Of Zerg and Protoss: Or, Why Jesus Came to Die

So today in church, we were singing about how Jesus died for us. How He paid it all, how sin had left a crimson stain, and He washed it white as snow.

And I was thinking about StarCraft 1 and Brood War, how Jim's friend Sarah gets infested and turned into a Zerg queen. And in StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty, how Jim cares so much more about Sarah being unzerged, than if he dies in the attempt.

What Zerg are like...what Jim had to fight on their homeworld, Char

 How he fights his way into the mouth of Hell (Char) and faces swarms of Zerg, faces Zerged Sarah (Queen of Blades) mocking him how she's going to kill/infest him, all for the slimmest crazy chance that she might be uninfested, made her true self again.

Sarah Kerrigan, Zerged, or "Queen of Blades"

And how in the antithetical (and shoddy) sequel StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, all of a sudden zerg-infestation is supposed to be fine (sweeping the 8 billion deaths, atrocities, and people going mad from horror under the rug) and dandy, and ol' judgmental Jim just has to learn to embrace the Zerg or he's not being nice to Sarah.That he has to accept her Zerged self, or he's rejecting her.

And I was muttering to myself, of how antithetical Heart of the Swarm was to Wings of Liberty (and StarCraft 1 and Brood War...).
How in Wings of Liberty, Jim absolutely hates the Zerg, how he hates what Sarah has done as Queen of Blades (he grieves over the 8 billion people she killed, plus some of his friends), and yet, he loves Sarah. He carries around her picture of her before she was Zerged, and throws his life away on the slimmest unproven glimmer of a chance, that she can be purified, and made herself again.

And I was thinking, how the refusal to see a distinction between the sin/disease and the person/true self/soul, is a very common malady in our culture. The example that came to mind, is how gay friends tell you that in not accepting their lifestyle, you aren't accepting them. To condemn their lifestyle, is to be hateful, is to be personally reject them. If you love them, the only option is to accept homosexuality as fine and say nothing's wrong. Even if you know it's hurting them.

And then, as we sang how Jesus died to save us from our sins, it hit me.

Homosexuality is not something I struggle with, and so it seemed so clear to me how hating the sin is not hating the person who struggles with it.
But what about the multitude of my own sins? I minimize them. I think its not such a big deal. I resent God for insisting my sin has such colossal magnitude, for being so demanding in setting such a high price for their forgiveness, but hey, at least He was willing to pay for it. Um, Okay God, I guess my sin deserved death and hell and all. Whatever you want, name the price. At least I'm off the hook now, with your crucifixion and all....

I don't really see my sins for the horror of what they truly are.

When we say "Jesus died to save us from God's eternal punishment of Hell" or "Jesus died to satisfy the wrath of God" we miss the point, we only see the half, and that the lesser half.

It is infinitely preferable to be nuked by the quarantining Protoss (they purge infected worlds), than to be infested by Zerg.

The purging Protoss, they try to quarantine the Zerg virus

The first stages of Zerg infestation

 Jesus didn't so much come to make sure the mean ol' Protoss don't nuke us. He came to save us from Zergness. From infestation. From sin. 

 I get that Zerg infestation is horrific. It makes my soul shudder. Not so much for what they look like---they get mutated more and more into monsters--- but for what they do while infested---slaves to obeying the Overmind/Queen of Blades, killing and destroying life, infecting other humans.

Sin (my sin!) is like Zerg Infestation. Its really that gross. That soul eating. That mind-twisting. That diabolical. That horrific. And only Jesus, only God, really sees it to the depth of what it is, sees and feels the horror of what it is. Knows what it is, as only his uninfected eyes can truly see.


First, He made Himself unpopular, by telling us we got issues.

 I like being Zerg. You've got a problem with that?! (Kerrigan, zerged, Brood War)

 

And Jesus came here. To our world, to people like us, who didn't think there was that much of a problem with it, Isn't God a bit harsh in the Law, meting out death for bowing to a little idol, alternate sexual choices, cheating on your wife, and hitting your Dad? Hey Jesus, why are you making such a big deal with lust and money and all? And why are you getting rid of easy divorce?! If this is how strict you're gonna be, its better not to get married...If my hand causes me to sin, cut it off?!? Sheesh. Jesus, you're so...high-strung about all this.


And he felt the abomination of it all as only the Protoss feel the horror of the Zerg-infestation, as only one with such clear uninfected, all knowing, pure eyes could see it. He saw it, he felt it, for what it was.

And He took that sickness, that makes his soul shudder in horror and wrath....

And He took it on Himself.

He who knew no sin, became sin for us.
He bore our transgressions.
Took the unclean thing upon Himself, bearing the full weight of its horror, and then died as the sacrifice.

So that His blood could un-Zerg us.

So that we could be our true selves again. The way He meant for us to be.

Sarah Kerrigan's true self, Jim's picture.

Till Death Do Us Part...or Not. The Affair Clause, True Love, and Christian Marriage

What is marriage? Is it a contract, a mutual agreement to mutual benefit? A finding of one's other half, one's soulmate, the love of one's life?


I was scarred for life, watching "Spanglish" as a 14 yr old. Its a story about an immigrant from Mexico, who comes to nanny for a wealthy American family (2 kids and a grandma, Dad is a chef, Mom is obsessed with health and exercise).

Never show this at some self-proclaimed "Youth Retreat."
Trust me, it will just scar the kids....

The Dad is frustrated with the Mom's constant nagging of the kids to lose weight, her obsessions, her insensitivity to her kids, and her general selfishness.
In the course of the movie, the Dad starts having feelings for the nanny who lovingly takes care of his kids.
 He even complains to the nanny about his wife. But what am I saying? Ofcourse it was all so sweet and nice and wistful, because goshdarnit, he just didn't have grounds to divorce his selfish wife.

(Sidenote, so everything in me was screaming here, a somewhat clueless foreign single-mom poor working woman struggling with English and her employer...yeah definitely a power differential there...But even sweeping that under the rug, it stinks. And here's why.)

Then his wife had an affair, and amid sadness....oh the glee. I felt it, the subtle glee. The 'get out of jail free' card. The freedom to now pursue that true love of your life....

It was the glee that disturbed me. Even if it were subtle and small amid crushing grief (I really can't remember what the ratios were, as I was in and out at that point, it was so bad). Even the smallest amount of relief, relief that now you have reason to love someone else (someone a lot kinder and sweeter and nicer)---mixed in whatever sorrow or betrayal he felt, totally smelled 'off'. Something was horribly, horribly wrong.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable and does not count up wrongdoing, it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.   


I never really got the second part. The first part made sense "does not count up wrongdoing", we all keep lists in our minds, of what someone's done to hurt us. Holding on to it in pain or wrath. But why would we rejoice at being hurt? Here is an example, because it finally gives us the right to say "Alright, this really was it, you crossed the big red line, I'm out"

So that glee was disturbing. Really disturbing. But even taking that glee out, there still is more wrong with this.

It didn't hit home to me until watching an episode of Downtown Abbey.

Anna and Mr. Bates, the happy couple

Mr. Bates has an estranged marriage to Vera, a woman who the show assures us, has not been faithful to him. And then there's pretty little sensible Anna.
And they fall in love!
And his first wife stank anyway, plus she's estranged anyhow.
And then Mr. Bates and Anna get engaged!
And his first wife who stank anyhow kills herself. Oh no! Now everyone thinks Mr. Bates did it? And Anna, in a heroic act of love, marries him just before he's jailed, so that she can be his next of kin at the trial. And they have a quick little wedding, in which she vows to love him forever till death do them part. And they wake up happily after their wedding night, in love. And then he gets hauled off to jail.
I think we are all supposed to be thinking how sweet it is, and about how unconditionally she loves him and all.


I was roaring mad. Ok, here, no glee. But still.

Vera may have cheated on him, and been a total flake, and killed herself. But she was still his wife. And he's happily got engaged to the cuter, nicer, moral-er, kinder girl. And when she killed herself, now a great barrier has thrown itself against True Love, but True Love shall prevail.
Right.

Till death do us part.

Unless you screw up and cheat on me, then I'm out.

Right.

I've always hated how unpoetically the world explained marriage.
A contract of mutual benefit, of mutual emotional feedback (I'm in love with you, you're in love with me), of financial, sexual, friendship benefit. The anti-marriage types mocked it for that.

You say its so holy and special, but really, its all a deal. He gives her social status/income/backrubs, she gives him sex/babies/clean house/cute armcandy.

No no! (Some) Feminists cry, they are equals now, the patrimony has passed. They balance things, with their 2 careers and their mutual respect and mutual sexual benefit. It's so mutual and rational and chosen!

But that's still a contract. A better organized one, but still, its a contract.  My end of the deal, your end of the deal. You hold up your end, I'll hold up mine. We both benefit.

No no! The romantics cry, they are IN LOVE. They love each other. Its love that is so important, and beautiful, and makes the world work. Love will climb the highest mountain. Walk 10,000  miles to be the man who falls down at your door....

But its still a contract (albeit an implicit one). They're in love. Its easy to sacrifice for someone you are in love with. In love-ness passes. I have heard women say "I had to leave x, we weren't in love anymore".  To still maintain the now-dead union would be 'living a lie'. So it still is about give and take, profit and loss. He's in love with her, she's in love with him. If one side dries up, we either get romantic comedies about rekindling the fire (and thus justify the union) or we get a divorce, and find a new person the real 'love of your life' that kindles the right emotions, the true soul-mate whom you were really meant to be with forever....


If marriage is a contract, a contract where each person supplies their bit, and if the other party doesn't cut it as promised, well its over. And we are free to look for the real love of our lives...

It boils down to profit and loss. You give your bit, I'll give mine. Marriage may talk about love, but it's really love for self. If self isn't loved right by the other, than the other is toast. Love is selfish, is Darwinian, is about propagation of the genes and ego-stroking. Its all about feeling fulfilled, getting your half of the pie. Its no better than cohabiting or anything else that people want. Its a social construct.

No no! The Christians cry, GOD HAS JOINED THEM TOGETHER, ITS HOLY, ITS SPECIAL!

We say, its not just about getting your half of the pie. It's about dying to yourself. It's about God making two one flesh. It's about God using this other person to refine and purify you and make you holy. It's sacramental. It's till death do us part. It's about being companions on the road to the New Jerusalem. Its holy, its beautiful, its something big and irrevocable and ordained by God. We have our wedding services, with Scripture readings and prayers and eternal vows before God, swearing before witnesses to love "Till death do us part."


But then there's divorce.

I have heard some Christians say that a husband's refusal to get a job qualifies as "financial abandonment" and the wife is free to get a divorce and remarry. I have heard some Christians argue that if a husband looks at porn, his wife is free to divorce and remarry. I have heard some Christians argue, that if we look back and realize that one of the parties didn't REALLY mean it, then we are free to say the marriage never happened, and divorce and remarry....

But I'm going to put those all aside for now, as the empty justifications that they are.

What about the 'affair clause', the one exception in the New Testament? I have yet to meet a church that denied the validity of that escape hatch, that loophole.

Adultery is a betrayal of the deepest kind. I am not at all surprised it often ends in vengeful spouses and murder. I totally get that.

 And I can see a case made for separation.

But for remarriage? The nevermind-it-doesn't-count-anymore, he's had sex with someone else, feel free to find a better man to marry, to love, and to have sex with....


And Christian marriage can be tainted. It still has such higher standards than the world's definition of marriage. She still has to love him if he's insane or poor or immature, and she no longer has feelings for him. But then, it's still a contract. If one party commits sexual sin, then it dissolves. Feel free to move on. It doesn't count anymore.
The affair clause boils down to "don't worry, he had grounds for a divorce", he had every right to move on. We can be happy that Mr Bates and Anna found true love.

If we're being honest with ourselves, we should then swear "Till death (or adultery) do us part"....

Because swearing "till death do us part", swearing the irrevocable promise of self sacrificial love is saying marriage is more than a contract. It's saying marriage is something holy and irrevocable and permanent. But with the affair clause, its only irrevocable and permanent if you hold up your end of the deal (not committing adultery). If the other breaks it, then it dissolves, you 'have a right' to move on with someone else, its over.

Yes, Matthew 5 is in the Bible.
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


But so is Ephesians 5.
 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.


The Bible tells a tale, of how a Holy God loved an unholy people. He saved them, he purified them, put them in a land flowing with milk and honey. And he made a covenant with them. A contract. They were to have no other gods, and He was to be their God. They would be His people, and He would be their God.
And they betrayed him. And they went after other gods. And they forgot Him, wanted nothing to do with Him. And they sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons.
They had broken the covenant. They had dissolved the contract. And now, all that was left was the punishment they were due.
And He came. He came to the land He had given them. And found his lost Bride, who had betrayed Him. And He took her place, he took the punishment. And died for her.
And He bound himself to her in a new covenant, a covenant sealed with His blood. And he carries her and purifies her, till the day that he brings her home, clean, pure, spotless of all her betrayals, holy and beautiful at the great wedding feast of the Lamb.

That is how Christ loved the church. That is how we are to love one another. That is what marriage is was designed to mirror, this great and holy mystery of Christ's love for His bride.

Why Timothy Zahn understands women and Michael Stackpole does not OR Why only Zahn's Star Wars Books Should Be Canon

So, after sneering at the Star Wars books my whole life as pulp fiction, then being pleasantly surprised by the gripping Thrawn Trilogy and Hand of Thrawn duo, I boldly sallied forth to the "Sci Fi" section of the used bookstore. It was a bewildering place, full of garishly colored covers with strange aliens and melodramatic titles, all on those small fat volumes that I had spent most of my life avoiding. But my husband's birthday was in a few days, and with the best bits of the Thrawn books still ringing in my ears, I looked at  the section with new respect, thinking what deep questions or compelling characters lay buried behind those garish paperbacks.
I bought him the first 3 books of the "Exciting New (in '96) X-Wing Series!", its cover illustrations glam shots of X wings, Tie fighters, and space stations, downright respectable looking.

Well.

It made me realize how much Zahn really understood women, and (cough, cough) The Universe (because we're just that important).

So, Zahn understands how women tick. He knows they want respect, and more importantly, what kind of respect.

He knows what they find attractive in a guy. And what behaviour impresses them, especially even after he's let you down.

He knows how they feel about their honor, past relationships, children, and loyalty.  He knows how they want to seem, how they want to be portrayed, and especially how they fight (with guys).

And Stackpole...well....almost all the characters feel very flat. The drama is somewhat high-schoolerish. The badguys cackle melodramatically (kinda). The goodguys are of the "I'll never surrender to you, Duku!" variety. And the women......
In the very first book "Rogue Squadron" the main girl finds herself thinking the main boy is awesome, despite not wanting to, because his dad did something mean to her dad. Oh the romantic tension! Very standard so far, girl with mixed feelings for guy, what is she to do?

Mara's (ala Zahn) solution:
Beat him up or try to kill him or avoid him

Mirax's (ala Stackpole) solution.
Hit on him, to try to hook up with him, so she'll despise him, so she won't think he's awesome, so she remains loyal to her Dad in not liking this guy.

I humbly suggest this as the new cover to Rogue Squadron.

And in the meantime, I declare only Zahn's books to be Star Wars Canon for books.

Zahn's star wars books were infinitely superior.  First off, his characters operated in a world that felt like, well, a world with old people, and kids, and convoluted mid-life crises grownups, and young people, etc. Stackpole's world feels like a perpetual high school world, populated only by high schoolers.
Secondly,  HIS WOMEN ACTED LIKE REAL WOMEN. They think, fight, and show their loyalty, like real women. And best of all, they're kinda awesome. And they don't throw themselves at guys in convoluted logic circles to make themselves not like them. And the guys that like them actually respect them, a lot. And the women also have awesome ninja skills, which they don't use to wantonly kill, but to protect those they are fiercely loyal to, like she-bears.
Thirdly, there is a moral structure to the universe. It's implied. You see stable marriages. You see a husband holding his wife while she's going through labor. You see farmers getting in TIE fighters to defend their homes, you see the hero fight like a teenager and then humbly apologize, you see the bitterness that tears apart worlds when race crimes are not forgiven, you see people bothered by sketchy pasts, you see a middle aged man trying to make things right with his octogenarian mentor, and you see a woman looking through the dysfunctions of her friend-turned-assassin and choose to love and choose to forgive. Its a moral universe that feels real. That has real repurcussions to things. In which dying to yourself, and protecting the weak, and repenting of pride, and forgiveness is the only way to peace.

It is a world which has a sky.

5 Things That Make Me Happy

Things that make me happy.

#1
 Memories of climbing this mountain, looking like a Lord of the Rings set. Seriously, God didn't have to make these obscure harsh places of the world so beautiful, but he did. (Independence Pass, CO)

Was there a couple weeks ago. Sniff. It was so beautiful.

#2
Clouds. Especially clouds catching the light.

I took this out of a car window, a car that was moving. Thus the blurriness....

#3
 Isaiah wearing big floppy hats (he usually prefers baseball caps, backwards)

 #4
 My Medieval-Inspired Tunic I made, that makes me feel AWESOME. Like Shada D'ukal. Or someone from Lord of the Rings. Or someone just awesome. Its actually quite simple to make, is easy to nurse in, and makes the wearer feel awesome. Tutorial coming soon. (Josh told me I looked like his idea of a girl Jedi in it :) Most romantic husband ever!)

Ignore the weird face. But the picture shows the tunic well.

#5 These people being happy. They started out with a dream and sheer Chutzpah. Doing impossible things, because they were too young to realize it, and so they did them anyway....
 I love them for it.

Burns Family Studios evidently watching a stunt http://beyondthemaskmovie.com/site/2012/uncategorized/day-47/

#6

JOSH CAUGHT ON (MY) CAMERA SMILING!!!!

Seriously, this is a rare rare rare event. He hates cameras, and makes a Classic Josh Why-are-you-ruining-this-moment-with-a-camera face, modeled in 99.9% of all the pictures that I have of him. Which is very distorted impression for posterity, since he only makes that face for cameras. So I slyly took this picture while he was talking to Micah. It pleases me muchly :)

Star Wars Hair Styles

As a kid, my Daddy took us to see the rerelease of Episode IV of Star Wars in theaters. I'd tried to to the hair before, but never got any where, as Alderanians evidently either have about 4x the hair thickness and volume as the rest of us humans have, or Princess Leia used hair extensions. I think I'll opt for the former.

LEIA HAIR #1(Classic) Her buns on either side of her head are about 2x the size of my entire head of hair

LEIA HAIR #2 (Ceremony) SO MUCH GLORIOUS HAIR

I'd seen wigs for the Leia Classic hair, but they all looked, um, like wigs. I'd even attempted once with hair pins to make my sister Leah's hair do this, but despite her God-given incredibly thick hair (jealousy alert, sob sob), I couldn't get it to stay firmly.  So I gave it up as only a wig-possible type of hair. And not being into wigs, I just gave up on it.

THEN I SAW THIS

From this awesome website http://increasinglydomestic.blogspot.com/2012/11/handmade-princess-leia-costume.html

Amy at Increasingly Domestic used sock buns to make her daughter the most convincing Princess Leia classic hairstyle I'd ever seen. SHE LOOKS AWESOME.

It looks infinitely more beautiful than wigs, is secure and comfortable and relatively lightweight. Best of all, your hair doesn't even need to be particularly long or even thick to do this. And you can just use old socks...


SO now that I am inspired by this sock bun technique to try a few Leia hairstyles, as well as invent a few Star-Wars universe (not the travesty that is Ep I-III) plausible styles that I think people like Shada D'ukal would have worn.
This is going to be fun.

Coming Soon, tutorials on....

1. Leia classic (2 buns) (Ep IV)
2. Leia ceremonial (Ep IV)
3. Leia at Bespin (with one sock bun) (Ep V)
4. Leia's crown braid (Already done, tutorial coming) (Ep V)



About Shada D'ukal's hair, all we know from  Zahn[i.e. the only canonical Star Wars writer in Hannah's Star Wars Canon) (and if there's a comic book out there with her pretense of her likeness, forget it) is that Shada wore her hair with needles and braids at least 4x, irst at the Whirlpool (where she used them in battle, a few weeks later at Hajarna, with a secret comm-link needle when catching the Devoronian, and 10 yrs later at her meeting with Karoly in an "elaborate plaited hairstyle." Since its the only references to her hair at all in the Thrawn Trilogy, I think we can assume it was part of her deceptive uniform as Mazzic's bodyguard, along with the gown.
The most description we get is the first time at the Whirlpool,
(insert quote)
Its intricate, involves 6 needles and evidently uses no pins or extras, as when she pulls them out to use them, her hair falls down in a bunch of braids.

Ornate Whirlpool/Meeting Karoly Hairstyle
-All hair braided in lots of braids
-6 needles, all hair up somehow
-needles can be whipped out pretty quickly
-very ornate

Perhaps she has levels of fanciness, catching the Devoronian, it may have been a single stick in a much more practical bun. Or something half-fancy but not as crazy formal as the other ones (worn with ball gowns)

Then in the Hand of Thrawn books, where she's being Karrde's bodyguard, it never mentions her needles as weapons. In fact, she has to resort to using coffee mugs etc. as stun weapons (which she's good at...). If she has the needles she would have used them. Which suggests, as Karrde's quasi-bodyguard, where she didn't have to pose as a decoration (with the exception of when then met Bombassa) that she spent considerably less time on her hair.
She wore practical clothing on that trip, jumpsuit and a robe/tunic type of practical clothing. She would still have all that hair, having just left Mazzic's service. I'm guessing she wore it either in a practical braid(s) or bun, as she is a real warrior. You need to keep your hair out of your face somehow. I keep thinking if she had a bun, buns are held by needles, and she would have used the needles, so it would probably be a braid of some kind, given her proficiency at braiding for 10 yrs, I think that's the most likely.

I think I shall make some fan art, and then do the hair and tutorials to go along with it :)

5. Shada D'ukal half-up + braid, 2 ways
6. Shada D'ukal's Whirlpool hairstyle....triple bun variations....
7. Shada D'ukal's Practical hair (I think a low parted french... maybe?)

:)

Kids Star Wars Costumes, and STAR WARS FEVER and Why Timothy Zahn breathes life into the Star Wars Universe....

I am in a Star Wars phase right now.
So I am torn between dressing up my 2 yr old son for Halloween as this

or this

They are both AWESOME.


Considering my son has made me watch Captain America 19 times, Captain America was the obvious choice. But I am in a Star Wars mood. And if my 2 yr old son is going to be Captain America, what will my 1 yr old daughter be? Someone suggested a modest version of the chorus girl outfit, but while it would be objectively cute, I didn't really like the chorus girls as characters--they weren't really awesome. Now Peggy would be an awesome character. But the thought of sewing a complete Victory Suit Jacket for a 1 yr old---all those tiny button holes...ahhhhh

And then I saw this

At this place, with adorable pics of a little girl wearing it http://www.etsy.com/listing/107492235/custom-star-wars-r2d2-inspired-toddler

And the the thought of Isaiah in Luke's tunic with a blue lightsaber standing next to Jenny my little R2 unit was more cuteness than I could bear.
Especially with this hat

http://www.etsy.com/listing/156764867/r2d2-from-star-wars-fleece-hat?utm_source=google&utm_medium=product_listing_promoted&utm_campaign=geekery_mid&gclid=CNnG7o37tbgCFUfZQgodfBAAwQ

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Star-Wars-R2D2-Toddler-Costume-/150959350812?pt=US_Costumes&hash=item2325e0e41c

So....I was one of those people who heartlessly mocked my little brother's reading Star Wars Books as pulp fiction. I firmly believed only Episode IV-VI was canon (and decried the travesty that is Ep. I-III). I scoffed the Star Wars books, and over time scrapped Ep. V and VI from my internal canon as well, refusing to believe Leia was Luke's sister, etc.

Now I've revised my internal canon somewhat.

Because Timothy Zahn is awesome.

Or at least, he really really breathes life into the Star Wars universe. He gives depth to the 'Force' by straining the metaphor to make it as theistic as possible, he writes characters that feel so incredibly real, and best of all, there are no expendable characters. Even the one-page nameless throwaway characters feel real and are given dignity and personhood---from the witty shield-ship operate annoyed with Han's non-cooperation in moving the Millennium Falcon, to the control-operators of the Imperial Fleet, to the squabbling aliens at the marketplace, to the faceless bad-guy ninjas---all transformed into beings with faces, with souls, with thoughts.

You never get the feeling that all the other characters are card-board cutouts to give color while the main characters be awesome. You get the feeling that everyone else is just as precious as the princesses and Jedis, from the conscripts of the Imperial fleet, to the pushy nameless alien trying to sell fruit to Wedge. Every life is precious, each soul something remarkable and valued. Even (spoiler alert) the clones. (As a clone myself, this distinction is very important to me). Even if sometimes you have to kill people. They still matter. Its complicated....But basically, you finish his books caring about his characters, who feel like real people---who struggle with big things, like the meaning of 'justice', and the value of human life, and demonic possession, and not letting bitterness eat your heart out.

Not to say there aren't places where Zahn does it poorly. The end of The Last Command was a pillow-punching disappointment for me. (I don't want to give away too many spoilers) Suffice to say that he has made up for it in his 2-book sequel The Hand of Thrawn, everything good in the Thrawn trilogy gets better in the Hand of Thrawn, and the things done wrong in the Trilogy are somewhat righted in the Hand of Thrawn.  (Although I haven't finished it yet....)

However, as the Hand of Thrawn bitterly shows with its elaborate (and creative) re-explanations of the havoc wreaked by lesser authors on his beloved characters in between his books (Mara just PRETENDED to be an airhead for a secret spy mission...Those other girl's Luke dated? He was under the influence of the Dark Side...) , many many Star Wars books are silly, stupid, and do wretched things making beloved characters act totally out of character.

Hannah's internal Star Wars canon (a.k.a. THE TRUTH), is

• Episode IV
• Episode V
• Episode VI
• Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy
• Timothy Zahn's Hand of Thrawn

And its not just what-I-like. Within these books + movies, the characters are consistent, and it fits reality. In lots of the books, the characters act out of character (a.k.a. bad writing, when the author tries to force characters to conform to his/her ill thought out fantasies/plot points, e.g. Terry Pratchett's butchering of Corporal Carrot in Men at Arms) or the universe does not even remotely conform to reality (Ep. II Anakin: I killed them all, women and children! Padme: Everyone gets angry)

But in Ep. IV-VI + Timothy Zahn's books, the Star Wars characters act true, and the universe corresponds to reality.

It fits. It works. It's real.

I rest my case.
**********
Updated with all the new books he's writing "Allegiance", "Choices of One", "Survivors Quest", and "Scoundrels".

I refuse to accept whatever weird death some lesser author assigned to Mara.
She clearly had at least 4 kids (her vision saw "childREN"), and convinced Luke to go off and work with a Thrawn clone in the Empire of the Hand to defend the galaxy from the horrible threat....

We've arrived in AZ

My in law's back yard. They water it 2x a week. Its one of the most beautiful places here. There are lots and lots of  of desert landscaping, a lot of dirt, a lot of rocks. Some cacti and palm trees. And then there's my in laws back yard, hidden like Rivendell. Its a little walled, watered garden. With 3 trees. (Some of the few deciduous trees here, in palm tree country, 2 orange, and 1 mulberry). It all feels very Biblical, somehow.

Here it is with the westering sun catching the spray of the sprinkler system.

And here, ofcourse, are the kids. It was 6 pm, and still around 100 degrees here, hence the flushed children. Contrary to what appears, I do not put lipstick on my little boy. There was something going on with the saturation of the colors.

 In the Arizona sun, I am training Jehanne to wear hats

 It was around 6 pm and a little over 100 degrees. Isaiah stayed cool with a bucket of water and water toys, and periodically running through the sprinklers. Sometimes I helped by pouring water on his head.

 Evidently, he was thirsty.

 Very Thirsty....

 Jehanne has taken to noticing other people's food. Now it started with cups. She recognized....

 Demanded it......

I drew an elven banner on the cement, with some chalk...

Rough Draft Review of Marvel's The Amazing Spiderman (data dump/journalling)

-Father figures

• Peter's dad (playing tag with his son, son can't understand why gave him away, but then parents murdered) (Little boy and dad theme)
• Peter saves boy on bridge, daddy freaking out (little boy and dad theme) who later saves the day with the crane operation, and all those construction worker's with American flags, being awesome.
• Uncle Ben (AWESOME step dad. Says/does all the right things, really trying, really loves Peter, sensitive to his feelings, his hurts. Gets mad at him and launches the typical angry dad lecture, but then looks for him, leaves that awesome message on his phone. Dies. But was right. Was so so so right. And Peter knows he was. Also, dies because Peter was being selfish, Justice is about what's in it for me.)
• Gwen's dad. A real hero. Cranky, gets upset, not impressed with boyfriend etc. But listens when Peter's being crazy. Says all the snarky dad movie lines, but really does listen. Loves Gwen, tries to make her chocolate milk. Listens to Peter again, when he's at gun point. Then, my favorite part, steps in when Gwen trying to do cool things and save the world, "I get it, your boyfriend is a man of many masks, now get in the car" makes her get in the car, but personally takes the serum himself and a gun, and goes up there to rescue Peter. (not a fan of their relationship, but really does love this disturbed boy). Then his AWESOME scene when Peter is alone, going to die, being mocked for his lack of dads? And Gwen's dad shows up with a gun, and says "He's not alone" and then summarily dies for him. And then his epic dying speech. Where he tells Peter "I was wrong, this city needs you" as he dies, chief of police who was so irritated with this whipper-snapper he just died for, but tells him, "Leave Gwen Alone". He loves (dies for!) Peter, yet tells him, leave her alone. You are not good for her. And when Peter honors that promise, she's mad at him, she feels dumped/betrayed, but he's staying strong, trying to keep a promise he doesn't even understand to a man that died for him, because "(he said) I'm not good for her"

And he wasn't. Paralleled with the vast powers he is learning to control, that he doesn't even realize how big they are, is the hormonal rush. The awkward, not even being able to ask a girl out, to being able to climb into her bedroom window and take her away without her family even knowing. Lots of sensual smooching. Like jumping on a train going 70 mph...not realizing how fast its going. That shirtless scene---a sign of how overpowering teenage hormones are? He goes from being a medical patient to Don Juan....because...you are a teenager? And you have no shirt? And its the first time you are hanging out with a girl like this? And her dad has no clue you are there? Too much power. To a kids' head that can't handle it. The romantic scenes were jarring, too much too fast. Too much power. Too much emphasis on the physical--just being discovered ("You're a good kisser" , the whole him trying to convince her to sneak off out the window) I was jarred with the romance scenes. Thinking how Marvel seemed to understand how to make romance (Iron Man 1 &2, Captain America), and know it felt like a teen hormone rush, the sensual played up and highlighted at the expense of the other components (that second kissing scene without his shirt, just hurt. And on the bleachers when his compliments consist of telling her she's a "good kisser"....so little romance...sigh...) It was jarring. And then I realized, it was intentional.

And then there were the themes of the dads being right. Peter feels so betraying that his dad and mom dumped him off. But they were right, they were killed, and he was not. Then there was uncle Ben. With all the stereotypical angry Dad lines ('apologize to your mother!') yet he was right. And Peter knows he's right. And Peter listens to the voicemail at the end. And then there's Gwen's dad. With all the stereotypical dad-of-girlfriend lines. (thinks boy is crazy, not good enough, leave it to the cops, etc) And yet...the way he delivers the stay-away-from-my-daughter speech is so moving....its after he has gotten mortally wounded for Peter, after he's stuck up for Peter, and after he swallows his pride and tells Peter that he is necessary, needs to do what he couldnt' do. Awesome speech. He loves him in the way that is done and not said, he laid down his life for him. And then he says, you are not good for her, leave her alone.
Why?
It makes no sense to hormonally charged this-is-love teenage Peter. And yet, the dads have been right. They've been proved to be right. And this Dad, is right. Peter is not good for her. and this dad says that in the context of really caring about Peter. But he knows, this is not good for her, because, Peter's powers will put her in danger. Peter is not trying to hurt her. He loves her. But it will put her in danger all the same.
And this is also, like a metaphor, for teenage romance.
Peter loves her. But he is putting her in danger (and himself) of this un-bridled wild horse of teenage romance, teenage hormones, and autonomy--new power of choosing when to go and when to come and where to be (growing out of childhood--except more so, because no one even knows. They can swing out the window any time)

And Peter doesn't understand how this makes sense. Peter loves her! Right?
But Gwen's dad knows. The dads know. In uncle Ben's words "Take it from an old guy..."
And so, to honor this father-figure who died for him, he breaks up with the girl, and she hates him for it. And its so hard, and he doesn't understand why, but he's obeying someone who loved her and died for him. He's listening to the dads. And in this movie, the dads are right.

It was an argument, a plea. Crafted about Fathers, and the calls they make, that hurt, that Peter doesn't understand, but that turn up to be right. And in the end, it applies to his teenage romance. And (as the watcher's know, is right, since the watchers know he does not marry this girl. That every kiss is one not given to his wife, that they'll live to regret this when they're both with other people) so we know... that Gwen's dad is right. Like he was right about the sting operation. Peter was trying to be good, and showing off being cool, but he was trying to do things his way, use his new powers etc. But he wrecked a months-long sting operation of Gwen's dad. It was a metaphor, a powerful symbol. Our teenage romances mean all the best, but can wreck the Big Picture. The Big Plan for the other's good.

And at the end, in the hall, the girl you love being mad at you, because you have to act like you don't love her because you do love her (and want her best, or at least, obey the man who wants her best), and the bully you didn't like, really trying to be your friend now, having a good side (when you don't really want to see his good side) now having to love the bully and (act like you) hate the girl. Its the reverse of the opening scene. And yet. It felt like it was about love. Real love. Loving and being with the people you don't particularly want to love, but must. Not loving (not being with) the girl you really do love, because, you love her, and want her best.

I was deeply moved.

Then the last scene, where the English teacher tells the class that all archetypes are really all about ME. WHO AM I? And then Peter flippantly says promises you break are the best kind. And Gwen smiles.

PROMISES YOU BREAK? Like, the one on your weight loss regimen? Or the one you made to a girl's dad as he bled to death for you, making you promise to leaver her alone, because he loves her (and you). ????

When a man makes an oath, Meg, he holds his soul in his hands, like water. And if he opens his fingers then....

The whole movie was a constructed argument. With a repeated motif. (Fathers, fathers making choices that hurt, saying things that hurt, but they want your best. And they are right) With metaphors (the sting operation and the car-thief), and reassurances (the dads love you. Even Gwen's dad steps in as Peter's father when he's all alone), and then ends with a dying request. End that teenage relationship, if you love her. End it. Because you will put her into danger.
And it leaves the teenage audience asking, why? All the other times the dads were right, and now, this one, why?

It was a message that our generation of love-makes-it-good and  follow-your-heart and experiment-with-your-new-powers and its-all-about-me/who-am-I kids need to hear. From REAL MEN, REAL DADS who die for you, care about you, and tell you to leave the girl alone.

And notice, Peter doesn't have the strength to listen to the whole voicemail, until AFTER he dumps the girl. Then, lonely, his listens to the voicemail, where uncle bend says 'take it from an old guy' and tells him that he's a man, that he loves and respects him.

It was a superbly crafted argument. That moment when I realized those cringe-inducing romance scenes were intentional. The whole thing coming together. Ending with a request from the dying father, and you ask yourself  'why?" and you THINK.

IT WAS PERFECT

IT WAS GOING ON MY TOP 10 MOVIES LIST, OF WHAT THIS GENERTAION NEEDS TO HEAR

And then they bombed it, with that added-on feeling 5 second last scene.....

WHY WHY WHY?

Either

1. I imagined the whole argument? It was just a flailing action chick flick with accidental themes? (Highly unlikely. SOMEONE knew what they were doing with the Gwen's dad death scene. It will at the least, make the romance teens squirm with awkward guilt, him dying and all)
2. Some Moffat-type is playing cat and mouse with me
3. They will make something awful happen to Gwen in the 2nd movie, and Peter realizes the dad is right. It works. Its a lot less elegant and less beautiful than the ending could have been here. At least its consistent. But its sad. But then, it takes the punch out of the end, the time that the teenagers go home and subconsciously mull about this.... It badly times it, I think.
4. There was a fight in production, some crafted the whole argument, and someone else tried to lighten the mood and wrecked it at the end. (Like in Luther, Joan of Arc, or arguably, Star Wars)

So there you have it. I kind of hope its 3 (with a heavy heart) because that's the only one that's consistent. But it is sad, really sad. I suspect its 4, given what I've learned about the power-struggles behind movie making. And if its 4, all I have to say is...

What a shame. All that work. What a shame.

But perhaps echoes of the original argument will persist in teenagers minds, perhaps their subconsciouses will absorb something from this. Let us hope.

AND SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE MOVIES AND BOOKS! Saturate the market! Show reality the way it is, the complexity, the pain, the beauty. SHOW IT. (Like this movie almost did), AND FATHERHOOD.
God knows we need more of it, in this country, with our fatherless children and skyrocketing divorce and illegitimacy rates.
And ultimately, because way bigger than romance, there is a Father-shaped hole in each one of us. that not even the best daddy can fill.
Because its there for God.