In case anyone's interested, here it is again:

Basically, in order to answer the question of how Aang was to both give up his attachment and still be able to fall in love with Katara, we need to define exactly what "attachment" means. At no point did the guru ever say that Aang needed to stop loving Katara - he just had to learn to let go of his attachment to her. If attachment can be satisfactorily defined in a manner where a person who has let go of it can still be in love, then the argument is over. Since Avatar has been decidedly vague on this point (no doubt intentionally), we are forced to turn to an alternative source of wisdom; a franchise that has more experience in the ways of "attachments" than you can poke a stick at; the source of all my comparisons to the movies and the spin-off series: Star Wars.

Anyone who has watched the Star Wars movies is familiar with the fact that the jedi too seem to have a bit of a problem with "attachment to people" (what with it leading to the dark side and all). What not so many people are aware of is that the jedi do in fact find a solution to this problem in the series of novels that tell the story of what happens after "Return of the Jedi". Here is a direct quote from one of the novels:

"That's what attachment is, isn't it? It's not loving somebody. It's not marrying somebody. It's not having kids. It's being where, if somthing goes wrong, there's nothing left of you. It's being where, if the person you love dies, you start functioning like a droid that's been fitted with a restraining bolt".

I think that this definition could easily apply to avatar. Letting go of attachment doesn't mean loving what you were attached to any the less. It means that if you have to make a choice between saving the person you love and saving the world, you have to be able to accept the pain of letting go of your love in order to save the world. After that, you can mourn the person you loved, but you have to be able to keep on living and get on with your life. You can feel the attachment, but you cannot allow it to have any hold over you.

What evidence do I have that this is the right definition? Simple; it fits the facts.

Let us consider the scenarios we have seen so far. In "The Avatar and the Firelord", Avatar Roku perfectly displayed this ability to "let go" of attachment. When the volcano errupted, his first instinct was to get his wife to safety. But he didn't. As much as he wanted to put her first, he knew that his duty as the Avatar was to hold back the lava until the entire village had been evacuated, and so he let go of her hand, and went back to make his stand.

Aang didn't need to stop loving Katara; he just needed to learn to put the world before her. In CoD, Aang was forced to abandon his urge to protect Katara so that he could summon the Avatar state. he had to take the risk that she wouldn't survive in order to do his duty. When we get to "The Awakening", Aang shows this ability again, when despite his obvious continued feelings for Katara he leaves her in order to do his duty.

There. That's my opinion on what Bryke have tried to set up for us. Before anyone complains that it wasn't very well explained, I would like to say that I love series that force their fans to figure things out for themselves. It keeps things interesting.

Ax...your posts are always so long lol. like essays.

I agree. I don't understand why everyone's like "ohhh well he didn't let her go all the way." He just need to realize that interests of the world come before his own personal life. He never let Katara get in the way of doing what he had to do after he realized this.

it's not suppose to interpreted as so litereally. I feel like people are seeing this as Katara dangling over a cliff and he must either reach down and save her or resuce the world. It's not that litteral.

Although i think it's a good theory, the creators were more interested in the integrity of the show then the money in their pockets.

exactly, because alot of people more as a "one way or the other" rather than "a delicate a balence"

I honestly don't believe there was like ever Zutara foreshadowing, in the classic sense of the word. I never said that. But there was alot of lampoonery, which in many cases is foreshadowing.

At the same time you could interpret it as satire.

Zuko, Zutara.

unrelated though. thre reason i ship them isn't because i like Zuko more, it's because i like them as a pair because i think it's a good match.

You may think that it is unrelated, but in reality things like this rarely are.

When all is said and done, shipping is mainly about preferences. For all our long posts about things like compatibility and opposites attracting, at heart we ship simply becuase we made a sub-conscious decision about which ship we like better, plain and simple. You can look as hard as you want, but you will never find a Kataanger who shipsonly because they think it would make more sense story-wise, or a Zutarian.

So let's wait for now, and see what sort of results this draws. If all the Kataangers say Aang, and all the Zutarians say Zuko, I think we can assume that I'm onto something.

well, although i think ur theory is mostly true, its not with me.

i LOVE zuko, but I also LOVE Kataang kuz i know that aang loves katara and vice versa, and i know that zuko loves mai and vice versa

but the fact that i like Mai too might throw some things off