this site has two programmers

 

dorky femme droid

eggbug enthusiast

important eggbug lore

 


 

if you use the phrase "be normal" as if it's something to aspire to, kindly take a long walk off a short plank. or block me. whichever is easier for you.

 


 

child of the 80s

 


 

i escaped a cult.
all of the content warnings.
all of them.
tag: exerian's tragic backstory

 


 

                                 
eggbug bounce 88x31An 88x31 button advertising Cohost: "no ads. no tracking. yes eggbug."get firefox
   
                                                       
  

bb8
@bb8

Talking to some friends the other day, and the topic of "worst Star Wars character" bubbled up, because the only thing people who like Star Wars love more than liking Star Wars is disliking Star Wars.

Dull and usual contenders bounced around, the usual suspects, but when it game to me, I looked inside my heart and knew the truth of it:

The only answer could be "Grand Admiral Thrawn."

Which is not to say Grand Admiral Thrawn is a bad character. Far be it, he earned his reputation as one of the great Star Wars baddies twice over, first in the EU and then again in the Disney era. He's a fantastic character top to bottom, a clever subversion of audience expectations and a legitimate threat whenever deployed.

It's just, he's in the wrong genre.

See, the problem of Thrawn, the sin of Thrawn, the bit of Thrawn that breaks Star Wars forever and hangs like an albatross about his neck forever is that Thrawn convinced a generation of fans that Star Wars is military sci-fi. That it can be understood and discussed as military sci-fi, that it can stand up to the rigor of that analytical mindset, that the universe needed facts and figures and troop deployments and logistics and--

and it loses sight of the heroic fantasy of it all. 1

Thrawn convinces you that Star Wars is something it is not, can never be, and grows the resentment in your heart when it never attempts it. I think more deliterious fandom can be traced to the precise militarism of Grand Admiral Thrawn than any other element in Star Wars.

Which is to say, the comments are open for this post...


  1. To wit, another person in this discussion said that Ahsoka was their pick for worst character, and mentioned the continuity issue her lack of action during the Original Trilogy introduces. For them, Ahsoka's absence in the historical record indicated a failure. But if Atalanta isn't on the Argo's manifest, you don't regard it as a historical fact, but simply imagine she leapt on at the last minute, and sailed with Jason all the way to Colchis. The untold story is as potent as the told one, when the universe is myth, not history.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @bb8's post:

To be honest, from what I've read of the original EU version of Thrawn, he was pretty boring, since he seemed to be mostly a complicated strategic puzzle for the heroes to solve, rather than a character with a personality or motivations (aside from "likes art"). At least the new version seems to have those things.

And I do agree that especially the original Thrawn book trilogy was basically Timothy Zahn writing military sci-fi in the Star Wars universe, with very little interest in the fantastical and spiritual aspects of the films. In those books, the Force is just some strategically useful superpower, and there are creatures that generate bubbles to completely ignore its effects. And yet, somehow it hasn't gotten nearly the same amount of criticism for this as Lucas got for the midichlorians.

It might have had something to do with Zahn apparently getting a lot of information from the Star Wars roleplaying game, which by its very nature had to concretize and put exact numbers on things in order to make it work as a game.