate how much they turned his character into something else, like PLEASE. You did not need to demonize a character just so another one would have a backstory or whatnot)

study

I mean, the way they talk about Lyanna, you would think she was a slutty homewrecker who kidnapped Rhaegar from his ever loving home and family and not a 14 year old who was legitimately kidnapped and assaulted to bear a child.

Like the worst, like show level, bottom of a barrel, interpretation where Lyanna is happy to shove Elia and her children aside to get married on front of a septon in reject Reacher ware.

She doesn't want her family dead. She doesn't want her people dead. She doesn't want anyone dead and everyone gets dead while she is locked up and pregnant under armed guard.

Like whatever and whoever Lyanna Stark was, Rhaegar had one single purpose in his mind and her consent was not needed.

A love affair doesn't need months spent away in Dorne while Westeros burns. A ruined maidenhead isn't worth a war. Scandal and songs yes?

But Rickard Stark could always demand his daughter back.

Rhaegar had other intentions.

(And yes, Lyanna throwing a fit over the idea of Mya Stone but expecting Elia Martell to swallow and support a new little Northern Blackfyre is hypocrisy.

That doesn't leave anyone dead.

Rather they flip flop more than a dying trout and engage in more illogical absurdity while trying to claim the high moral ground and failing miserable.

The Harpy

‘The Monstrous Feminine’ Female Abjection in the Works of Charles Dickens

Role Monsters [a series on monstrous female archetypes by Jess Zimmerman]

Female Monstrosity [collection of various pdfs on this topic]

“Normative Society and the Monstrous Female Transgressor”

The Monstrous-Feminine [the full book by barbara creed!]

“The Good and Bad of that Sexe‟: Monstrosity and Womanhood in Early Modern England”

The Monstrous ‘Other’ Feminine: Gender, Desire and the ‘Look’ in the Hindi Horror Genre

The Monstrous-Feminine [films]

I AM THE MONSTER: SELF AND THE MONSTROUS FEMININE IN CONTEMPORARY YOUNG ADULT LITERATURE

Unnatural Women, Invisible Mothers: Monstrous Female Bodies in the Wonders of the East

A Regiment of Monstrous Women: Female Horror Archetypes and Life History Theory

POWERS OF HORROR: An Essay on Abjection [the full book by julia kristeva referenced by barbara creed] 

EMBRACE YOUR MONSTROUS FLESH: ON WOMEN’S BODIES IN HORROR