A question about Shmi

[Jestyr]

Something that has bothered me for years and may not have an answer, but what exactly was the motivation for the Tusken Raiders to kidnap and keep Shmi? I mean what did they expect to gain from keeping a human woman tied to a stake inside a tent at their camp? And scratching her up or beating her? What was the reason for it? Seems odd to me that such a pivotal situation should go mostly unexplained. Anakin’s murder of the Sandpeople is, after all, his first grievous error in judgment and loss of faith in his Jedi training. His reaction to his mother’s plight is the first step in the path to the dark side first outlined by Yoda in The Phantom Menace (“Fear leads to anger - anger leads to hate - hate leads to suffering...”)

Did Sidious or Dooku ‘arrange’ for this to occur to Shmi?

[Balnazzar]

Did Sidious or Dooku ‘arrange’ for this to occur to Shmi?


I don't think so, this event was one of the many foundational, SW-world shape coincidences in the story.

[MandalorianJF]

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8775/signwelcomefe6.gif:welcome: http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8775/signwelcomefe6.gif

[Master of Brooms]

Good question and :welcome: . It is a pivotal event like you say; without this what happened to Anakin would have been very different.

But I think the only answers are "maybe...": maybe they had a side-line in slave-trading through the Hutts? It's unexplained. For me it makes sense at the time of viewing, because it's one of those things that the film does a good job of presenting as something you've just got to accept, either without thinking too hard about it, or by filling in the gaps with your own ideas. Monkey see monkey do, and what we monkeys see is Shmi's husband, Owen and Beru treating the disappearance of Shmi as something that just happens where Tuskens are concerned - it's a terrible thing but it's not odd.

There's a lot of this unexplained stuff in Star Wars - and a lot of the controversies on these boards (see Padme's death for example!) seem to be about what happens when people take a second, critical look at what happens on screen - because it's fun to talk about, because some of the gaps GL leaves can be a bit infuriating, or because in some cases GL hasn't done as good a job as he could of persuading the audience to suspend disbelief. (For me, Padme's death is one of the latter cases).

Personally I don't believe the Sith had any hand in it - that would make them too god-like, and I prefer thinking of them as clever manipulators of a reality that isn't under their control.

And following on from some of Fish1941's observations on AOTC - I like it that Shmi's kidnapping isn't fully explained - maybe because to the folk on-screen it isn't worth trying to explain. It happens just because this is Tatooine, it's a rough place, stuff like that is a possibility every day out in the desert. No metropolitan intrigues, Sith manipulations or high Galactic politics are necessary here.

This makes me at least more sympathetic to Anakin's difficulty in dealing with it: the Jedi and Padme with their clear sense of right and wrong could never teach him anything about dealing with this, not just because he's out in the sticks far away from them, but because they're completely divorced from this reality he grew up in (look at the tension between Padme and Anakin's family, and the contrast in their clothes).

This casts a better light on Anakin's character - he's not just an arrogant brat, he's a kid from a rough neighbourhood who's been plucked up (too early for him to be wholly a Tatooine-kid, too late to change him into a Padawan-kid) into an aristocratic world which doesn't understand him. The Jedi just do not ever deal with the kind of random bad s**t that's daily life on Tatooine: everything always makes sense to them in some way, and their role (to be definitely the GOOD guys in their own estimation) is always clear, even if the immediate course of action isn't.

So what happens is precisely the fault of these two contradictory worlds which Anakin has had put inside his head: if he was wholly Jedi he either wouldn't be vulnerable to rough-neighborhood bad s**t like his mother being kidnapped, thanks to a completely Padawan-childhood; or he'd put her death down to the ineffable OM and "meditate on this I will" - if he was wholly Tatooine-kid he'd want to go after her but (like his family) wouldn't dare. As half and half he both wants to go after her and can.

And it's at exactly this point - where random bad s**t hits the life of one of the characters - that Padme throws her lot in with the messed-up kid from the wrong side of the tracks, and so starts changing and destroying the character she's been up to this point.

Well that's my rant, sorry it's a bad habit of mine, I keep on finding these examples of GL being much cleverer than I thought (probably because that's what I want to find!). Your mileage may vary.

[lovelucas]

well, for what it's worth, I've always believed that Palpatine was behind this too....after all it's the primary impetus to Anakin disobeying Obi Wan and the Council, leaving Naboo for Tatooine which leads to that first major step to the dark side: the Tusken slaughter.

I don't think the kidnapping of Shmi was random at all.

[nefertiti]

Mornin' MofB...wonderfully said!

[Master of Brooms]

well, for what it's worth, I've always believed that Palpatine was behind this too....after all it's the primary impetus to Anakin disobeying Obi Wan and the Council, leaving Naboo for Tatooine which leads to that first major step to the dark side: the Tusken slaughter.
I don't think the kidnapping of Shmi was random at all.

I think I see where you're coming from: for Palpatine's purposes what happens here is ideal. But my own idea of Palpatine - as a manipulative opportunist, working with what he's given, capable of being surprised and overjoyed by the chances that present themselves (e.g. Anakin's divided nature), though of course never showing this on his face - is one I've started sticking to. So I can't agree with your view. I don't like the idea of Palps as an arch-controller, directing every event.

My view depends on my view of the entire 6-part saga, which you might not agree with. It's the view that events and human responses to them are always bigger than either the Sith or the Jedi, while still being vulnerable to manipulation and interpretation by either. And so what looks like giving Palps a big advantage (Anakin giving in to his emotions) also carries the seeds of the opposite eventual outcome. On this view what Anakin does here (and what Padme does in joining him) is actually right in the long-term; because the way I interpret the saga, the message is that it's better to be emotional and loyal and a bit screwed-up, even though this causes all kinds of trouble and suffering (not just for you but other people), than to be bloodless and super/sub-human like the PT Jedi and the Sith.

Luke makes the same "mistake" as Anakin in ESB, going with loyalty rather than good sense; and that one turns out right in the end as well. From the perspective I have at the moment both of these decisions look like the right ones - in contrast, the Jedi Order's preferred course for Anakin and Yoda's for Luke look a bit like the co-opting of a young man into being a fighting-machine for purposes which aren't his own: the preservation or restoration of a certain kind of "Jedi Order" which is actually already doomed in itself. The archetypal battle between old men and their accumulated loyalties, bitternesses and missed chances, and the young men they'd like to persuade to go and put this right for them.

It's interesting that Luke's "loyalty-mistake" in going to Cloud City actually, definitely, is staged by his father the Sith. But I don't take this as evidence that Palps staged the original "loyalty-mistake" event on Tatooine (which would be all too clear in Vader's memory). I certainly don't think Vader would use this kind of tactic to try to regain the love of his son (which is what he's hoping to do, he's just mistaken in thinking Luke would ally with him) if he thought the original event, which affected him so powerfully, was just a setup by Palps. Exactly the opposite: to Vader the pull of loyalty is the realest thing there is, which is why he uses it in a twisted way to try to get his son back. This nice fit between the PT and OT (loyalty is real and subject to real events, but can be twisted as it is in ESB) would be diminished rather than improved if Palps had engineered Shmi's kidnap.

[Fish1941]

Something that has bothered me for years and may not have an answer, but what exactly was the motivation for the Tusken Raiders to kidnap and keep Shmi?


Shmi's kidnapping was part of a coming-of-age ritual for some of the younger Tuskens.

I doubt very much that Palpatine was behind the kidnapping. In fact, I think that many SW fans have developed a bad habit of believing that Palpatine knew "everything" that was going on and had complete control of everything.

[Jestyr]

Shmi's kidnapping was part of a coming-of-age ritual for some of the younger Tuskens.

This is interesting; where did this information come? I'm afraid I am EU challenged.

I like your contention that Sidious did not know everything that would happen. This is futher exemplified when in ROTS, he is unable to sense Luke's presence and yet he has 'forseen' that Luke will come to Vader on Endor. He's quite the spin doctor.

[huttslime]

Didn't Owen lars say that they took her when she was picking mushrooms or some plant? maybe they needed a slave?

And the Tusken Raider Ritual thing - I would like to know where that came from as well.

[Jestyr]

Didn't Owen lars say that they took her when she was picking mushrooms or some plant? maybe they needed a slave?

And the Tusken Raider Ritual thing - I would like to know where that came from as well.


Ah. Now that's a good thought. It would make sense that they would torture a slave. Also exemplifies their brutality.

Thanks!

[huttslime]

you are most certainly welcome jestyr

[flo fett]

In fact, I think that many SW fans have developed a bad habit of believing that Palpatine knew "everything" that was going on and had complete control of everything.
I agree that many fans seem to treat Palpy as an omnipotent god, he was strong in the force yes, he was certainly one of the most powerful beings in the universe but I think not as strong as he would have people believe. He was however a masterful politician and part of holding power is the image you project. He was all powerful master of presentation.

He's quite the spin doctor.
Bingo! Right there.

[Jedi Master Elad Kenobi]

hi whats going on?

[lovelucas]

Palpatine is Sidious.....he is a Sith - they've been plotting very very patiently for eons the demise of the Jedi (at last we shall have our revenge) - turning Anakin was the primary tool. and Anakin had revealed everything to Palpatine who not only knew what buttons to push he has foreseen the future.....it's all going as PLANNED.