Details on new "Heir to The Empire" anniversary edition

[Allyn Gibson]

What OT characterization for Padme?

Too true - That she was beautiful and sad? That was pretty much it... unless you consider the prequels canon, in which case there was no characterization in the OT because clearly Leia was then talking about Mrs. Organa.

The scene in Jedi could mean that Leia is talking of Bail Organa's wife. Or it could mean that he real mother lived after the birth and raised Leia until she was maybe two or three. Sith says the former is true, but taking Jedi on its own the latter is an entirely plausible interpretation (and what I assumed for a long time).

 

[Set Harth]

I have a difficult time saying that anything in Splinter is a mistake

I don't, because I can open up the book right to the part where Vader claims Luke shot his TIE fighter in the Death Star trench. It's like, no, bonehead, he was in front of you. Mistakes sometimes happen in books; it's a fact.

What OT characterization for Padme?

The one where she's called "kind" and portrayed in a positive light.

And based on Attack of the Clones and precisely when Padme gets turned on by Anakin, I think it's safe to say that Padme is someone who clearly gets off on evil.

Not according to ROTS. In Zahn's formulation nothing in ROTS would have bothered her at all, and she would have carried on with this full-fledged Sith lord for years.
The AOTC situation is significantly different for a number of reasons.

I'll take your word for it. I had it in my mind that Luke was supposed to be sixteen at the start of Star Wars.

It may have said "eighteen" in the novel, but making Luke's age even younger would only serve to further make the same point. So much for "40 or 50 years".

in which case there was no characterization in the OT because clearly Leia was then talking about Mrs. Organa.

Wrong.

Leia... do you remember your mother? Your real mother?

 

[Bishop76]

What OT characterization for Padme?

Too true - That she was beautiful and sad? That was pretty much it... unless you consider the prequels canon, in which case there was no characterization in the OT because clearly Leia was then talking about Mrs. Organa.

The scene in Jedi could mean that Leia is talking of Bail Organa's wife. Or it could mean that he real mother lived after the birth and raised Leia until she was maybe two or three. Sith says the former is true, but taking Jedi on its own the latter is an entirely plausible interpretation (and what I assumed for a long time).

I agree - I've actually written off the prequels entirely so I'm still of the opinion that Leia is talking about her real mother in the scene in Jedi.

 

[Set Harth]

I've actually written off the prequels entirely so I'm still of the opinion that Leia is talking about her real mother in the scene in Jedi.

Leia has always been talking about her real mother in that scene.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I've actually written off the prequels entirely so I'm still of the opinion that Leia is talking about her real mother in the scene in Jedi.

Leia has always been talking about her real mother in that scene.

Which means that, if GFFA humans are anything like Earth humans, Revenge of the Sith is incorrect in showing that Padme died in childbirth, as Leia wouldn't be able to remember her own birth.

Even if Leia did, somehow, remember childbirth, she wouldn't have had the emotional framework at birth to comprehend that a dying woman is "kind" and "sad."

If Leia is, in fact, speaking of her real mother in Jedi, her mother couldn't have died in childbirth.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

And based on Attack of the Clones and precisely when Padme gets turned on by Anakin, I think it's safe to say that Padme is someone who clearly gets off on evil.

Not according to ROTS.

Yet, in Attack of the Clones, Padme isn't willing to put out until Anakin gives into his hate and slaughters the Tusken Raiders.

The AOTC situation is significantly different for a number of reasons.

How so?

In any case, Padme's characterization in the Prequel films has no bearing on Zahn's books, as she didn't exist, even in Lucas' mind's eye, when Zahn wrote Heir.

I'll take your word for it. I had it in my mind that Luke was supposed to be sixteen at the start of Star Wars.

It may have said "eighteen" in the novel, but making Luke's age even younger would only serve to further make the same point. So much for "40 or 50 years".

My point, Set, is that the original trilogy is silent on when the Clone Wars happened. There's no magical reason why the Clone Wars, the fall of Anakin, and the birth of Luke all had to occur at the exact same time. Yes, that's a creative choice that Lucas made, but he hadn't made that choice when Zahn wrote the Thrawn Trilogy, so his interpretation of events and their sequencing was entirely legitimate, and there wasn't any reason not to place the Clone Wars forty-odd years before Heir to the Empire as Zahn does.

 

[Set Harth]

Which means that, if GFFA humans are anything like Earth humans, Revenge of the Sith is incorrect in showing that Padme died in childbirth, as Leia wouldn't be able to remember her own birth.

It's not really an issue of the difference between GFFA humans and Earth humans. It's the difference between the properties of the GFFA Force and the Earth Force.

If Leia is, in fact, speaking of her real mother in Jedi, her mother couldn't have died in childbirth.

And yet both of these things are true. Luke makes it very clear that he's talking about her real mother, not Breha.

Yet, in Attack of the Clones, Padme isn't willing to put out until Anakin gives into his hate and slaughters the Tusken Raiders.

I think you mean "until Anakin and Padme are facing possible execution on Geonosis". Unless I somehow missed a preceding sex scene.

In any case, Padme's characterization in the Prequel films has no bearing on Zahn's books, as she didn't exist, even in Lucas' mind's eye, when Zahn wrote Heir.

That makes no sense at all, and contradicts ROTJ. Luke did indeed have a mother when Zahn wrote TTT, she just didn't have an official name.

there wasn't any reason not to place the Clone Wars forty-odd years before Heir to the Empire as Zahn does.

You said it yourself: Well, maybe twenty-five, given the ages of Luke and Leia at the start of the trilogy. You've already admitted that these things are in some way constrained by Luke and Leia's ages.

There's no magical reason why the Clone Wars, the fall of Anakin, and the birth of Luke all had to occur at the exact same time.

Yes, there is ( but it's not magical ). The ROTJ script shows that the conception of Luke happening not long before Anakin's fall was Lucas' original intent, which fits with the fact that Luke's mother was never intended to be the kind of character who would be allied to a full-fledged Imperial Sith for a decade. The only thing that changed was the timeframe of Padme's death.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

there wasn't any reason not to place the Clone Wars forty-odd years before Heir to the Empire as Zahn does.

You said it yourself: Well, maybe twenty-five, given the ages of Luke and Leia at the start of the trilogy. You've already admitted that these things are in some way constrained by Luke and Leia's ages.

I'm sorry that my point about the ambiguity of the Original Trilogy went over your head. Luke and Leia's ages are an issue only in the sense that their ages constrain Anakin's age to some extent. Luke and Leia's ages do not constrain when the Clone Wars were fought or when Anakin fell to the Dark Side.

We don't know, from the Original Trilogy, how old Anakin is. Neither do we know, from the Original Trilogy, when Anakin turned to the Dark Side and hunted the Jedi to near-extinction. Nor do we know how old he was when he fathered Luke and Leia. Based on Sebastian Shaw's appearance, Anakin could easily have been in his forties or fifties when Luke and Leia were conceived. Or, if the using the Dark Side of the Force induces accelerated aging, Anakin could have been fifteen. The original trilogy thus leaves open the question of Anakin's age, which leaves open the question of when he was a young Jedi knight and "a cunning warrior."

Zahn only gets the details wrong in retrospect. Twenty years ago, Zahn's conception of how things fit together wasn't wrong.

 

[Set Harth]

I'm sorry that my point about the ambiguity of the Original Trilogy went over your head.

It didn't, I just failed to agree with it.

Luke and Leia's ages are an issue only in the sense that their ages constrain Anakin's age to some extent.

Why? Does Anakin become infertile at some point?

Luke and Leia's ages do not constrain when the Clone Wars were fought or when Anakin fell to the Dark Side.

I quote:

It wasn't unreasonable to think, before 1999, that the Clone Wars happened forty or fifty years before the events of Star Wars. Well, maybe twenty-five, given the ages of Luke and Leia at the start of the trilogy.

Of course, it's possible the second sentence in the above has no relation to the first.

Zahn only gets the details wrong in retrospect. Twenty years ago, Zahn's conception of how things fit together wasn't wrong.

No, it was wrong in the first place, PT or no PT. I quote:

The ROTJ script shows that the conception of Luke happening not long before Anakin's fall was Lucas' original intent, which fits with the fact that Luke's mother was never intended to be the kind of character who would be allied to a full-fledged Imperial Sith for a decade.

Zahn is no more infallible than any other author or person.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I'm sorry that my point about the ambiguity of the Original Trilogy went over your head.

It didn't, I just failed to agree with it.

Indeed. Just as I fail to agree with all of your points.

Citing the scripts are support, though, is a fool's errand, as it only indicates how far Lucas' conceptions have changed over the decades. I mean, I could point to Leigh Brackett's script for Empire as proof that Vader isn't Anakin, in spite of the weight of evidence that says that they are one in the same. But prior to 1980, they weren't the same. So, citing Jedi's script as proof of Padme's characterization is equally foolhardy; Lucas' mind may well have changed over the intervening years.

 

[Set Harth]

Indeed.

Make up your mind.

Citing the scripts are support, though, is a fool's errand, as it only indicates how far Lucas' conceptions have changed over the decades.

Wrong. Lucas' concept of the kind of person Luke's mother was has not changed.
The issue is the difference between this concept and the portrayal brought about by Zahn's erroneous timeline.

I mean, I could point to Leigh Brackett's script for Empire as proof that Vader isn't Anakin, in spite of the weight of evidence that says that they are one in the same.

I think you mean "one and the same". Padme's characterization is in the released film as well as the script, so there is no comparison to the Vader situation.

So, citing Jedi's script as proof of Padme's characterization is equally foolhardy; Lucas' mind may well have changed over the intervening years.

And yet this idle speculation wasn't backed up by the PT, nor did it surface before the PT in any tangible form where Zahn might have had access to it. So, as usual, the appeal to ignorance proves nothing. Padme was never characterized in a negative light. Zahn simply didn't think through the logical consequences of his timeline.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

My point, Set, is that what you call "Zahn's erroneous timeline" wasn't erroneous in 1991. It was a legitimate interpretation of the on-screen evidence of the three films. There wasn't any contrary evidence to Zahn's conclusions until years after he wrote his books.

I really do get where you're coming from. Where the films are silent, such as on Luke and Leia's mother, the authorial intent of the original scripts should have some weight. But Zahn, for whatever reason, either because he didn't know about the scripts or because he thought it served his story better to ignore the scripts, decided to go in a different direction.

I can't read Zahn's mind, but my guess is that he thought it served his story better if the Clone Wars were forty years in the past and if Vader were active for a long period of time as a Dark Side Jedi. Yes, this has implications for the woman who fathered his children, implications that aren't compatible with the Prequel Trilogy. But they are legitimate interpretations of the evidence Zahn had at hand.

My point is, Set, you simply cannot hold Zahn accountable for what the Prequel Trilogy said about characters and chronology. Zahn couldn't predict, in 1989 and 1990 when he began writing, that a decade later George Lucas would create more Star Wars films. Zahn worked with the best information he had at the time. You're holding him up to an impossible standard.

 

[Set Harth]

My point, Set, is that what you call "Zahn's erroneous timeline" wasn't erroneous in 1991.

And yet it was, which was my point.

But Zahn, for whatever reason, either because he didn't know about the scripts or because he thought it served his story better to ignore the scripts, decided to go in a different direction.

Padme's characterization is in the released film of ROTJ, not just the script. The idea of the timeline being constrained by Luke and Leia's ages doesn't depend on any script material; it follows from the implications of the films.

Yes, this has implications for the woman who fathered his children, implications that aren't compatible with the Prequel Trilogy.

They're not compatible with the original trilogy either. Padme's characterization did not change between trilogies, and according to the evidence it was always incompatible with Zahn's timeline.

My point is, Set, you simply cannot hold Zahn accountable for what the Prequel Trilogy said about characters and chronology.

Good thing that's not what I'm doing, then. I'm holding him accountable for what the original trilogy said, which his timeline essentially contradicts. This misrepresentation of my position is just a strawman. I said all along that this was a mistake before the PT even existed.

 

[Bishop76]

Arguing with Set is an exercise in frustration, Allyn - I strongly recommend the ignore function.

Your points are of course all valid. The mother spoken of in Jedi was clearly meant to be Leia and Luke's birth mother and she was clearly meant to survive until Leia was at least old enough to have some memory of her mother. Just from the line "she died when I was very young" - which seems to imply that she probably didn't die as early as 5 seconds after she birthed the twins. It also seemed to me that Obi-Wan was supposed to be older in Star Wars than the prequels would have allowed him to be and that the Clone Wars probably did happen considerably earlier than they do in the current changed by the prequels chronology.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I'm holding him accountable for what the original trilogy said, which his timeline essentially contradicts.

That's only in your opinion, though.

"Sad" and "kind" says nothing about Leia's mother except that she was "sad" and "kind." Those two words do not prevent Leia's mother from having loved a monster when he was monstrous.

Only if you believe that Leia's mother could only love a man of pureheart can you can that the Original Trilogy makes Zahn's timeline impossible. But the dialogue in Jedi isn't strong enough to support that contention.

 

[Set Harth]

The mother spoken of in Jedi was clearly meant to be Leia and Luke's birth mother

So far so good...

and she was clearly meant to survive until Leia was at least old enough to have some memory of her mother.

And that's been changed, but the line is still a reference to Padme.

It also seemed to me that Obi-Wan was supposed to be older in Star Wars than the prequels would have allowed him to be

I tend to agree, but I should also point out that the prequel films themselves give no precise information on the topic of Obi-Wan's age. That came from the EU.

Only if you believe that Leia's mother could only love a man of pureheart can you can that the Original Trilogy makes Zahn's timeline impossible.

I sense a false dichotomy here. I'm saying that according to the OT Luke's mother would not have loved and stayed with a full-fledged Imperial Sith lord for a decade. To use your own words: someone who clearly gets off on evil. That's a far cry from expecting someone to be 100% pure.

 

[JoeZhang]

That's the impression people tend to get from certain parts of ANH, but Luke's age and the characterization of his mother tell a different story.

I don't follow, how does Luke's age tell us anything about when the Clone Wars occurred?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

That's the impression people tend to get from certain parts of ANH, but Luke's age and the characterization of his mother tell a different story.

I don't follow, how does Luke's age tell us anything about when the Clone Wars occurred?

It doesn't, which is something I tried to say pages back.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Only if you believe that Leia's mother could only love a man of pureheart can you can that the Original Trilogy makes Zahn's timeline impossible.

I sense a false dichotomy here. I'm saying that according to the OT Luke's mother would not have loved and stayed with a full-fledged Imperial Sith lord for a decade. To use your own words: someone who clearly gets off on evil. That's a far cry from expecting someone to be 100% pure.

Exaggeration for effect, my friend.

Padme's characterization in AOTC is not, in my opinion, incompatible with Zahn's timeline, whereas in your opinion, Padme's characterization in general is incompatible with Zahn's timeline. You're looking at the finished six-film Saga, I'm looking at the pieces Zahn would have had at his disposal (not that AOTC was, but it supports Zahn's view), which is why we're talking past one another.

Yes, I recognize that Zahn's books aren't chronologically compatible with the Prequel Trilogy. That's a different argument, though.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the line of dialogue in Jedi prevents Leia's mother from loving a Dark Side Vader and bearing his children; I don't believe that the line of dialogue says anything of the sort.

Think of it like this. What would the daughter of the wife of a dictator, like Stalin or Mao, say of her mother? "Sad" and "kind" aren't impossible words for that situation. It's easy for us, outside a relationship like that, to say, "Why didn't the wife leave? Why could she stay married to a monster?"

But love leads to a certain kind of blindness, and it's not inconceivable to me that Leia's mother could have stayed with Anakin for a decade or more, after he had fallen to the Dark Side, perhaps in the hope that she could bring him back eventually, perhaps even deciding to bear his children because she wanted to reach the love within him.

To be frank, Set, I find that a compelling story, it imbues a tragic aspect to Leia's mother that Padme doesn't have in the Prequel Trilogy, and I can see that as a powerful reason for why Zahn would draw the conclusions of chronology that he did.

 

[Gaith]

What OT characterization for Padme?

The one where she's called "kind" and portrayed in a positive light.

Which precludes the possibility of Vader having raped-knocked her up... how?