There had been lot of debate regarding the whole “How Leia remembers Padmé” issue. Some people say that it was a major retcon of the PT, other say that Leia was remembering his adoptive mother, Breha Organa, because there is no way that a newborn would remember her mother.
However, during my Star Wars rewatch, I figured that it’s not unplausible or impossible that Leia has memories of Padmé. And here is why.
In The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda tells Luke about the Force:
"Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future…the past. Old friends long gone”
Leia is Force-sensitive. Like her father and twin brother, she has a great amount of midichlorians running in her veins, and thus, is possible that may had more consciousness than an average newborn. The Revenge of the Sith novelization even points that Leia was born with her eyes open (in contrast to Luke, who was with his eyes tight shut during their birth) and looked in direction to Padmé as if she wanted to “memorize her face”. On top of that, Leia mentions to Luke that she only remembers “images, feelings”, nothing concrete. No flashbacks, no memories, just images and feelings.
You can even argue that Leia may had Force visions of Padmé and she confuses with memories. Who knows if she, as a young child, saw Padmé in her dreams? Images of Padmé in her last days, in Naboo, or during her dying moments? Inside the movie, the moment they focus Padmé’s face as she dies, we don’t get to see the other side of her bed. Probably the droid who held baby Leia moved to her side and showed her her daughter and BUM! Mother-daughter bonding, and Leia gained visions or precocious memories of Padmé.
Now I want more Padmé-Leia mother-daughter bonding stories.
Today I read an article about Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who in the Arts and Books section of the Independent on Sunday. In this article, by Stephen Kelly, Moffat is criticised for his inability to write women, to complete his plots, to write the Doctor as a likeable and trustworthy figure, and to keep his audience entertained. Yet one line in this frankly scathing (and almost painfully truthful) review reads: ‘When on form, Steven Moffat is the best writer working in television today’.
Having read said article, and written rather a lot of Moffat critique myself, the statement baffled me. Kelly’s entire article is lamenting the current state of Doctor Who at the hands of this man, and yet Moffat is still gifted with glowing praise.
It’s a common theme. I see it often when people are asked to review Moffat’s work. It seems people are almost afraid of criticising him, seeing as he has been lauded one of Britain’s most brilliant television writers.
It’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes. The Myth of Moffat’s Scriptwriting ‘Genius’. It’s a lie we’ve all absorbed and now just assume to be true. Sherlock himself would be frankly appalled by the entire thing. We are seeing, but we apparently do not observe.
Fellow Sherlock watchers will know what I mean (although many will probably not agree) when I equate Moffat’s writing to the empty houses of Leinster Gardens. An empty façade. It looks great from the outside, but when you step closer, you realise it’s just a whopping great train station with some drugged up self-proclaimed sociopath lurking in it.
Let’s examine this case a little closer, shall we?
steve in cap 1: fights men 3x his size, lies about who he is multiple times to try and enlist, literally steals like multiple planes, runs around the forest with no back up to save his bffl, probably doesn’t even know what a court martial is and probably doesn’t even care
steve in the avengers: WE MUST FOLLWO ORDERS!!! TONY NO!!!!! *gets beat up*
Okay, I am gonna call some bullshit on this. Steve DID follow orders in the First Avenger. Do you think he wanted to be the poster boy for the war? Do you think he wanted to go all over the country doing stage shows? No, he didn’t. Not even remotely. But those were his orders and that was his way of doing his part. If Steve always defied orders there would be nothing powerful about him continuing to sign up for the army. Or about him storming that base to go save Bucky. And yes, Steve DOES know what a court martial is and the weight of his actions when he breaks the law. Hence his reaction when he thinks his ass is caught when Eskrine calls the MPs in at the start of First Avenger. Also, you can’t be DEFYING orders if you don’t understand the consequences, so your ‘he doesn’t know what a court martial’ is goes straight against your argument, but I digress.
Steve was awake for 10 days when The Avengers started. He was still dealing with the loss of his best friend, and still in the mind frame that he was supposed to die. The world around him is completely different, and everyone he knew is dead or dying. Steve also did not understand at this point the dynamics of SHIELD or the situation they were in. He followed orders because WHAT ELSE WAS HE SUPPOSED TO DO? He didn’t have the information needed or reason to defy anything. That fact is what makes what he does in Winter Soldier as powerful as it is. Because we see in two years that he has come to understand SHIELD, and come to understand this world and is now in a place where he CAN defy orders and stand up for what he believes. In The Avengers, Steve doesn’t HAVE anything to believe in or anything to defy orders for. That is the point. He’s lost and alone and has no personal motivation.
I would also stress that SHIELD was PEGGY’S before it was Nick Fury’s. So maybe, just maybe, Steve felt that by following SHIELD’s orders, he was following Peggy’s. Maybe this too was a point of connection to his past…that if he stuck with SHIELD and did as he was told, then he was honoring the people from his past in some way.
Steve in The Avengers is damaged, and in shock. And to expect him to be exactly the Steve he was before that plane went down is incredibly foolhardy and absolutely missing the point. Yes, Steve is defiant, but he also above all else wants to HELP PEOPLE and if following orders is what helps them, then that is what he does. If defying orders is what helps them then THAT is what he does. He doesn’t defy for no reason.
So, here’s a thought:
The types of fandom that are most often considered traditional and acceptable, and which are often either male-dominated or coded as masculine, tend to be acquisitive, whether in terms of knowledge (obscure trivia) or merchandise (collectibles). Whereas, by contrast, the types of fandom most often considered insincere, non-serious or “unreal”, and which are often either female-dominated or coded as feminine, tend to be creative, such as making costumes, writing fanfic and drawing fanart.
Which is arguably an interesting expression of gender dynamics within fandom, in the sense of being a direct response to gender representation within the canon of particular franchises: namely, that because men, and particularly straight white cismen, are so ubiquitous within popular narrative(s), they have less need to create personal fan interpretations in order to see themselves represented, or to correct/ameliorate stereotypical portrayals; whereas women - and, indeed, members of any other group likely to suffer from poor representation - do.
Which isn’t to say that it’s impossible to be both an acquisitive and a creative fan - not by any stretch of the imagination. Nor am I trying to say that the only reason someone might be an acquisitive fan is because they’re complacent about issues of bias and representation, or that the only reason someone might be a creative fan is because they want to address an issue in the canon. Some people like to collect, some like to make, and some like both, or neither. It’s fine! But I do think that, when it comes to conversations about Fake Geek Girls and what being a “real fan” means - conversations which tend to be strongly gendered - the split between acquisition/creation tends to follow gender lines, too: that guys who know All The Facts and buy All The Merch are the REAL fans, whereas girls who just dress up and tell silly headcanon stories aren’t, and that maybe, there’s an interesting reason for why this might be.
[bolded for emphasis]
This is interesting. Especially because an extrapolation from that is that the ‘orthodox’, ‘traditional’ mode of interacting with a work - knowing, staying close to the first interpretation, valuing the refusal to budge from those first interpretations over being inclusive and fluid - is therefore masculine-coded, but it’s feminine-coded to be canonically fluid, intensely metacritical, artistically motivated, and to encourage creative deconstruction and reconstruction.
Which is probably a sliver of the backlash that grows into the Fake Geek Girl conversation - that people think the ‘text’ of their fandom ‘faith’ shouldn’t be tampered with or recontextualized, whereas other people insist that it has to evolve to meet the needs of the people who it serves?
I’m not sure how it accommodates for works like Welcome to Night Vale (a really good place, I think to discuss fandoms and their interactions with media), where the literalism of its canon is the establishment that blanks are required to be filled in by the audience. Fan-created artwork of any type, arguably, is as valuable a ‘history’ of Night Vale as Cecil’s radio show, because so many details are up in the air anyway, and have to be informed by the information you do still have (e.g. nothing says Cecil can’t be a blob, so what would it mean if he were a blob?).
This is absolutely fascinating to me now, and will surely make up a large part of actual notes I have about what I can now call ‘exegetical fandom theory’ and how people interact with and alter media.
Reblogging for commentary, and because the divide between literalism/exegesis is another fascinating lens through which to examine both fandom generally, and its gender dynamics.
During the scene when Mulan decides to go to war instead of her father, she decides to do it while sitting on the foot of the Great Stone Dragon. The image of the dragon looking over Mulan is repeated several times throughout the sequence, and the bolts of lightning strike at significant times whenever the dragon is in sight. When Mulan takes her father’s scroll and when she is praying to her ancestors, the Great Stone Dragon can be seen. It is also engraved on the sword Mulan uses to cut her hair and the handles of the wardrobe containing the armor are in the shape of the dragon’s head. The dragon’s eyes glowing in the temple symbolizes Mulan’s role as protector of her family awakening, instead of the actual dragon.
The reason Mushu couldn’t wake the dragon is because the dragon was no longer there. Mulan is implied to be the Great Dragon that protects her family.
Questions you should ask yourself about your Strong Female Character. From this excellent article: http://t.co/efkvvUqsum
ugh, like there is LITERALLY no canonical evidence for the ~han solo: space womanizer~ head canon. like, when he first meets the ONE female character in the entire series that he interacts with he is GROUCHY and SHOUTY at her, not sauve and dashing. she thinks he is a tool and tells him this multiple times. not really smooth and charming.
he then takes to following her around on Hoth and practically pulling her pigtails asking ” DO YOU LIKE ME? YES/NO? (PLS SAY YES)” with hearts in his eyes. (Chewie probably had to throw out like a HALF DOZEN old notebooks that were filled with awful power ballads/poetry/odes to her and “Mr. Han Organa” written in different fonts)
when it comes to the iconic ‘i know’ in response to Leia’s proclamation of love, Ford has stated that it’s out of PURE CONCERN for HER FEELINGS (“the point is that I’m not worried about myself anymore, I’m worried about her” - DIRECT QUOTE), it was NOT a ‘boss’ move or ‘so swagtastic it hurts’ it was an apology that he couldn’t be there for her, it was an attempt to make her smile, to make it hurt less than if he had said the words too and then was forced to leave her. (not that he would have been much help; remember that han solo spends the majority of the 3rd film mostly blind and feeble, unable to take care of himself and generally getting in the way while Leia Gets Shit Done)
when he does say the words, it’s with the most adoring and awestruck expression. those words are fused with more than just love and respect. he’s almost HONOURED that he gets to love this badass babe and that she allows him to exist in her orbit.
AND THEN he loves Leia so much that he’s willing to step aside so she can be happy with the man he believes she wants. and valuing a woman’s choices and feelings over your own is not exactly womanizing behaviour - so where did this headcanon come from??
I’ve been rereading The Silmarillion, and one of the first things to come back to me is how much I love dwarves. They’re cantankerous jewish engineers, so basically my people, and I will never forgive the stupid racist elves for writing them out of the narrative. There’s so much about their civilization that we don’t know, and I’ve been wondering what they eat. Dwarves have a complex society that exists completely underground. Underground means no light, and no light means no agriculture, which means no permanent settlements. I’m going to try to apply science to this situation (never a good idea with Tolkien) and figure out what was going on. There’s also a brief aside on the Moriquendi in the days of the trees, because they have a similar problem.
Guardians of the Galaxy is the first Marvel movie with a woman as one of the credited writers.
Nicole Perlman drafted the original screenplay while on a two-year writer’s contract at Marvel Studios, before handing her work over to James Gunn for rewrites in 2012. After that she had little to no influence on the outcome of the film, and my theory is that among various other edits, Gunn’s additions included GotG's handful of weird and jarring attempts at sexist humor.
Back when Gunn was first hired to direct GotG, many fans were apprehensive due to his history of offensive comments online, including a rather gross and sexist blog post titled “50 Superheroes You Want To Have Sex With.” More than 5,000 people signed one of those usually-pointless Change.org petitions, and Gunn went on to give a sincere apology explaining that the blog post (which was more than a year old at that point) had been an attempt at satire, and that he no longer found it funny.
In this context, it’s pretty easy to imagine what happened with Guardians of the Galaxy: Gunn genuinely went out to create a film with “strong female characters” and was savvy enough to include a basic Bechdel pass. But then secure in the knowledge that he was meeting that goal, he failed to realize that jokes about prostitution and background characters like the Collector’s assistant and Peter Quill’s one-night-stands would serve to undermine those intentions.
Can we just stop and talk about this for a minute?
Thresh doesn’t make an alliance. Thresh doesn’t waste time liking her. Thresh knows that either he must kill her or she must kill him for one of them to win.
But this is the only way he can repay her for protecting Rue when he couldn’t. It’s the only way he can repay her for honoring Rue when he couldn’t. He honors her by sparing her friend, the girl who would have died for her.
The revolution really doesn’t start with Katniss.
It starts with Rue.
SOMEBODY FINALLY SAID IT
This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make for years. Okay, so the revolution gets it’s kindling with Katniss. She volunteers, well that’s new, she rebels in the display of talents by shooting the apple. This triggers her perfect score, okay. These aren’t really “Revolutionary” though.
It’s not even revolutionary when Peeta professes his love, because, let’s face it, the rules of the game haven’t changed. They’re still just two kids who would have to KILL each other to win. Without a doubt, it would bring some interest to the games, so the Capitol makes propaganda about it. The “Star Crossed Lovers” in a game of life and death.
But what changes the game is Rue. Right away from her introduction in the books we know Rue is going to be somewhat of a big deal. She was compared to the most important character to Katniss, Prim, so that’s a huge indicator. She’s small, young, she’s what Prim would have been.
So Katniss instantly feels a subconscious pull toward her.
When they meet in the trees, Katniss could have killed Rue easily, and Rue probably could have pulled a sneak attack or alerted the Careers of Katniss’s presence. Instead, Rue points out the Tracker Jacker nest.
Then it escalates, Rue and Katniss become an odd team, they’re an alliance, which is never new in the Hunger Games, as forming teams and then betraying them at the end seems to be a common, but there’s is different. It’s close, it’s sisterly, protective.
And then Rue get’s impaled. Katniss kills her first tribute with ease after that. Comparing it to hunting game. Katniss holds Rue, she cries, and then she sings. She sings for Rue a song of promised safety and warmth, something completely absent in the arena.
And this is where the metaphorical canon fires. Katniss could have left Rue, the hovercraft would have been along to pick her up, but she can’t. She’s morally obligated to love this girl as much as possible. And this is where the revolution starts.
She honors the dead. She honors a dead tribute from a district she’d never seen, a person she’d known for only a short period of time. But she throws away Hunger Games norms. She rejects them completely.
In the Hunger Games you’re supposed to kill mercilessly and leave the victims for the plain box they’re shipped home in.
Katniss gives Rue a funeral in the Games, she decorates the body, she makes it look like Rue is sleeping. Like no harm had come. Katniss just ignited the coals that Rue had placed.
Rue’s District sends a parachute. Homemade bread.
Then Thresh kills Clove and distracts Cato by taking his bag.
The fire is going now, and the actions in Catching Fire are even more obvious.
The Speech for Rue. Peeta’s painting. Everything eludes back to this one little girl who became Katniss’s family.
So the revolution never started with Katniss, she was just the tinder for Rue’s ignition.
Rue was the real Mockingjay.
Also, who’s four note whistle is constantly attached to the trailers?
Rue is omnipresent in the books and movies, and I absolutely love it.
The rebellion was started because the innocence of a black girl was defiled.
That is a powerful statement that a lot of people gloss over for this book