Shifting Identities and the Force

@snufkin - i think i'm not getting rey as this heroine, i'm going to have to readjust she's so passive, i'm finding it difficult to think that she'll do anything at all at the moment (that's not true). but ugh, it's like, i hope she read the blooming cliff notes for the story. or else i'm going to shout at her.

@guardienne - she'll get there! Think of it this way, she was already busy in the first movie by rescuing a cute little droid, which in turn led to rescuing Finn, Han, and making sure that the map stayed out of Snoke's clutches. She had her plate full in the first chapters of the story and wasn't even intended to be a heroic rescuer. But have faith and go watch some of Rian Johnson's previous films if you haven't seen them yet. His female leads are almost always the instigators/in charge of the situation.

guardienne wrote:@sacrebleu patience, you've got to learn patience

i'm sure some of snoke's plans and powers will be revealed and i'm hoping they won't totally generic. if he's a kind of papl figure and basically eliminating the competition... well, maybe he's creating a new kind of force user? we don't even know what kind of dark side thing he's running.

@guardienne

Why does "dark side thing he's running" make me picture a roadside stand or an illicit poker game in a basement?

@snufkin wrote:Personally I think that they've already established that he's very much made a very bad bargain, either a deal with the devil or the example from fairytales/the Fae where a human is tricked into making a bargain that will ultimately destroy him. He's entered into that compact with Snoke, tried to prove he can follow through by following orders to murder his father (proving that unlike his grandfather he's not loyal to family/blood), and will likely start VIII trying even harder to prove that he's the darkest dark that ever darked. He can't take on Snoke alone and since it's hinted that Snoke will ultimately use and destroy him, he's in big time denial. The 'personal interests' impulse are tiny rebellions, but he's in over his head the same way his father was with Jabba. So he at least needs help, both with that aspect and whatever larger cause he believes that he needs to fulfill, which is where Rey comes in. So my guess it that as with stories mentioned here like East of the Sun, West of the Moon - she's going to have to break both the spell on him and face down the actual Big Bad (Snoke) to save both him and their galaxy. He won't revert back to the person he was before, but will finally be his true self. Likely somebody with both elements of Dark and Light in him and more able on his own (the ronin analogies) to function in this new paradigm, without a master or having to repress 1/2 of himself.

@snufkin

I like the comparisons to a dark fairytale and a Faustian bargain.  My sense is also that he did it not so much for personal power and gain, though his motives are unclear to me at this time aside from it having something to do with the larger picture of the Force.  If Kylo sees love and family as the weaknesses that ultimately caused Vader to fail in whatever he believes this important quest to be ("I will finish what you started") then the murder of Han and the temptation Rey represents make sense in that context.

@sacrebleu - those kids in Dahl's books learned a thing or two about how bargains can bite you on the a** if you're not good (movie freaked me out as a kid).

Agreed, his motives are likely pure and the bargain he made with Snoke was with self sacrifice and the greater good in mind. And he probably had nowhere else to go with who he is, both dark and light (or angel & bandit in his parents' words).

Just that like the Devil & any other supernatural creature in these stories, Snoke likely crossed his fingers when making his side of the bargain and intends to exact a heavy price for the favors he's granted. He's already ensured that Ben is now a pariah for his actions, so that's part of the trick. Question very much will be how Rey factors into this as she's now a direct threat to his agenda.

snufkin wrote:@sacrebleu - those kids in Dahl's books learned a thing or two about how bargains can bite you on the a** if you're not good (movie freaked me out as a kid).

Agreed, his motives are likely pure and the bargain he made with Snoke was with self sacrifice and the greater good in mind. And he probably had nowhere else to go with who he is, both dark and light (or angel & bandit in his parents' words).

Just that like the Devil & any other supernatural creature in these stories, Snoke likely crossed his fingers when making his side of the bargain and intends to exact a heavy price for the favors he's granted. He's already ensured that Ben is now a pariah for his actions, so that's part of the trick. Question very much will be how Rey factors into this as she's now a direct threat to his agenda.

@snufkin

Everything I've read about the making of TFA indicates that scenes were shot in many various ways and that much of what was filmed ended up on the cutting room floor.  So I tend to believe that whatever made it onto the screen is very significant (or, God forbid, J.J. is just having his fun being mysterious ).  This goal of finishing what Vader started is confusing considering all the permutations of Anakin's life, and we don't even know if what Kylo thinks Vader started is in actuality something he even did.  I certainly don't put it past Snoke to have mislead Ben about that.

I almost feel sorry for Snoke.  It's never a wise gamble to bet against biology/hormones.

Sacrebleu wrote:

snufkin wrote:@sacrebleu - those kids in Dahl's books learned a thing or two about how bargains can bite you on the a** if you're not good (movie freaked me out as a kid).

Agreed, his motives are likely pure and the bargain he made with Snoke was with self sacrifice and the greater good in mind. And he probably had nowhere else to go with who he is, both dark and light (or angel & bandit in his parents' words).

Just that like the Devil & any other supernatural creature in these stories, Snoke likely crossed his fingers when making his side of the bargain and intends to exact a heavy price for the favors he's granted. He's already ensured that Ben is now a pariah for his actions, so that's part of the trick. Question very much will be how Rey factors into this as she's now a direct threat to his agenda.

@snufkin

Everything I've read about the making of TFA indicates that scenes were shot in many various ways and that much of what was filmed ended up on the cutting room floor.  So I tend to believe that whatever made it onto the screen is very significant (or, God forbid, J.J. is just having his fun being mysterious ).  This goal of finishing what Vader started is confusing considering all the permutations of Anakin's life, and we don't even know if what Kylo thinks Vader started is in actuality something he even did.  I certainly don't put it past Snoke to have mislead Ben about that.

I almost feel sorry for Snoke.  It's never a wise gamble to bet against biology/hormones.

@Sacrebleu

Hahahaha! It's true, the Force is pretty crafty in having Rey being its latest champion and likely opponent against whatever Snoke's got planned.

@snufkin i like how you talk to me about having faith when i have so little i have only seen looper and didn't love it. but i will check out the rest some time, promise. i like how he speaks of directing. i like the man so goddamit i will like his movies as well. they don't seem to adhere to genre, which bodes well.

i'm interested in the faustian bargain, it's not a spell. it's likely snoke will want to extract a good price from ben, but in these stories, as far as i recall, you either pay that or you manage to wriggle out through a subclause. it's interesting because we know so little about snoke and i know that @sacrebleu and i have talked at length about snoke's power and how he little or how much he has. if he convinced ben that he can give him what he needs, he must have shown him, er, some of the goods, no?

i can't remember whether faust was also a wager between god and mephisto like job? but i don't know if i can easily recast this as a test of faith XD

Agreed, his motives are likely pure and the bargain he made with Snoke was with self sacrifice and the greater good in mind.

it'd be an interesting contrast to anakin who can't really even decide who he does what for.



anyway, there's some dark knight excitement to be had.

the black knight appearing in ivanhoe at the tournament doesn't take off his helmet. this kinda knocked my socks off:

William de Wyvil and Stephen de Martival, the marshals of the field, were the first to offer their congratulations to the victor, praying him, at the same time, to suffer his helmet to be unlaced, or, at least, that he would raise his visor ere they conducted him to receive the prize of the day’s tourney from the hands of Prince John. The Disinherited Knight, with all knightly courtesy, declined their request, alleging, that he could not at this time suffer his face to be seen, for reasons which he had assigned to the heralds when he entered the lists. The marshals were perfectly satisfied by this reply; for amidst the frequent and capricious vows by which knights were accustomed to bind themselves in the days of chivalry, there were none more common than those by which they engaged to remain incognito for a certain space, or until some particular adventure was achieved.

i'm getting very confused and i haven't read very far. i think the mystery knight is richard lionheart, the disinherited, by his stewart prince john. it makes the most sense and i don't wanna spoil the story to myself what throws me a slightly though, is that the knight is not described as actually having black armour, the book only says steel.

i'll carry on reading. in terms of medieval knight lore, it's pretty rich anyway. the villain is the very conflicted brian de bois-guilbert, a norman, a templar - politically the templars sided with the french king, which hails all sorts of prequel-era jedi stuff about aligning yourself with a ruling power. bois-guilbert is also a templar who doesn't give much of a toss about templar vows and service. he's always ready to draw his sword and strike down his enemy.

this is a really good essay on the chracter and the wonderful ciaran hinds who plays him: http://www.ciaranhinds.eu/inter.php?cle=int139

His revolt is very much comparable to that of heroes fashionable in the early nineteenth century. The contradictory and tormented Bois-Guilbert is a close parent to the dark romantic hero. In the 1997 mini series, Bois-Guilbert becomes a free-spirit as was suggested in the novel, a modern figure who, not unlike the Byronic hero, preaches absolute individualism. Black hair, pale skin and keen, piercing eyes are the attributes of Ambrosio (The Monk, 1796, Matthew Lewis), Melmoth (Melmoth, the Wanderer, 1820, Charles Robert Maturin) and other protagonists of Gothic literature who are described as handsome men. Dark romanticism and Gothic literature are peopled with suffering and doomed errants, part victim, part villain, alienated from society and from themselves. The mini series fully reveals Bois-Guilbert as the outsider whose worst enemy is himself.

However it is Rebecca who reveals the hidden face of the Templar, reawakening his capacity for love and bringing back what he had repressed. As Bois-Guilbert explains to her, he became the hard-hearted man he is as a result of unrequited love. In the beginning, his longing for Rebecca is possessive and his motivations are selfish, and he is guided by lust rather than by deeper feelings. He threatens her verbally, treats her with brutality, kidnaps her. The television production with Hinds underlines the Templar's aggressive sexuality through his behaviour as well as through the character's wild looks and the actor's performance, his aggressiveness expressed through his body, face and voice. To Rebecca's outcry: "You may abuse and destroy my body as you will, but you will never touch my soul", he replies scornfully: "And who will touch your soul, lady?", while his hands on her body make clear that it is not her soul that is at stake. Despite the romantic tune that serves as soundtrack for the compilation of scenes showing Bois-Guilbert and Rebecca in a short video posted on YouTube, the focus on passion and violence evokes the male character's underlying rapist fantasies (and perhaps as well those of the maker of the Youtube compilation?). Scott's novel, a product of its time, only implies carnal passion whereas in the mini series sexuality becomes far more blatant.

bois-guilbert is described thusly:

The companion of the church dignitary was a man past forty, thin, strong, tall, and muscular; an athletic figure, which long fatigue and constant exercise seemed to have left none of the softer part of the human form, having reduced the whole to brawn, bones, and sinews, which had sustained a thousand toils, and were ready to dare a thousand more. His head was covered with a scarlet cap, faced with fur—of that kind which the French call “mortier”, from its resemblance to the shape of an inverted mortar. His countenance was therefore fully displayed, and its expression was calculated to impress a degree of awe, if not of fear, upon strangers. High features, naturally strong and powerfully expressive, had been burnt almost into Negro blackness by constant exposure to the tropical sun, and might, in their ordinary state, be said to slumber after the storm of passion had passed away; but the projection of the veins of the forehead, the readiness with which the upper lip and its thick black moustaches quivered upon the slightest emotion, plainly intimated that the tempest might be again and easily awakened. His keen, piercing, dark eyes, told in every glance a history of difficulties subdued, and dangers dared, and seemed to challenge opposition to his wishes, for the pleasure of sweeping it from his road by a determined exertion of courage and of will; a deep scar on his brow gave additional sternness to his countenance, and a sinister expression to one of his eyes, which had been slightly injured on the same occasion, and of which the vision, though perfect, was in a slight and partial degree distorted.

a scar, people, a scar!

either way it sounds miles better than the '52 film i remember.

the book also mentions a rival gang to the templars, the hospitallers, they were dressed in black and took over the templar properties after the knights templar were dissolved. but they were also aligned with the french king. ... so they must have been less powerful or else philipp would have had them dissolved as well?



http://www.imalaspina.com/en/malaspina-through-history/military-history/the-malaspinas-and-the-order-of-saint-john-of-jerusalem-order-of-malta.html

there is a very strong family connection with those knights. ippolito, their most famous face, was apparently portrayed here as st jerome by caravaggio. st jerome is the patron saint of translators, i'm thinking that this is an unusual sort of convergence.



and another black knight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward,_the_Black_Prince

Recently however, his name being associated to any misdeeds or brutality have been in doubt by several historians. The greatest stain on Edward's dark reputation was the 1370 sack of Limoges, in which chronicler Jean Froissart describes "It was a most melancholy business – for all ranks, ages and sexes cast themselves on their knees before the prince, begging for mercy; but he was so inflamed with passion and revenge that he listened to none, but all were put to the sword. Upwards of 3,000 men, women and children were put to death that day." However a more contemporary document written by Edward himself was recently discovered in a Spanish archive. The letter was written to the Count of Foix and describes that during the invasion of Limoges the Black Prince took "200 knights and men-at-arms prisoner". A local contemporary source from an abbey at Limoges documented "300 fatalities total in the city." There is no mention of a massacre of 3000 people or more. It is possible Froissart greatly exaggerated the events that gave the Black Prince his name, but possible that Edward did not produce a truthful account of the campaign.

nice bit of rewriting history.

and a comic to celebrate him: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=353

@guardienne - it's been a long time since I read Ivanhoe, but good catch because Bois-Guilbert, especially the Hinds version mentioned in that article, is a classic example of the Villainous Crush trope. Except (and you knew I was going to throw in a caveat, right???) that part of what TFA enjoys doing is subverting these tropes. So while he may behave like Bois-Guilbert in his interactions with Rey, she subverts that dynamic. I honestly expected at first that they would have something like Ivanhoe, one-sided interest on his part with a tragic backstory and ending up dead in part because of chasing after this female character. That Rey would pity him but ultimately end up with Finn, the hero. What I found so interesting instead was how much that trope got referenced and subverted - he may have chased after her like Rebecca, but she's not that character, she's Ivanhoe, his rival. So it'll be interesting to see how it continues to be referenced and subverted as they move into VIII.

@snufkin i totally agree with you, they aren't bois-guilbert (that name!) and rebecca, just like they aren't beauty and the beast or ... any number of other pairings.

the more i tease out references, the more i think the movie is assembled like a collage of these but none of them really describe it. i think of it the way i think of rey's vision, that it's meant to overwhelm you and give you the richest tapestry possible without really giving its story away.

guardienne wrote:i'm interested in the faustian bargain, it's not a spell. it's likely snoke will want to extract a good price from ben, but in these stories, as far as i recall, you either pay that or you manage to wriggle out through a subclause. it's interesting because we know so little about snoke and i know that @sacrebleu and i have talked at length about snoke's power and how he little or how much he has. if he convinced ben that he can give him what he needs, he must have shown him, er, some of the goods, no?

@guardienne

I wonder.  It might depend on how much Ben needed to believe what Snoke was telling him.  I'm thinking of today's presidential election, much as I despise bringing that into this.  Many will flip the switch despite not being shown any of the goods because they want to believe somebody can make sense of this and bring order to their chaotic world.

the more i tease out references, the more i think the movie is assembled like a collage of these but none of them really describe it. i think of it the way i think of rey's vision, that it's meant to overwhelm you and give you the richest tapestry possible without really giving its story away.

I agree!  I don't believe we're getting a straightforward retelling of any of these, but rather elements borrowed from many of them.  That's why I'm so uncertain of where the story will go.

@snufkin

Going back to something you said before in another thread, I think that all the nostalgic references and callbacks to ANH obscured for many viewers the fact that they appear to be telling a more complex and nuanced story in this trilogy.  It's definitely there but not as close to the surface.

@sacrebleu - the callbacks are a sleight of hand imo, to distract the viewer from the story that's being set up.

of course i'm confusing my black knights and the black knight in ivanhoe is actually not ivanhoe himself but richard lionheart, which is now making sense and i'm ...

i shall abstain from making predictions furthermore.

i forgot about another favourite black knight, though, etienne de navarre from ladyhawke. not only does he have a dramatic fashion sense, he's also exiled, just like richard lionheart and just like kylo ren. navarre became an outcast for loving the wrong woman (i don't think there's any poverty and chastity involved, noho).



anyway, what strikes me about the use of black in those instances is that they don't wear black because they are the villains but because they are mysterious and outcast-y. i don't personally have much of a connection with wearing black but it lends a certain power to the person, i guess?

in fact, in ladyhawke, all the villains wear white, which i thought was a nice blurring of colour-coding.

anyway, just throwing it into the mix.

@sacrebleu

It might depend on how much Ben needed to believe what Snoke was telling him.

yes. and we don't know anything about anything really. but somehow, him not being submissive to snoke and having known snoke beforehand (right?), i expect he would have known what snoke is capable of. i don't know if this makes sense, it's like, if you're going with the faustian bargain, the devil's powers would not be in question.

Ha I like your Man in Black (Johnny Cash protest song). He does think that he's fighting for a greater cause against popular opinion.

Snoke is the million dollar question - if he inserted himself in that family's life and Leia's full aware that he's behind what happened to her son, there had to be some deception up front. At least up until the point when s**t went down and she realized what was going on. He has to have offered Ben something beyond "I understand you and can support you better than your parents and uncle do."

guardienne wrote:@sacrebleu

It might depend on how much Ben needed to believe what Snoke was telling him.

yes. and we don't know anything about anything really. but somehow, him not being submissive to snoke and having known snoke beforehand (right?), i expect he would have known what snoke is capable of. i don't know if this makes sense, it's like, if you're going with the faustian bargain, the devil's powers would not be in question.

@guardienne

We were given so little about Snoke, I really am spewing out total suppositions.  I guess I go back to Kylo's words, "The Supreme Leader is wise", not the Supreme Leader is strong with the Force.  Until I see some Force lightning from Snoke, I ain't believing it!  Then he tells Rey "I can show you the ways of the Force."  But I'm probably inferring way too much from a choice of words.

@sacrebleu - Snoke has to have some ace up his sleeve as the Big Bad, but like you said, they aren't explaining it to us yet. It is interesting how scared his is of Luke coming back, like does that mean he'd lose if they matched powers.

snufkin wrote:@sacrebleu - Snoke has to have some ace up his sleeve as the Big Bad, but like you said, they aren't explaining it to us yet. It is interesting how scared his is of Luke coming back, like does that mean he'd lose if they matched powers.

@snufkin

That struck me as well.  Why does he seem so afraid of a lone Jedi who vanished years ago?

Sacrebleu wrote:@guardienne

I met someone when he was a man and was able to witness the entire transformation to female.  I can only say that the surgery did not seem to resolve the core problem....unhappiness.

Another question, is there any such thing as a false self?

“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” ― Kurt Vonnegut

I can't quite wrap my head around the notion that either Ben Solo or Kylo Ren is a false front that can be shucked off as one would shuck off a cloak, be it tan or black.  Both personas are the real him, I would think.  Thus, the key is not fully embracing the dark or returning to the light, but finding a way to integrate all these aspects of himself.  Maybe he feels "torn apart" because he is viewing himself as two separate people?  When he really needs to see and accept himself as a single entity.

@Sacrebleu

Something I believe myself. Ben is the 'light side', Kylo the 'dark', but it's far more complicated than 'good and evil'. The dark side embodes negative emotions, but being passionate or afraid isn't being 'evil'. The Jedi code 'there is no passion,only serenity' always creeped me out,to be honest. They seemed to want people to rid themselves of all human traits - let's face it, they thought it acceptable to have sex but not love your partner! Ben Solo could have been taught to accept the 'dark side' in him as well as the light. Fear is human, passion can be used for good, and those emotions could have served him well. Much of his anger I think stems from his inner conflict, and acceptance of all his character traits would rid him of the worst of it.
Millicent's recent quote about Lor San Tekka is another good point. I myself find the more I watch that scene the more I feel for Kylo, but I see his reaction - I'm probably wrong here- as anger at how everyone 'saints' Han, Luke and Leia. They are seen as godlike beings, but all Kylo sees are two people who failed as parents and possibly one who failed as a mentor. You don't carry that much hurt for nothing. Constantly reminded of how wonderful they are won't carry much weight with him.
I think that both Kylo and Rey are destined for the middle path, Rey is a compassionate person but she's also capable of great rage. The path of the Jedi isn't the path for such a strong and passionate young woman. It's interesting that the next film will apparently deal with them training under Luke and Snoke - and I wonder if they'll both end up rejecting their mentors.

snufkin wrote:@sacrebleu - Snoke has to have some ace up his sleeve as the Big Bad, but like you said, they aren't explaining it to us yet. It is interesting how scared his is of Luke coming back, like does that mean he'd lose if they matched powers.

@snufkin

I wonder...
If he's actually referring to Kylo?

guardienne wrote:@snufkin i like how you talk to me about having faith when i have so little i have only seen looper and didn't love it. but i will check out the rest some time, promise. i like how he speaks of directing. i like the man so goddamit i will like his movies as well. they don't seem to adhere to genre, which bodes well.

i'm interested in the faustian bargain, it's not a spell. it's likely snoke will want to extract a good price from ben, but in these stories, as far as i recall, you either pay that or you manage to wriggle out through a subclause. it's interesting because we know so little about snoke and i know that @sacrebleu and i have talked at length about snoke's power and how he little or how much he has. if he convinced ben that he can give him what he needs, he must have shown him, er, some of the goods, no?

i can't remember whether faust was also a wager between god and mephisto like job? but i don't know if i can easily recast this as a test of faith XD

Agreed, his motives are likely pure and the bargain he made with Snoke was with self sacrifice and the greater good in mind.

it'd be an interesting contrast to anakin who can't really even decide who he does what for.



anyway, there's some dark knight excitement to be had.

the black knight appearing in ivanhoe at the tournament doesn't take off his helmet. this kinda knocked my socks off:

William de Wyvil and Stephen de Martival, the marshals of the field, were the first to offer their congratulations to the victor, praying him, at the same time, to suffer his helmet to be unlaced, or, at least, that he would raise his visor ere they conducted him to receive the prize of the day’s tourney from the hands of Prince John. The Disinherited Knight, with all knightly courtesy, declined their request, alleging, that he could not at this time suffer his face to be seen, for reasons which he had assigned to the heralds when he entered the lists. The marshals were perfectly satisfied by this reply; for amidst the frequent and capricious vows by which knights were accustomed to bind themselves in the days of chivalry, there were none more common than those by which they engaged to remain incognito for a certain space, or until some particular adventure was achieved.

i'm getting very confused and i haven't read very far. i think the mystery knight is richard lionheart, the disinherited, by his stewart prince john. it makes the most sense and i don't wanna spoil the story to myself what throws me a slightly though, is that the knight is not described as actually having black armour, the book only says steel.

i'll carry on reading. in terms of medieval knight lore, it's pretty rich anyway. the villain is the very conflicted brian de bois-guilbert, a norman, a templar - politically the templars sided with the french king, which hails all sorts of prequel-era jedi stuff about aligning yourself with a ruling power. bois-guilbert is also a templar who doesn't give much of a toss about templar vows and service. he's always ready to draw his sword and strike down his enemy.

this is a really good essay on the chracter and the wonderful ciaran hinds who plays him: http://www.ciaranhinds.eu/inter.php?cle=int139

His revolt is very much comparable to that of heroes fashionable in the early nineteenth century. The contradictory and tormented Bois-Guilbert is a close parent to the dark romantic hero. In the 1997 mini series, Bois-Guilbert becomes a free-spirit as was suggested in the novel, a modern figure who, not unlike the Byronic hero, preaches absolute individualism. Black hair, pale skin and keen, piercing eyes are the attributes of Ambrosio (The Monk, 1796, Matthew Lewis), Melmoth (Melmoth, the Wanderer, 1820, Charles Robert Maturin) and other protagonists of Gothic literature who are described as handsome men. Dark romanticism and Gothic literature are peopled with suffering and doomed errants, part victim, part villain, alienated from society and from themselves. The mini series fully reveals Bois-Guilbert as the outsider whose worst enemy is himself.

However it is Rebecca who reveals the hidden face of the Templar, reawakening his capacity for love and bringing back what he had repressed. As Bois-Guilbert explains to her, he became the hard-hearted man he is as a result of unrequited love. In the beginning, his longing for Rebecca is possessive and his motivations are selfish, and he is guided by lust rather than by deeper feelings. He threatens her verbally, treats her with brutality, kidnaps her. The television production with Hinds underlines the Templar's aggressive sexuality through his behaviour as well as through the character's wild looks and the actor's performance, his aggressiveness expressed through his body, face and voice. To Rebecca's outcry: "You may abuse and destroy my body as you will, but you will never touch my soul", he replies scornfully: "And who will touch your soul, lady?", while his hands on her body make clear that it is not her soul that is at stake. Despite the romantic tune that serves as soundtrack for the compilation of scenes showing Bois-Guilbert and Rebecca in a short video posted on YouTube, the focus on passion and violence evokes the male character's underlying rapist fantasies (and perhaps as well those of the maker of the Youtube compilation?). Scott's novel, a product of its time, only implies carnal passion whereas in the mini series sexuality becomes far more blatant.

bois-guilbert is described thusly:

The companion of the church dignitary was a man past forty, thin, strong, tall, and muscular; an athletic figure, which long fatigue and constant exercise seemed to have left none of the softer part of the human form, having reduced the whole to brawn, bones, and sinews, which had sustained a thousand toils, and were ready to dare a thousand more. His head was covered with a scarlet cap, faced with fur—of that kind which the French call “mortier”, from its resemblance to the shape of an inverted mortar. His countenance was therefore fully displayed, and its expression was calculated to impress a degree of awe, if not of fear, upon strangers. High features, naturally strong and powerfully expressive, had been burnt almost into Negro blackness by constant exposure to the tropical sun, and might, in their ordinary state, be said to slumber after the storm of passion had passed away; but the projection of the veins of the forehead, the readiness with which the upper lip and its thick black moustaches quivered upon the slightest emotion, plainly intimated that the tempest might be again and easily awakened. His keen, piercing, dark eyes, told in every glance a history of difficulties subdued, and dangers dared, and seemed to challenge opposition to his wishes, for the pleasure of sweeping it from his road by a determined exertion of courage and of will; a deep scar on his brow gave additional sternness to his countenance, and a sinister expression to one of his eyes, which had been slightly injured on the same occasion, and of which the vision, though perfect, was in a slight and partial degree distorted.

a scar, people, a scar!

either way it sounds miles better than the '52 film i remember.

the book also mentions a rival gang to the templars, the hospitallers, they were dressed in black and took over the templar properties after the knights templar were dissolved. but they were also aligned with the french king. ... so they must have been less powerful or else philipp would have had them dissolved as well?



http://www.imalaspina.com/en/malaspina-through-history/military-history/the-malaspinas-and-the-order-of-saint-john-of-jerusalem-order-of-malta.html

there is a very strong family connection with those knights. ippolito, their most famous face, was apparently portrayed here as st jerome by caravaggio. st jerome is the patron saint of translators, i'm thinking that this is an unusual sort of convergence.



and another black knight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward,_the_Black_Prince

Recently however, his name being associated to any misdeeds or brutality have been in doubt by several historians. The greatest stain on Edward's dark reputation was the 1370 sack of Limoges, in which chronicler Jean Froissart describes "It was a most melancholy business – for all ranks, ages and sexes cast themselves on their knees before the prince, begging for mercy; but he was so inflamed with passion and revenge that he listened to none, but all were put to the sword. Upwards of 3,000 men, women and children were put to death that day." However a more contemporary document written by Edward himself was recently discovered in a Spanish archive. The letter was written to the Count of Foix and describes that during the invasion of Limoges the Black Prince took "200 knights and men-at-arms prisoner". A local contemporary source from an abbey at Limoges documented "300 fatalities total in the city." There is no mention of a massacre of 3000 people or more. It is possible Froissart greatly exaggerated the events that gave the Black Prince his name, but possible that Edward did not produce a truthful account of the campaign.

nice bit of rewriting history.

and a comic to celebrate him: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=353

@guardienne

I loved that version of Ivanhoe - Rebecca and the so called 'villain' were much more interesting than the 'good guys'.

Ciaran was also gorgeous.

Sacrebleu wrote:

snufkin wrote:@sacrebleu - Snoke has to have some ace up his sleeve as the Big Bad, but like you said, they aren't explaining it to us yet. It is interesting how scared his is of Luke coming back, like does that mean he'd lose if they matched powers.

@snufkin

That struck me as well.  Why does he seem so afraid of a lone Jedi who vanished years ago?

@Sacrebleu

They'd better have a Hell of backstory planned for him, what his master plan in, how he was able to insinuate his way into that family and influence Ben because Leia and Luke obviously had dealings with him. And that will tie in with whatever they have planned for Luke, although right now the dirty robes and frustrating Rey rumors don't lend themselves to guesses. Whatever it is, you got the impression that he was mostly interested in finding where Luke was so he could blow up the planet. At least now that Hux's toy was taken away from him, he'll have to send Ben there and possibly the blood test to kill Han makes him think that it'll be no problem. More interesting than Luke is whatever connection (and I think that there *has* to be one) he has to Rey and what he'll try to get Ben to do with her.

seeing as i have now finished ivanhoe, i can only say how much i enjoyed it and how much of the plot (with a couple of twists) for TFA were lifted from it, it's pretty astonishing. so if you feel like reading about another heroic villain with pretty warped chivalrous logic, you could probably do a lot worse. i'm not a historian and i'm not interested in historical accuracy but i think that makes it even more applicable as a template of sorts to star wars, because star wars is only ever really concerned with emotional accuracy.

if you fancy it, you can read it here for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/82/82-h/82-h.htm

so, there are a couple of quotes i thought i could lift and share.

“Alas!” said the fair Jewess, “and what is it, valiant knight, save an offering of sacrifice to a demon of vain glory, and a passing through the fire to Moloch?—What remains to you as the prize of all the blood you have spilled—of all the travail and pain you have endured—of all the tears which your deeds have caused, when death hath broken the strong man’s spear, and overtaken the speed of his war-horse?”

“What remains?” cried Ivanhoe; “Glory, maiden, glory! which gilds our sepulchre and embalms our name.”

“Glory?” continued Rebecca; “alas, is the rusted mail which hangs as a hatchment over the champion’s dim and mouldering tomb—is the defaced sculpture of the inscription which the ignorant monk can hardly read to the enquiring pilgrim—are these sufficient rewards for the sacrifice of every kindly affection, for a life spent miserably that ye may make others miserable? Or is there such virtue in the rude rhymes of a wandering bard, that domestic love, kindly affection, peace and happiness, are so wildly bartered, to become the hero of those ballads which vagabond minstrels sing to drunken churls over their evening ale?”

“By the soul of Hereward!” replied the knight impatiently, “thou speakest, maiden, of thou knowest not what. Thou wouldst quench the pure light of chivalry, which alone distinguishes the noble from the base, the gentle knight from the churl and the savage; which rates our life far, far beneath the pitch of our honour; raises us victorious over pain, toil, and suffering, and teaches us to fear no evil but disgrace. Thou art no Christian, Rebecca; and to thee are unknown those high feelings which swell the bosom of a noble maiden when her lover hath done some deed of emprize which sanctions his flame. Chivalry!—why, maiden, she is the nurse of pure and high affection—the stay of the oppressed, the redresser of grievances, the curb of the power of the tyrant—Nobility were but an empty name without her, and liberty finds the best protection in her lance and her sword.”

seeing as rey is a sort of amalgamate of ivanhoe and rebecca, i'm hoping she'll get to have a speech like rebecca does here.

this is brian de bois-guilbert being a progressive templar. it strikes me that for him to become any kind of grand master... well, how bloody likely would that have been? this is him trying to convince rebecca that renunciation is outdated, i think:

within our secret conclaves we hold these nursery tales in derision. Think not we long remained blind to the idiotical folly of our founders, who forswore every delight of life for the pleasure of dying martyrs by hunger, by thirst, and by pestilence, and by the swords of savages, while they vainly strove to defend a barren desert, valuable only in the eyes of superstition. Our Order soon adopted bolder and wider views, and found out a better indemnification for our sacrifices. Our immense possessions in every kingdom of Europe, our high military fame, which brings within our circle the flower of chivalry from every Christian clime—these are dedicated to ends of which our pious founders little dreamed, and which are equally concealed from such weak spirits as embrace our Order on the ancient principles, and whose superstition makes them our passive tools.

he's got a pretty modern outlook going there. his commitment is to being a knight and to glory (just like ivanhoe) but not to renunciation. this is of course in contrast to the actual grandmaster who is nothing if not ascetic (and pretty hateful).

this is at the beginning of rebecca's trial:

When the sounds ceased, the Grand Master glanced his eye slowly around the circle, and observed that the seat of one of the Preceptors was vacant. Brian de Bois-Guilbert, by whom it had been occupied, had left his place, and was now standing near the extreme corner of one of the benches occupied by the Knights Companions of the Temple, one hand extending his long mantle, so as in some degree to hide his face; while the other held his cross-handled sword, with the point of which, sheathed as it was, he was slowly drawing lines upon the oaken floor.

i LOVE how much he doesn't participate. remember this:



here's some of the conflict that i find so interesting. if you have sworn allegiance to something or someone, even if you disagree with parts of the agenda etc, what would possibly make you leave? a better offer? BBG argues this a little:

if I renounce present fame and future ambition, I renounce it for thy sake, and we will escape in company. Listen to me, Rebecca,” he said, again softening his tone; “England,—Europe,—is not the world. There are spheres in which we may act, ample enough even for my ambition. We will go to Palestine, where Conrade, Marquis of Montserrat, is my friend—a friend free as myself from the doting scruples which fetter our free-born reason—rather with Saladin will we league ourselves, than endure the scorn of the bigots whom we contemn.—I will form new paths to greatness,” he continued, again traversing the room with hasty strides—“Europe shall hear the loud step of him she has driven from her sons!—Not the millions whom her crusaders send to slaughter, can do so much to defend Palestine—not the sabres of the thousands and ten thousands of Saracens can hew their way so deep into that land for which nations are striving, as the strength and policy of me and those brethren, who, in despite of yonder old bigot, will adhere to me in good and evil. Thou shalt be a queen, Rebecca—on Mount Carmel shall we pitch the throne which my valour will gain for you, and I will exchange my long-desired batoon for a sceptre!”

“A dream,” said Rebecca; “an empty vision of the night, which, were it a waking reality, affects me not. Enough, that the power which thou mightest acquire, I will never share; nor hold I so light of country or religious faith, as to esteem him who is willing to barter these ties, and cast away the bonds of the Order of which he is a sworn member, in order to gratify an unruly passion for the daughter of another people.—Put not a price on my deliverance, Sir Knight—sell not a deed of generosity—protect the oppressed for the sake of charity, and not for a selfish advantage—Go to the throne of England; Richard will listen to my appeal from these cruel men.”

“Never, Rebecca!” said the Templar, fiercely. “If I renounce my Order, for thee alone will I renounce it—Ambition shall remain mine, if thou refuse my love; I will not be fooled on all hands.—Stoop my crest to Richard?—ask a boon of that heart of pride?—Never, Rebecca, will I place the Order of the Temple at his feet in my person. I may forsake the Order, I never will degrade or betray it.”

and here's scott's version of the dark side, i think, a man corrupted by going to war:

“Thus,” said Rebecca, “do men throw on fate the issue of their own wild passions. But I do forgive thee, Bois-Guilbert, though the author of my early death. There are noble things which cross over thy powerful mind; but it is the garden of the sluggard, and the weeds have rushed up, and conspired to choke the fair and wholesome blossom.”

“Yes,” said the Templar, “I am, Rebecca, as thou hast spoken me, untaught, untamed—and proud, that, amidst a shoal of empty fools and crafty bigots, I have retained the preeminent fortitude that places me above them. I have been a child of battle from my youth upward, high in my views, steady and inflexible in pursuing them. Such must I remain—proud, inflexible, and unchanging; and of this the world shall have proof.”

she is a smart cookie, that rebecca, and a much more interesting character than rowena, the fair maiden, who wins ivanhoe's heart.


one of my favourite bits amongst many was also the moral ambiguity bestowed to robin hood and the merry men. this is a chat between the black knight and the jester:

“Which of these was the good deed, which was the felony?” interrupted the Knight.

“A good gibe! a good gibe!” said Wamba; “keeping witty company sharpeneth the apprehension. You said nothing so well, Sir Knight, I will be sworn, when you held drunken vespers with the bluff Hermit.—But to go on. The merry-men of the forest set off the building of a cottage with the burning of a castle,—the thatching of a choir against the robbing of a church,—the setting free a poor prisoner against the murder of a proud sheriff; or, to come nearer to our point, the deliverance of a Saxon franklin against the burning alive of a Norman baron. Gentle thieves they are, in short, and courteous robbers; but it is ever the luckiest to meet with them when they are at the worst.”

“How so, Wamba?” said the Knight.

“Why, then they have some compunction, and are for making up matters with Heaven. But when they have struck an even balance, Heaven help them with whom they next open the account! The travellers who first met them after their good service at Torquilstone would have a woeful flaying.—And yet,” said Wamba, coming close up to the Knight’s side, “there be companions who are far more dangerous for travellers to meet than yonder outlaws.”

i'm casting the rebellistance as the merry men here, i think it would be interesting to see them explore their own identity as a government funded terrorist organisation. in the OT i guess they become upgraded in the same manner as robin hood's band.

aaaaand i don't wanna spoil the ending

what i think is an important difference amongst all the similarities between kylo ren & BBG is their level of maturity.

guardienne wrote:this is brian de bois-guilbert being a progressive templar. it strikes me that for him to become any kind of grand master... well, how bloody likely would that have been? this is him trying to convince rebecca that renunciation is outdated, i think:

within our secret conclaves we hold these nursery tales in derision. Think not we long remained blind to the idiotical folly of our founders, who forswore every delight of life for the pleasure of dying martyrs by hunger, by thirst, and by pestilence, and by the swords of savages, while they vainly strove to defend a barren desert, valuable only in the eyes of superstition. Our Order soon adopted bolder and wider views, and found out a better indemnification for our sacrifices. Our immense possessions in every kingdom of Europe, our high military fame, which brings within our circle the flower of chivalry from every Christian clime—these are dedicated to ends of which our pious founders little dreamed, and which are equally concealed from such weak spirits as embrace our Order on the ancient principles, and whose superstition makes them our passive tools.

here's some of the conflict that i find so interesting. if you have sworn allegiance to something or someone, even if you disagree with parts of the agenda etc, what would possibly make you leave? a better offer? BBG argues this a little:

if I renounce present fame and future ambition, I renounce it for thy sake, and we will escape in company. Listen to me, Rebecca,” he said, again softening his tone; “England,—Europe,—is not the world. There are spheres in which we may act, ample enough even for my ambition. We will go to Palestine, where Conrade, Marquis of Montserrat, is my friend—a friend free as myself from the doting scruples which fetter our free-born reason—rather with Saladin will we league ourselves, than endure the scorn of the bigots whom we contemn.—I will form new paths to greatness,” he continued, again traversing the room with hasty strides—“Europe shall hear the loud step of him she has driven from her sons!—Not the millions whom her crusaders send to slaughter, can do so much to defend Palestine—not the sabres of the thousands and ten thousands of Saracens can hew their way so deep into that land for which nations are striving, as the strength and policy of me and those brethren, who, in despite of yonder old bigot, will adhere to me in good and evil. Thou shalt be a queen, Rebecca—on Mount Carmel shall we pitch the throne which my valour will gain for you, and I will exchange my long-desired batoon for a sceptre!”

“A dream,” said Rebecca; “an empty vision of the night, which, were it a waking reality, affects me not. Enough, that the power which thou mightest acquire, I will never share; nor hold I so light of country or religious faith, as to esteem him who is willing to barter these ties, and cast away the bonds of the Order of which he is a sworn member, in order to gratify an unruly passion for the daughter of another people.—Put not a price on my deliverance, Sir Knight—sell not a deed of generosity—protect the oppressed for the sake of charity, and not for a selfish advantage—Go to the throne of England; Richard will listen to my appeal from these cruel men.”

“Never, Rebecca!” said the Templar, fiercely. “If I renounce my Order, for thee alone will I renounce it—Ambition shall remain mine, if thou refuse my love; I will not be fooled on all hands.—Stoop my crest to Richard?—ask a boon of that heart of pride?—Never, Rebecca, will I place the Order of the Temple at his feet in my person. I may forsake the Order, I never will degrade or betray it.”

and here's scott's version of the dark side, i think, a man corrupted by going to war:

“Thus,” said Rebecca, “do men throw on fate the issue of their own wild passions. But I do forgive thee, Bois-Guilbert, though the author of my early death. There are noble things which cross over thy powerful mind; but it is the garden of the sluggard, and the weeds have rushed up, and conspired to choke the fair and wholesome blossom.”

“Yes,” said the Templar, “I am, Rebecca, as thou hast spoken me, untaught, untamed—and proud, that, amidst a shoal of empty fools and crafty bigots, I have retained the preeminent fortitude that places me above them. I have been a child of battle from my youth upward, high in my views, steady and inflexible in pursuing them. Such must I remain—proud, inflexible, and unchanging; and of this the world shall have proof.”

@guardienne

Oh my god, some great speeches and dialogue in that book!  But what happened to the "Like" button on this site?  I'm not seeing any.

@sacrebleu it's a technical hitch most likely. or we have regressed...

there is a little plus and minus next to everyone's avatar that you can click. presumably it'll go back to the normal button soon.

they are very articulate people in ivanhoe. i kinda love that star wars isn't that articulate and verbose. but it's great in a book with people eloquently arguing their points. i'm still planning on seeing the bbc telly series so will see how much of the verbosity they've cut.

guardienne wrote:they are very articulate people in ivanhoe. i kinda love that star wars isn't that articulate and verbose. but it's great in a book with people eloquently arguing their points. i'm still planning on seeing the bbc telly series so will see how much of the verbosity they've cut.

@guardienne

Not really related, or perhaps only tangentially related, but your mention of articulate reminded me of a Ken Burns Civil War documentary series I saw on television many years ago.  Throughout the series they read excerpts of letters sent during that time, including from soldiers.  They were so beautifully written!  When letters were the only way to communicate with people at a distance, that practice really honed their writing skills.

My dog, much as I adore him, doesn't seem to appreciate my monologues.  I think he would prefer me to be a human

@sacrebleu yes, i do fear that language is getting poorer. i suppose 1984 portrays sort of the epitome of that anxiety, but i'm against censoring words out of the language. i'm all for teaching proper meaning. i love it when people understand precise meaning.

i feel now that when i write, my language has shifted very far towards the spoken word, it's only when there is time that i can properly hone what it is that i want to say. it's a certain carelessness.

i think scott was aiming for a particular feel. or perhaps that's what 19th century conversation style was like...