shielding Luke from a horrible truth
|Posted: 12 May 2013 at 6:11am | IP Logged | 6
Is Luke a fragile twelve year old, or an adult who should be treated as such? There was no reason for Kenobi to "lie," and no reason to retcon him into a liar.
Because that theme has never been done before? By this logic, EVERY use of protecting someone from the truth (agreed, usually a poor choice on the teller's behalf) means that the teller is a manipulative bastard who can never be trusted.
What makes Kenobi a manipulative bastard in this scenario is that his lie turns Luke against Vader specifically. Luke "hates the Empire", but Kenobi turns that hatred into a personal grudge. A grudge based on a falsehood.
If, on the other hand, Ben is telling the truth (as he WAS when STAR WARS was originally released), then Luke has a good REASON to have a personal grudge against Vader.
Kenobi is about to take Luke out into a very dangerous universe, and the temptations of the Dark Side of the Force will be a very real part of those dangers. The "true" fate of his father would serve as a caution to Luke, a very important defense, especially if Vader should somehow learn who Luke is and try to lure him over to the Dark Side, too. Kenobi's lie denies Luke any protection against that scenario -- a scenario which Kenobi must realize is a very real possibility.
Once again, we come back to the repeated proofs that Lucas did NOT have it "all worked out from the start". That this was NOT "The Tragedy of Darth Vader". If the object, from the beginning, is to tell a tale of redemption, do not make the central character one who participates in torture and mass murder (on a planetary scale!). "Oops, my bad!" isn't really going to be enough to turn that one around.