The Reason Why Malgus's Attack On The Coruscant Temple Didn't Fracture The Order The Same Way Anakin's

The reason why Malgus's attack on the Coruscant temple didn't fracture the Order the same way Anakin's did is because in the time of the Old Republic, there were multiple temples. This is also why Malak's attack of the Dantooine temple didn't destroy the Jedi as a whole either.

As a note, by the time of the prequel trilogy, a lot of public sentiment was turned against Jedi (probably due to Baneite politicking behind the scenes). This meant recruitment was down, so it was harder to sustain presences elsewhere, although there was a branch on Correlia (the Green Jedi, I think).

The aforementioned negative views on the order is also why Palps was able to get away with genocide so easily.

ATLA Main Characters Hogwarts Sorting

For the main Gaang:

Aang - I think he could go into either Gryffindor or Hufflepuff. Aang is brave, and sometimes reckless, which fit for Gryffindors, but he's also very hardworking (mastered 35 pre-existing forms of airbending and invented another), and he expresses a lot of loyalty/steadfastness to his philosophy.

Katara - Again, Gryffindor or Hufflepuff. She's brave, but more cautious than Aang (most of the time--looking at you Painted Lady incident), and has a strong sense of personal loyalty.

Sokka - Ravenclaw. Sokka expresses traits that could put him in any of the houses, but despite his claims of being the meat and sarcasm guy, he ends up making the more complex battle plans of Team Avatar (also he gets incredibly happy pouring over maps), this puts him in the category of valuing intelligence more highly than a lot of his other traits. (he's also the most obviously nerdy *cough*sherlock holmes*cough*)

Toph - Gryffindor. She rebels against her parents to leave and travel the world in an obviously risky expedition that could lead to death. She's also the only person in the Gaang to jump in with two feet, rather than being obligated to do it (Aang), or getting caught up in the flow (Sokka, Katara), or possibly being in less danger joining the Gaang (Zuko).

Zuko - This is going to get me a lot of flack, but I feel as though he really fits the stereotypic Slytherin ambition (hear me out, I promise this is well-reasoned). He states that even since he was a child he knew the throne was his destiny. It is important to note that at the time he is referencing, he was second TO LAST in the line of succession. Azulon, Iroh, Lu Ten and Ozai would all have to die for him to be Fire Lord. Zuko doesn't really have the cunning down as much as some other Slytherins, but he does not lack for ambition.

For the antagonists:

Azula - Again, another controversial decision, but I'm more likely to put her in Hufflepuff than Ravenclaw despite her obvious above-average intelligence. Hermione demonstrated that if you value other traits more highly, even if you're one of the smartest kids to be sorted in your year, you get put elsewhere. Azula values her loyalty to her father (and country's goals) above anything else, including her well-being. I'm putting her in Hufflepuff for the same reasons Mara Jade (from Star Wars; loyal to a fault to Emperor Palps--you should totally check her out) is a Hufflepuff: she'll die for someone else's cause even after they're gone.

Mai - Slytherin. She leans more towards finding someone more powerful to do the protecting, until she finds something she values more highly than protection. This fits cunning more than ambitious (unless you count ambition for Zuko's hand?), but still lands her solidly in Slytherin.

Ty Lee - Despite her bubbly external appearance, Ty Lee is friends with Azula and Mai and still holds her own. She's a lot more clever than people give her credit for and the optimistic airhead persona is partially a mask--she uses it to disarm her opponent before going in to take victory. She'd either be a Luna Lovegood-reminiscent Ravenclaw, or in Slytherin for cunning.

Recently saw something about the Force (as in Star Wars) being female.

No.

The Force is quite literally a force that acts upon living beings. This is like giving gravity a gender (and I'm not referring to gendering that happens in romance languages).

In-universe, does the wind have a gender (male, female, non-binary, etc)? No it does not. And so I genuinely have no idea why you would assign the Force, which operates the same way (by both being affected by and affecting its surroundings) a gender either.

Ficlets 2 and 3 are up!

Part 2: Gwen & Wade plan the beginnings of the chatfic.

Part 3: Doug-as-Lommy angst.

I have (in light of my current writing flow) decided to create and post the first supplementary story of "Deadpool's epic Game of Thrones Chatfic." Gwenpool runs into "Redheaded Arya Stark" and her blonde friend, and the story will be what inspires Wade to create his chat.

(on another note, Amara Is Not Amused)

I totally agree. There's a lot of stories that are amazing and quickly discounted because they're old.

When COVID-19 caused the shutdown in the US, school was still on, but the needed time investment tanked for the end of the school year. This gave me a lot of time to read, and I read a whole lot of Shakespeare's plays.

While some were skipped (Rape of Lucreta was not something I was going near), some were lighthearted (Twelfth Night, Two Gentlemen of Verona), some were traditional comedies (Winter's Tale), and some were unquestionably tragedies (Romeo and Juliet, King Lear).

And some plays were very obviously products of the political culture of the time (fun fact, in Henry VI, the actress who plays La Pucelle (Jeanne d'Arc) in Part 1 usually also plays Queen Margaret in later parts, because they're both the "villainous women" in the play). Richard III is very obviously pro-Tudor, and the political climate in Hamlet's Elsinor more closely resembles England's court of the time than any contemporary Danish court.

Other plays are most definitely not something publishable today. And this is okay, as long as we (the readers) understand that the attitudes expressed, while prevalent in Shakespeare's time, are no longer acceptable. Othello and Merchant of Venice are definitely the most obvious examples of this, though Prospero's treatment of Caliban and Ariel in the Tempest are also questionable. (None of these plays are accurate representations of real people, or groups of people. However, it is important to note that Shakespeare gives these characters more depth than any of his contemporaries.)

Shakespeare remains one of the most impressive authors of his day, and truly an extraordinary playwright. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while some of his work hasn't aged well, it remains important to teach his work in schools, and the content that hasn't aged well, and the content that is obviously politically biased, remain important to teach as well. (Please hear me out before commenting/bashing)

Shakespeare's Henry VI presents an English perspective on events of the 100 Year War, and due to this perspective introduces narrative bias, which is especially present in the character of La Pucelle, who readers will be more familiar with as Joan of Arc (Jeanne d'Arc). Joan, in the modern understanding of events, was a female civilian who joined the French in working to fight against the English, and was eventually burned at the stake. In the religious context, she has since been canonized as a saint in the Catholic Church. However, in the play, she is written as a witch who is also (in colloquial terms) "sleeping her way to the top." Because Shakespeare is being sponsored by the English crown, and thus must support the English side in his "History" on the war, he has Joan represent a malevolent force.

Even more interesting is that Richard III, about the War of the Roses, has had elements (that could actually be just propaganda, there's not enough historical evidence either way) become part of the prevailing historical narrative. Specifically, the "boys in the tower" story, about how he arranged to have his nephews killed.

Othello could never work in the modern day, but it is representative of historical attitudes. Despite these attitudes, Othello remains a very real character, who, while incredibly competent at his job, remains open to manipulation. Iago takes advantage of social isolation and fear to exacerbate jealousy, and Othello remains a man who is deeply in love. While there are issues with racial attitudes in the story, it could serve as an important lesson about manipulation. Iago finds what Othello cares about (Desdemona), helps to set up the idea that Othello should no longer be secure in Desdemona's love for him, and helps the situation to blow up in Othello's face, so Iago can have what he wants (the job of Cassio, who he sets up as the "other man" in the supposed affair). The lesson that people may not always have your best interests at heart can be a hard one, and is often overlooked by detractors of the play.

Merchant of Venice might paint Shylock as it's villain, but he gets the opportunity to leave the audience with a line that emphasizes the equality of all humanity ("If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"). Additionally, he is remarkably three-dimensional by the end, which makes him much more intriguing as a character, and increases the attention the audience pays to the validity of his lines.

TL;DR, even some of the more "problematic" of Shakespeare's plays remain relevant today (and important to read), even if no longer for the same reasons as before.

(Exit Stage Right, pursued by a bear)

This is how it feels to read a classic that everyone in the world has already read and loves

You forgot the most obvious reason it can't be real: It has no legs!!!

On Azula burning turtleducks...

She doesn't.

That's it, that's the meta.

Of course that's not all, I have proof.

Some antis used Azula in the Spirit Temple as "proof" of her burning turtleducks because of her flashback from when she learned how to firebend.

And that's stupid.

Azula most definitely did set a turtleduck looking thing on fire. But it wasn't an actual turtleduck. You can tell by the way it's drawn.

It's laying down unnaturally and it's not trying to get up despite the fact that it should be startled by the person approaching it, especially if the person approaching it is someone that hurt it.

Despite the fact that is has been picked up, it doesn't react at all, doesn't try to escape and doesn't turn to look at the person that picked it up.

A new person has entered the picture and the turtleduck has no reacted with curiosity or fear caused by the new presence and motion, when other living creatures in the panel (Azula) have.

The turtleduck is literally on fire and isn't making any noise of pain, it's not trying to escape, it's not writhing, it's not reacting at all. It's just sitting there like "Is it hot in here? Are you hot?"

The turtleduck is making no attempts to nurse it's wounds of escape from the grip of the person that had set it on fire. It's showing no fear or pain or any emotion at all.

The mother of the little monster doesn't give a fuck about the turtleduck. You'd expect a woman that wants her children to treat animals and plants with respect, would stop her daughter from harming a turtleduck. Realistically, if it was real, Ursa would remove it from Azula's hands and try to nurse it to health or return it to its mother, but she doesn't. She doesn't even care. She only pays attention to Azula, because Azula is the only living thing in the picture. The turtleduck is not real. All Ursa cares about is Azula's firebending and it's what she's disappointed at. She can't exactly lecture a kid for developing naturally, so she stays quiet. But she very much can lecture a kid on setting an animal on fire, so if the turtleduck was real, she'd be scolding Azula.

To try and villainize Azula by painting her as a turtleduck burner is dumb when the turtleduck isn't even real. It's probably a toy of hers or Zuko's. Probably hers, since Ursa isn't saying anything about Azula stealing from Zuko, but it could be Zuko's too, considering we know Azula burned his toys.

She did do that, right?

Wrong, possibilities are she actually didn't.

But that's for another meta.

Anyway, Azula doesn't burn turtleducks, she only throws bread at them.

Thus proven.