Star Wars Books Thread

[JD]

Where's Anakin's ROTS scar from again? What was that business on Cato Neimoidia supposed to be about?

I'm pretty sure the stories were made to explain those things, not that those were references to the stories.

Honestly I think the decanonization of the EU was one of the best things that could have happened to it. Now, I did like the EU and there were some great stories in it, and I even plan on continuing to read a lot of the Legends. To be honest though, it was starting to look to me like it was in need of some kind of a reboot or something. They had gone so far off of the movies by the time we hit the last few post-ROTJ books that it was almost unrecognizeable as even being related to the movies. Then on top of that was the fact that most of the reacctions from those books seemed to range from meh to downright bad. Even before the sale I was starting to wonder if they were getting ready to make some kind of big shift, either by retiring the movie characters or rebooting the whole thing.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't miss them because again, I still have them. Also, I only really enjoyed the Rogue Squadron arc. For me, Wraith Sqaudron outstayed it's welcome pretty fast. I mean a genetically engineered Gamorrean who goes by "Piggy"? Oh come on!

Oh yeah, I still own them (I got rid of most of my old SW books when I moved last spring, but kept a few). Like I said, I'll miss that they aren't technically in continuity anymore, but I'll probably still re-read them now and again. I did read the Thrawn trilogy early on but I think it was Stackpole's first four X-wing books that truly turned me into an EU fan.

And yeah, Allston's entries could be kinda goofy, but I thought they were fun. "Yub yub, Commander!"

 

[Set Harth]

I'm pretty sure the stories were made to explain those things, not that those were references to the stories.

No.

 

[Voth commando1]

You know speaking of the Vong how do you all think they would fare against the trek races-federation, Klingons, Borg, dominion, romulans and so on?

 

[Ithekro]

That depends entirely on how much one believes in the power ratings of the weaponry of their respective universes in tech manuals. Gravity manipulation weapons would be a problem as would mini-black holes sucking up torpedoes. Though I don't recall off hand if the weapons overloaded if they sucked up too much power....like a sustained phaser blast, since most Star Wars weapons fire in bolts.

 

[Voth commando1]

That depends entirely on how much one believes in the power ratings of the weaponry of their respective universes in tech manuals. Gravity manipulation weapons would be a problem as would mini-black holes sucking up torpedoes. Though I don't recall off hand if the weapons overloaded if they sucked up too much power....like a sustained phaser blast, since most Star Wars weapons fire in bolts.

Well yeah Vong black holes could be overcome IIRC by sustained heavy fire, perhaps the federation would use concentrated blasts to overpower them.

How would a Vong warrior fare against a Klingon-Klingon with bat'leth and Vong with amphistaff?

 

[Ithekro]

Also Starfleet and the others can fights at warp speeds, so reaction time might be a problem for the Vong, as Starfleet and the like are not as inhibited by gravity wells as their hyperdrive equipped counterparts.

The amphistaff is versatile, and can combat lightsabers. The Klingons would find it a worthy challenge. But it would likely come down to who the warriors were, and who is writing the story.

 

[WebLurker]

It depended on which author you were listening to. Barbara Hambly, for example, referenced a Clone Wars timeline that was something like 1 year off the eventual movie timeline, at most.

Where was that?

Also, the original Marvel comics dated the Clone Wars within a few years of A New Hope. The point is, the movies, when telling the Clone Wars story, took nothing from the tie-ins and told a brand-new version of it.

Not the Republic, the Empire. Though so little is said in any event that there's not much to go on.

I'm 99% sure it was the Republic. Do you remember where they specified that? I'd like to double check.

If I recall correctly, Zahn used information that was given to him by LucasFilm, which was later changed for the movies. (In retrospect, Zahn was lucky he went into so little detail, since it made the mistakes easier to gloss over when the movies showed how it really went down.)

That's what it means to be C-canon.

While that may be true, the fact that it held practically no weight except within itself makes it seem like its canon label was not very accurate, in retrospect.

However, in certain examples ( Grievous, etc. ), The Clone Wars intentionally constructed its storyline so that the EU backstory was still possible, for whatever reason.[/quote]

Grievous was a movie creation that was allowed to appear in tie-ins made before the movie, so I'm not sure that counts. Also, while Clone Wars was willing to preserve some things at the beginning (mostly thanks to Dave Filoni), by the end, its was telling its own story and contradicted lots of Legends stories.

And we should not forget that some of the EU was set far enough back in the timeline that it would become increasingly hard to contradict anyway ( and that post-ROTJ material didn't get undermined so long as Lucas declined to make movies in that time period ).

________

How do you know? And by the same token the same could be said for Lucas' prequels as well. This wasn't a case of Lucas' movies contradicting the relevant EU, as the EU in question was consistent with the movies. It was a case of Filoni changing things.

I don't recall any of Lucas' movies establishing the Jedi doctrine on families several thousand years in the past.

In this case, I think the retcon made sense. They even managed to explain the even dicier question of why Luke would have taken a wife if he was taught by Jedi who subscribed to the "no marriage" model in a way that made sense. However, the point remains that it was a major change in how the Jedi were presented and the movie didn't give a rip what the tie-ins had to say on the issue.

The issue here isn't really a contradiction of Jedi doctrine so much as the apparent ease of arbitrarily leaving the order and returning later.

In Rogue Planet, when discussing a young Anakin getting into trouble, a member of the Jedi Council voices the opinion that it's nothing to worry about, using the fact that she has been a mother and raised kids to lend credibility to her opinion. That does not mesh with Attack of the Clones.

No, references to specific EU. You might be thinking of Star Wars(1977).

The point I'm making is that I think the tie-ins were created to address the throwaway lines, not the other way around.

 

[kirk55555]

Well among anyone who is an EU fan you have an incredibly minority opinion. Also you like the Republic Commando books and Karen Traviss? I don't even want to ask. I loved the philosophy, Vergere, the Vong, Ganner Rhysode, among other parts of the book and so did most other EU fans who actually you know appreciated the EU.

Anyway that's an odd and weird opinion and I doubt among EU fans you would be popular at all for holding it.

I've never heard Traitor talked about much at all by SW fans, positively or negatively. I can't say if its generally disliked, but I've never seen it held up as the pinnacle of the EU or anything close to that. As for Traviss, the Republic Commando books are my favorite books, of any genre/franchise/etc of all time, not just SW. But, yeah, we all like different stuff. I love so much of the EU that Traitor just tends to stand out when I think about books/storylines I didn't like.

I'll always miss the EU. To me, it was SW, and always will be the SW universe to me. But, I loved the new movie, and I've at least liked all of the new canon books I've read, so I'll keep enjoying the new canon, even though I'll never really consider it the "main" SW universe for me. To me, its more like how I think about trek, with a "Prime" SW universe and a new universe (even though its not remotely the same situation, obviously). I like both, and so far the new canon was probably worth it just for the great movie (and almost certainly great movies, plural), but most of the new canon outside of the movies won't take the place of the old EU when it comes to what I enjoy the most and what made me a SW fan in the first place.

 

[Set Harth]

Where was that?

Children of the Jedi.

The point is, the movies, when telling the Clone Wars story, took nothing from the tie-ins

Nothing?

Grievous was a movie creation that was allowed to appear in tie-ins made before the movie, so I'm not sure that counts.

When you put EU concurrent with and designed to be consistent with the prequels together with EU set far enough in the past or future to not have been realistically likely to conflict with the prequels in any event, you get a sizable chunk of material. Not everything falls into the "pre-prequel EU contradicted by the prequels" basket. It comes down to perception of the term "most", I guess.

the fact that it held practically no weight except within itself makes it seem like its canon label was not very accurate, in retrospect.

To a certain extent canon is whatever a franchise says it is. The problem, as I see it, is that people seem to imply that Star Wars was really just like the Star Trek franchise in this respect. But there has always been a difference in how the two franchises approached canon.

However, the point remains that it was a major change in how the Jedi were presented and the movie didn't give a rip what the tie-ins had to say on the issue.

Jedi doctrine on this issue could easily have changed over several thousand years.

In Rogue Planet, when discussing a young Anakin getting into trouble, a member of the Jedi Council voices the opinion that it's nothing to worry about, using the fact that she has been a mother and raised kids to lend credibility to her opinion. That does not mesh with Attack of the Clones.

??? All I can do is refer back to my prior statement that you quoted. This exchange would make more sense in reverse order.

The point I'm making is that I think the tie-ins were created to address the throwaway lines, not the other way around.

Time flows forward, not backward. "Throwaway lines to give a sense of history and things happening between the margins of the films" is the kind of thing we saw in ANH. It's a different situation.

 

[WebLurker]

I've never heard Traitor talked about much at all by SW fans, positively or negatively. I can't say if its generally disliked, but I've never seen it held up as the pinnacle of the EU or anything close to that. As for Traviss, the Republic Commando books are my favorite books, of any genre/franchise/etc of all time, not just SW. But, yeah, we all like different stuff. I love so much of the EU that Traitor just tends to stand out when I think about books/storylines I didn't like.

I've heard it cited by numerous fans as the greatest thing in the entire EU (Legends and canon stuff) quite a few times. I do hang around on a Star Wars forum, so that might be a factor. (I've never read it myself, but nothing I've heard about it has made me want to give it a spin.)

- - - - -
​

Children of the Jedi.

Okay.

Nothing?

I was talking specifically about Clone Wars stuff, not prequel things in general. As I understand it, about the only thing from Legends Coruscant that made it into the movie was the name. Also, there have been influences from Legends into canon (and still are to this day). However, pre-Disney, they seemed to be more Easter egg or reimagining, at best.

When you put EU concurrent with and designed to be consistent with the prequels together with EU set far enough in the past or future to not have been realistically likely to conflict with the prequels in any event, you get a sizable chunk of material. Not everything falls into the "pre-prequel EU contradicted by the prequels" basket. It comes down to perception of the term "most", I guess.

Sure, there's a lot of stuff that doesn't contradict the movies themselves.

To a certain extent canon is whatever a franchise says it is. The problem, as I see it, is that people seem to imply that Star Wars was really just like the Star Trek franchise in this respect. But there has always been a difference in how the two franchises approached canon.

Fair enough

Jedi doctrine on this issue could easily have changed over several thousand years.

Agreed.

??? All I can do is refer back to my prior statement that you quoted. This exchange would make more sense in reverse order.

I didn't really understand what you were saying, since it had nothing to do with the reference I had made.

Time flows forward, not backward. "Throwaway lines to give a sense of history and things happening between the margins of the films" is the kind of thing we saw in ANH. It's a different situation.

I'm not so sure. Were the lines in the movie really written so that a tie-in could be produced? Isn't it more likely that the publishers wanted to write a tie-in, saw the line, and got permission to do a story on int?

​

 

[Voth commando1]

I've heard it cited by numerous fans as the greatest thing in the entire EU (Legends and canon stuff) quite a few times. I do hang around on a Star Wars forum, so that might be a factor. (I've never read it myself, but nothing I've heard about it has made me want to give it a spin.)

- - - - -
​

Okay.



I was talking specifically about Clone Wars stuff, not prequel things in general. As I understand it, about the only thing from Legends Coruscant that made it into the movie was the name. Also, there have been influences from Legends into canon (and still are to this day). However, pre-Disney, they seemed to be more Easter egg or reimagining, at best.




Sure, there's a lot of stuff that doesn't contradict the movies themselves.



Fair enough



Agreed.



I didn't really understand what you were saying, since it had nothing to do with the reference I had made.



I'm not so sure. Were the lines in the movie really written so that a tie-in could be produced? Isn't it more likely that the publishers wanted to write a tie-in, saw the line, and got permission to do a story on int?

​

Your missing out Traitor is the best of the best of Star Wars the best thing put to pen since the OT even better really than the OT-it is the highest of high and the absolute best-the most memorable, thoughtful, emotional, philosophical and downright amazing book Star Wars has to offer bar none.

 

[JD]

When it comes to the Star Wars canon, I'd always assumed when they called everything "canon" it meant that all of the books, video games, comics, RPGs, ect. would all have to be consistent with each other, but not that this stuff would effect movies or TV shows. Even today I have a feeling this would still be the case. If a conflict comes up between the books and movies/shows, it'll be the books that will have to change. I find it very hard to believe that they would let something as minor, from a money making and audience size standpoint, as a book determine what happens in something as huge as a movie/show. We're talking something that brings thousands of dollars versus something that brings millions or even a billion+ dollars, there's no way they are going let the former decide what happens in the later.
I thought the whole "canon" thing was simply to differentiate it from stuff like Star Trek, where until the early '00 the tie-is were not consistent with each other unless they part of a specific trilogy, miniseries, ect,.

 

[Set Harth]

As I understand it, about the only thing from Legends Coruscant that made it into the movie was the name.

And the core concept.

 

[Reverend]

I've heard it cited by numerous fans as the greatest thing in the entire EU (Legends and canon stuff) quite a few times. I do hang around on a Star Wars forum, so that might be a factor. (I've never read it myself, but nothing I've heard about it has made me want to give it a spin.)

I've heard it very occasionally brought up too, but only by those that also really dug the whole Vong/NJO storyline, which as one might imagine is a relatively small but passionate sub-set of the fanbase. Most everyone else cites either the Thrawn trilogy, 'I, Jedi' or the Bane/Plagus books as being the pinnacle. So it's hardly unanimous.

Personally, I didn't read the NJO books until much later as at the time they were published I'd pretty much given up. The last six or so Bantam books ranged from forgettably mediocre to just plain awful so when they came out with Vector Prime I gave it a shot to see if this "bold new direction" could save it. Suffice to say it did not convince me. Indeed, the whole premise stunk of "we've ran out of ideas so....ALIENS!"
Anyway, a few years ago, back when TCW was still on the air I decided to read through them, just out of curiosity for what I'd missed over the previous decade. Star Wars books are fairly light reading, so it didn't take me long to get through the whole thing, a few months tops. So yes, while I'd agree that 'Traitor' was slightly above average compared to the other books in that series, that's not really saying much since most of those others were fairly bland and unmemorable.

If I had to pick what I think is the EU's best work...that's tough because I like a whole bunch of material for a lot of different reasons and no one thing really stands out for me. From novels, to games and comics, there's plenty of gems to choose from.

But since this is a "Star Wars books" thread, I suppose I should restrict it to just the novels. In which case the best indicator would be those books that I enjoyed enough to re-read at least once. That would include (in no particular order): The Thrawn trilogy, Kenobi, Dark Disciple, A New Dawn and Lost Stars. I've certainly enjoyed others, but these are the ones that I felt motivated to enjoy a second time.

 

[Mr Light]

People love "I, Jedi".....? I shouldn't speak, since I still haven't read the X-Wing series...

 

[Voth commando1]

How do you EU Star Wars faction would interact with Trek factions?

The Chiss and the cardassians?

The killiks and the Borg?

The federation and the galactic alliance?

The imperial remnant and the Romulan empire

The Hapans and the betazoids?

The Hutts and the Orion syndicate?

The Rakata and the dominion?

The Yuuzhan Vong and the Klingons?

And so on and so forth

Not just military versus matches but how would they size each other upv think about it each other, admire/dislike?

 

[Reverend]

People love "I, Jedi".....? I shouldn't speak, since I still haven't read the X-Wing series...

Yeah, I've seen quite a few people tout that one as a favourite. Certainly more often than any of the NJO books. Personally I thought it was OK; a nice little companion to the first X-Wing arc. I think my favourite thing about it is how passive aggressive the author is towards KJA's books (the events of which serve as a backdrop for this.) I think it was also the first Star Wars book to try a first person narrative which certainly gave it a novel feeling of being an in-universe document, rather than a traditional novel.

 

[WebLurker]

And the core concept.

Didn't Zahn take inspiration for his Coruscant from concepts made for the movies?

I've heard it very occasionally brought up too, but only by those that also really dug the whole Vong/NJO storyline, which as one might imagine is a relatively small but passionate sub-set of the fanbase. Most everyone else cites either the Thrawn trilogy, 'I, Jedi' or the Bane/Plagus books as being the pinnacle. So it's hardly unanimous.

I think Thrawn is the probably the most popular Star Wars book(s) of all time, not sure where the others rank.

Personally, I didn't read the NJO books until much later as at the time they were published I'd pretty much given up. The last six or so Bantam books ranged from forgettably mediocre to just plain awful so when they came out with Vector Prime I gave it a shot to see if this "bold new direction" could save it. Suffice to say it did not convince me. Indeed, the whole premise stunk of "we've ran out of ideas so....ALIENS!"
Anyway, a few years ago, back when TCW was still on the air I decided to read through them, just out of curiosity for what I'd missed over the previous decade. Star Wars books are fairly light reading, so it didn't take me long to get through the whole thing, a few months tops. So yes, while I'd agree that 'Traitor' was slightly above average compared to the other books in that series, that's not really saying much since most of those others were fairly bland and unmemorable.

I thought NJO was okay, but I do agree that it wasn't the epic it wanted to be, and in retrospect, the Vong seem really out of place in the Star Wars world.

If I had to pick what I think is the EU's best work...that's tough because I like a whole bunch of material for a lot of different reasons and no one thing really stands out for me. From novels, to games and comics, there's plenty of gems to choose from.

But since this is a "Star Wars books" thread, I suppose I should restrict it to just the novels. In which case the best indicator would be those books that I enjoyed enough to re-read at least once. That would include (in no particular order): The Thrawn trilogy, Kenobi, Dark Disciple, A New Dawn and Lost Stars. I've certainly enjoyed others, but these are the ones that I felt motivated to enjoy a second time.

I'd cite Kenobi and Thrawn trilogy as the best of Legends. The Brian Daley and A.C. Crisipin Han Solo books were great too, as was Knight Errant. From canon, I'd cite Lost Stars, Before the Awakening, A New Dawn, and Bloodlines as the greats.

 

[Skywalker]

I forgot to mention that I finished Tarkin the other day. James Luceno's always been hit-or-miss for me but I enjoyed this one from him. I'm surprised neither Bantam or Del Rey (pre-Disney acquisition) ever put out a book giving us some insight into Tarkin, but I guess they were more focused on eras where he was either already dead or not yet a significant player in galactic affairs. It was interesting to see how Tarkin's youth on an untamed world in the Outer Rim molded him, and how he took what he learned there and applied it to his career endeavors. I also enjoyed seeing him and Vader working so closely together, and seeing how the sort of triumvirate featuring himself, Vader and Palpatine formed.

I did think it was a little silly that Tarkin was able to piece together that Vader was actually Anakin Skywalker. I know he's a very sharp guy and he did briefly work with Anakin during the Clone Wars, but it just felt like a little much to me. I was also a little confused about the timeline in this, because at times Luceno was writing as if this is a story being told to the readers some time after Tarkin's death, but we never actually see who's telling us this story or when it's being told, and to whom. It was just weird.

Anyway, I'm making my way through A New Dawn now. Not really deep enough into it yet to have any really solid thoughts, except that I think Count Vidian is a little too cartoony.