Details on new "Heir to The Empire" anniversary edition

[Owain Taggart]

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.

Exactly! Thank you for saying what I've been trying to say

Anyhow, Lucas could have chosen to go with what Zahn did in terms of timeline. but he didn't, but it doesn't make Zahn wrong for writing what he did based on the fact that he did his best on what little info he had. I think many were disappointed Lucas didn't go with the direction Zahn went in for the prequels, considering they were very popular books, and one of the best sources of Star Wars before Lucas even thought of doing the prequels. I honestly still like Zahn's direction far more than what we got in the prequels. WWII happened over several years, so it's not inconceivable to think that the Clone Wars happened over a build up of several years as well. It's more realistic for it to be drawn out, with certain pivotal events happening at different times. I see the movies as a concentrated form of events. The events at Geonosis? That was their Pearl Harbour.

Did Luke's mother exist in ROTJ? Sure, but she wasn't developed. She was a sideline, only briefly mentioned. She wasn't the character that was created in the prequels. Padme, as she had become known, didn't exist yet as a character.

 

[Set Harth]

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.

You're misrepresenting my position again. I've said from the beginning that the material in question was a problem before the PT even existed. However, it doesn't matter how many times I say that, because you insist on ignoring my actual position and converting it into something more easily challenged.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Honestly, Set, I don't think I am. What you see as a misrepresentation is what I understand you as saying. If you think I'm misunderstanding you, it's because you're not getting across what you mean to say.

Did Luke's mother exist in ROTJ? Sure, but she wasn't developed. She was a sideline, only briefly mentioned. She wasn't the character that was created in the prequels. Padme, as she had become known, didn't exist yet as a character.

An excellent point, Owain.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

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

An argument which you are having with an imaginary person called a strawman.

Except that I'm not arguing that now, and I haven't been.

No, really, I'm not. I don't give a toss that Zahn's chronology isn't compatible with Lucas' revisionist chronology. I don't care about the Prequels at all. They're awful movies.

 

[Set Harth]

Exaggeration for effect, my friend.

Anakin kills a bunch of Tuskens who have murdered innocent settlers and tortured his mother to death. He subsequently shows remorse and an understanding that his actions were wrong. Padme doesn't reject him right then and there. This is dubbed "getting off on evil".

In an alternate continuity, Anakin turns to the dark side, becoming a full-fledged Sith lord and ruthless enforcer of the Empire's will upon thousands of innocent people, including the murder of Jedi and others. Padme, for some reason, does not have a problem with any of this, and continues to love and support him for over a decade. This is dubbed "kind".

See any possible contradiction there?

it imbues a tragic aspect to Leia's mother that Padme doesn't have in the Prequel Trilogy

It is nonsense to say that Padme's character in the PT is not tragic.

WWII happened over several years, so it's not inconceivable to think that the Clone Wars happened over a build up of several years as well.

The Clone Wars still happened over a period of several years, just like WWII. The above is irrelevant to the issue of Zahn's timeline vs. the PT.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Anakin kills a bunch of Tuskens who have murdered innocent settlers and tortured his mother to death. He subsequently shows remorse and an understanding that his actions were wrong. Padme doesn't reject him right then and there. This is dubbed "getting off on evil".

In an alternate continuity, Anakin turns to the dark side, becoming a full-fledged Sith lord and ruthless enforcer of the Empire's will upon thousands of innocent people, including the murder of Jedi and others. Padme, for some reason, does not have a problem with any of this, and continues to love and support him for over a decade.

See any possible contradiction there?

The problem, Set, is that you are conflating two separate ideas into one. You're taking what the Prequel Trilogy shows us about Padme Amidala and what Jedi tells us about Leia's mother, then you're saying they're the same thing.

They're not.

One's a character. One's an idea of a character.

There's a difference.

The contradiction exists in your head, only because you don't understand why they're different.

That's why I differentiate between Padme and Leia's mother, because they're two different things.

 

[Set Harth]

The problem, Set, is that you are conflating two separate ideas into one. You're taking what the Prequel Trilogy shows us about Padme Amidala and what Jedi tells us about Leia's mother, then you're saying they're the same thing.

No, I'm taking what the Zahn timeline tells us about Padme and what ROTJ tells us about Padme and saying they're inconsistent.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Except that I'm not having that argument.

Actually, you are. And you're not alone:

No, an argument means disagreement. I don't believe that you and I would disagree on the point that the Prequel chronology differs in some degree from the Zahn chronology. I'm not arguing because, in saying "Yes, I recognize that Zahn's books aren't chronologically compatible with the Prequel Trilogy," I'm making a statement of fact that isn't in dispute.

The problem, Set, is that you are conflating two separate ideas into one. You're taking what the Prequel Trilogy shows us about Padme Amidala and what Jedi tells us about Leia's mother, then you're saying they're the same thing.

No, I'm taking what the Zahn timeline tells us about Padme and what ROTJ tells us about Padme and saying they're inconsistent.

And we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't believe that the single line of dialogue in Jedi is enough to tell us that Zahn's interpretation of chronology is incorrect for all the reasons that I've stated. Your argument is not persuasive to me.

 

[Set Harth]

....

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I'm not arguing because, in saying "Yes, I recognize that Zahn's books aren't chronologically compatible with the Prequel Trilogy," I'm making a statement of fact that isn't in dispute.

That's the whole point: it's not in dispute, but you feel the need to continue to state it, as though arguing with someone who is claiming "Zahn's books are chronologically compatible with the Prequel trilogy".

I keep stating it because you keep conflating the Prequel Trilogy and what it says about Padme Amidala with Jedi and what it says about Leia's mother. One of these has bearing upon Zahn, the other one doesn't, and yet you keep bringing the other one into play, probably because I made a joke about how Padme gets off on evil pages ago.

I've been making a clear distinction between the character of Padme and the idea of the mother. They aren't the same, as I explained a few posts back. I'm sorry that you don't comprehend that.

 

[Set Harth]

I keep stating it because you keep conflating the Prequel Trilogy and what it says about Padme Amidala with Jedi and what it says about Leia's mother. One of these has bearing upon Zahn, the other one doesn't

You're still misrepresenting my position and implying I think the PT should have bearing upon Zahn. I said from the beginning that it was a mistake before the PT, a mistake regardless of the PT's existence.

and yet you keep bringing the other one into play, probably because I made a joke about how Padme gets off on evil pages ago.

I'm not sure it's really a joke, given that you see Padme in AOTC as consistent with what I would seriously call "getting off on evil". And the reason I mentioned Padme was to point out the contradiction between the standards she's held to in AOTC and the complete lack of moral standard she's held to in the Zahn "Sith concubine" timeline. But you saw "Padme" and decided that it was time to argue once again that the PT shouldn't have bearing on Zahn, even though I never said that it should.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Once again, you're still misrepresenting my position and claiming I think the PT should have bearing upon Zahn. This is the same old tired strawman over and over again. I said from the beginning that it was a mistake before the PT, a mistake regardless of the PT's existence. Over and over again.

And as I said, not five posts back, we're simply going to have to agree to disagree on the weight of importance that one line of dialogue in Jedi should have, on whether or not that line of dialogue makes a certain sequence of events impossible. I don't think it does, but you do, and I get that.

More important, Set, I accept that. I really and truly do. Different people can come to very different yet very valid conclusions about a literary work by using the same evidence.

And, no, I don't see why Leia's mother loving a Dark Side Anakin for a decade would make her a "Sith concubine." Woman can and do love monsters; there's no reason why Leia's mother couldn't have loved Anakin in spite of -- or even because of -- his evilness.

As for whether or not I think this whole conversation "was a joke," no, honestly, I don't. I think it's been quite fun, actually, certainly educational, though occasionally frustrating.

 

[Set Harth]

And, no, I don't see why Leia's mother loving a Dark Side Anakin for a decade would make her a "Sith concubine."

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Gaith]

And, no, I don't see why Leia's mother loving a Dark Side Anakin for a decade would make her a "Sith concubine."

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I see that no one wants to touch my "possible random rape" scenario. But, if one accepts Shadows of the Empire in one's personal canon, attempted rape at least is known to happen in the SW 'verse!

 

[Bishop76]

^ Well, I think the idea was that the whole thing was kind of a romantic tragedy story. Makes it a bit less of one if the twins' mom was raped by Anakin. Though that would have made a better story than anything in the prequels.

I would be curious to know what the story was supposed to be (around 81 or 82) before Lucas fired everyone who would stand up to him and changed it all up in the prequels.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I would be curious to know what the story was supposed to be (around 81 or 82) before Lucas fired everyone who would stand up to him and changed it all up in the prequels.

Gary Kurtz has always spoken more of the Sequel Trilogy than the Prequel Trilogy, but he has mentioned the Prequels on occasion.

Here's a little bit from a November 2002 interview:

Well a lot of the prequel ideas were very, very vague. It's really difficult to say. I can't remember much about that at all, except dealing with the Clone Wars and the formation of the Jedi Knights in the first place – that was supposed to be one of the keys of Episode I, was going to be how the Jedi Knights came to be. But all of those notes were abandoned completely.

Lucas' ex-wife has spoken a little bit about the Prequels, too, but the only thing I remember from that was that Boba Fett was to be Vader's brother.

I think Lucas had some broad ideas of what the Prequel Trilogy would be, but as Kurtz says elsewhere in that interview, when Lucas decided to go off-outline for Jedi, it threw a lot of his previous ideas into flux and made some things, like the Sequel Trilogy as originally planned, impossible. I'm sure the Prequels suffered narrative damage, too, and what was filmed isn't likely to be particularly close to what Lucas imagined decades ago. The myth that the six-film Saga is what Lucas always intended is just that -- a myth.

 

[Bishop76]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I had heard after, as you said, he went "off outline". And Kurtz was pretty much the quality control I was referring to. I just wish Kurtz could remember more of what was planned - I would really love to hear it. The original plan for Jedi would have been outstanding too. It's really a shame the series had to go the way it did. Not that Jedi was prequel bad, but it obviously strayed from what it was supposed to be.

 

[Set Harth]

I would be curious to know what the story was supposed to be (around 81 or 82) before Lucas fired everyone who would stand up to him and changed it all up in the prequels.

Other than the timing of Padme's death the changes might not be as severe as you think. The prologue to the ANH novel, circa 1976, is still pretty close to what happened in the PT.

 

[Whofan]

There's some deleted dialogue from ROTJ which still made it to the novel that is very, very different from what ROTJ intended.


But Harth is right about the basic backstory-Senator Palpatine becoming Emperor, the Republic becoming the Empire and the Jedi purge-have been part of the story since at least the publication date of the novel (1976). Pretty sure it's mainly Lucas's outline although the novel was really written by Alan Dean Foster.


I would suggest J.W Rinzler's excellent "Making of" books. They're very expensive but are invaluable in terms of information and what Lucas originally intended to be the backstory of the characters (Mainly the hardcover edition which features additional content). For instance, Leia was actually the biological daughter of Bail Organa and had brothers on Alderaan as well. Other stuff that eventually got incorporated into the EU (but was somewhat overriden by the prequels), such as C3PO being a century old and Han Solo being briefly an Imperial pilot, also show up.

 

[Admiral Shran]

]I see that no one wants to touch my "possible random rape" scenario. But, if one accepts Shadows of the Empire in one's personal canon, attempted rape at least is known to happen in the SW 'verse!

I actually was thinking that it would have been possible for a scenario like to have happened, given what little we know of Luke and Leia's mother from the OT. If Anakin had raped a woman and got her pregnant, it would explain why Leia remembers as "sad."

But alas, you bet me to it.