![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccatoriahttp://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa?threadID=265735&start=30
First post on that page!
And not only did he give me a nice answer which, while I'm still disappointed in the whole Daala as CoS thing, was very thoughtful and was surprisingly willing to acknowledge that it could have been better handled, he also mentioned that he'd seen me posting elsewhere on the net, and THINKS I MAKE SENSE!
*iz a fangurl*
Plus on the previous page he confirms that the "white eyes" symbology is deliberate. Combine that with the fact that he thinks my posts are "mostly on-target" and my two big vocal issues have been Daala - which he addresses here and may be exclusively referring to, but maybe not since he's vaguely, a little bit, disagreeing with me (or trying to say, it would make sense if we explained how it had happened) - and the whole "white eyes" symbology issue.
He notes he doesn't want to comment too directly on the "white eyes" issue but his admission that it's very conscious combined with the fact he must be reading the TFN forums and what I'm posting pretty much...confirms, in my mind, that yeah.
The fact that there are recurring visions of Luke as a white-eyed Sith Lord speaking words he repeats verbatim with near-blazing eyes in the "real timeline" of Invincible is deliberate. It feeds nicely into the idea that that's why Jacen kept seeing himself killing Luke in the future. Because Luke could have been the dark man - the dark man who didn't become real until Jacen made his decision to turn to the dark side - to save his uncle from death. Or, apparently, from a future where it was Luke and not Jacen who went to the dark.
And the subsequent question - was that the right answer? Is Jacen as a dead monster a better choice than Luke as a dead monster? Because dammit, that's the most interesting theme and question in the entire damn series. The sort of complexity the first book promised us.
To be a complete conspiracy theorist, it makes me wonder if this was an idea that Denning originally wanted to do more with but wasn't allowed/got cut during the planning stages? Because we know that the series was his pitch but that the details got hammered out by committee. I guess I say that just because the symbolism is damn clear, and we now know utterly deliberate. But the implications are huge and quite a strange thing to leave as a fan-easter-egg. And it's imagery that only shows up in Denning novels which makes it seem like more of a...pet project? I don't know.
I guess I just think it's a shame that the awesomest part of this whole series - the idea that could have redeemed the whole thing, has to exist in subtext?
Still, though, HE KNOWS WHO I AM! I'm...slightly weirded out by that actually, like...did I ever post bad stuff about him? Huh? Since I...go on about my crazy theories about Denning's subtextual messages quite a lot. But hey. It's also awesome. And I have decided to just assume he approves of ALL my crazy posts! :p
First post on that page!
And not only did he give me a nice answer which, while I'm still disappointed in the whole Daala as CoS thing, was very thoughtful and was surprisingly willing to acknowledge that it could have been better handled, he also mentioned that he'd seen me posting elsewhere on the net, and THINKS I MAKE SENSE!
*iz a fangurl*
Plus on the previous page he confirms that the "white eyes" symbology is deliberate. Combine that with the fact that he thinks my posts are "mostly on-target" and my two big vocal issues have been Daala - which he addresses here and may be exclusively referring to, but maybe not since he's vaguely, a little bit, disagreeing with me (or trying to say, it would make sense if we explained how it had happened) - and the whole "white eyes" symbology issue.
He notes he doesn't want to comment too directly on the "white eyes" issue but his admission that it's very conscious combined with the fact he must be reading the TFN forums and what I'm posting pretty much...confirms, in my mind, that yeah.
The fact that there are recurring visions of Luke as a white-eyed Sith Lord speaking words he repeats verbatim with near-blazing eyes in the "real timeline" of Invincible is deliberate. It feeds nicely into the idea that that's why Jacen kept seeing himself killing Luke in the future. Because Luke could have been the dark man - the dark man who didn't become real until Jacen made his decision to turn to the dark side - to save his uncle from death. Or, apparently, from a future where it was Luke and not Jacen who went to the dark.
And the subsequent question - was that the right answer? Is Jacen as a dead monster a better choice than Luke as a dead monster? Because dammit, that's the most interesting theme and question in the entire damn series. The sort of complexity the first book promised us.
To be a complete conspiracy theorist, it makes me wonder if this was an idea that Denning originally wanted to do more with but wasn't allowed/got cut during the planning stages? Because we know that the series was his pitch but that the details got hammered out by committee. I guess I say that just because the symbolism is damn clear, and we now know utterly deliberate. But the implications are huge and quite a strange thing to leave as a fan-easter-egg. And it's imagery that only shows up in Denning novels which makes it seem like more of a...pet project? I don't know.
I guess I just think it's a shame that the awesomest part of this whole series - the idea that could have redeemed the whole thing, has to exist in subtext?
Still, though, HE KNOWS WHO I AM! I'm...slightly weirded out by that actually, like...did I ever post bad stuff about him? Huh? Since I...go on about my crazy theories about Denning's subtextual messages quite a lot. But hey. It's also awesome. And I have decided to just assume he approves of ALL my crazy posts! :p
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-24 10:44 pm (UTC)