From what I understand, Fett's role was intended to be bigger. Originally he was to be Vader's outright henchman (in white and grey armor). But rewrites to the ESB script reduced him to a minor role.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars S4
- Thread starter Mysterion
- Start date
From what I understand, Fett's role was intended to be bigger. Originally he was to be Vader's outright henchman (in white and grey armor). But rewrites to the ESB script reduced him to a minor role.
Everything can be retconned and she violated canon multiple times,
I thought the books were canon
You're forgetting this is a trek board - the raping of childhood is reserved for when J.J. Abrams does Trek.
Yevetha
Commodore
Tell that to Karen Traviss
Everything can be retconned and she violated canon multiple times, so i dont care for her work.
Careful, she might think you're a Talifan.
I enjoyed her books, and I'm sure she's a lovely person in person, but just from the way she's dealt with the fanbase online, I'm not a fan of her. Still, I think she did okay with her books, even if he did become a circle-jerk in the end of "Clones/Mandolorians = Cool; Jedi = Scum".
She is the Ayn Rand SW Lit.
I thought the books were canon
They're treated as such in the sense that other tie-ins are expected to stay consistent with them. But it's always a mistake to think that "canon" means "absolutely inviolable fact that will never be contradicted." Any long-running canon contradicts itself all the time, either by accident or by the deliberate choice to correct earlier mistakes or not let old assumptions get in the way of great new ideas. Since it's fiction, not documentary history, the creators can change it and just pretend it was always the way it is now. The "truth" of canon is whatever it's currently said to be, and earlier canon that's been discarded is presumed to have been erroneous.
There are plenty of examples of this in other franchises, like newer Star Trek productions ignoring the implicit sexism and other sixties-isms of the original or Marvel Comics pretending that Spider-Man is still in his twenties even though he was in high school in 1962. But it should be self-evident with regard to Star Wars, considering that Lucas has altered the original canon works, the films themselves, on more than one occasion. The problem is that too many fans are misled by the false belief that the word "canon" somehow implies immutable fact. That's what it's used to (allegedly) mean in religious contexts, but here we're talking about fiction, about works that are overtly not factual and are just exercises in pretending. That includes pretending to be consistent even when they're not, and that's what canon really means.
I thought the books were canon
They're treated as such in the sense that other tie-ins are expected to stay consistent with them. But it's always a mistake to think that "canon" means "absolutely inviolable fact that will never be contradicted." Any long-running canon contradicts itself all the time, either by accident or by the deliberate choice to correct earlier mistakes or not let old assumptions get in the way of great new ideas. Since it's fiction, not documentary history, the creators can change it and just pretend it was always the way it is now. The "truth" of canon is whatever it's currently said to be, and earlier canon that's been discarded is presumed to have been erroneous.
There are plenty of examples of this in other franchises, like newer Star Trek productions ignoring the implicit sexism and other sixties-isms of the original or Marvel Comics pretending that Spider-Man is still in his twenties even though he was in high school in 1962. But it should be self-evident with regard to Star Wars, considering that Lucas has altered the original canon works, the films themselves, on more than one occasion. The problem is that too many fans are misled by the false belief that the word "canon" somehow implies immutable fact. That's what it's used to (allegedly) mean in religious contexts, but here we're talking about fiction, about works that are overtly not factual and are just exercises in pretending. That includes pretending to be consistent even when they're not, and that's what canon really means.
The EU, IMO, has never been that consistent. LFL did a fine job trying, but as new stuff built on newer stuff from the movies/tv productions, the older stuff just doesn't fit all the time.
Whether something is "Canon" or not should not be a criteria for enjoyment. A well told story is a well told story, and whether it's fictional facts jive with other fictional facts seems--to me at least--a silly thing to worry over. Continuity over canon.
I came away from those books absolutely hating the female jedi lead (can't recall her name, the one that had the affair with the Clone Trooper and got pregnant cause she felt bad for him). Thought their instructor/Sargent/adopted father was a far more interesting character.
Which is why their policy of requiring tie-ins to treat everything as equally valid has always struck me as awkward.
Well, and enjoyment over continuity. They're all made-up stories anyway. It's not like we're studying for a test and have to get the right answers.
Should have been more precise: I mean continuity within the story being told, not necessarily across a whole product line. And you're right, in the end enjoyment should be the final deciding factor.
I've met SW (and ST) fans that cause something was retconned out of canon suddenly hated a episode or book they loved before.
Last edited:
^I imagine that has a lot to do with the enjoyment one can have from a story that feels like a window into a bigger world. We like to have the illusion that the world continues somewhere else after our little glimpse into it is finished. Hence "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Contradictions in continuity destroy that perception, and so the enjoyment of the escapist aspect of Star Wars, and the like, is diminished. More stories (more glimpses into the larger fictional world) should, ideally, renforce that illusion and not shatter it.
The contradictions have never bothered me one bit. I always take each work on its on merits.
I like that feeling of a larger world too, but I've never felt it was threatened by the existence of stories that didn't fit into it. After all, it's not like I'm some drone who can only passively absorb what others feed me and can't process contradictory information. I can think for myself. I've spent decades picking and choosing among the various contradictory Star Trek tie-ins and constructing my own version of that larger universe. And when new information comes along that conflicts with my model, I restructure it. There have been multiple times over the years when I've had to restructure my model drastically, but that's okay, because it's a stimulating creative exercise. Nothing "destroys" that perception of the larger universe, because that perception is a creation of my own mind, under my control, and thus I can adapt it.
And if stories have to be excluded from that model because they don't fit, that's fine, because they're still enjoyable simply as entertaining works of fiction. There can always be more than one interpretation of a fictional universe; I don't have any trouble enjoying the Adam West Batman, the DC Animated Universe Batman, and the Christopher Nolan Batman at the same time and in different ways. I just compartmentalize them in my mind, treat each one as distinct from the others. Same with novels or comics that don't fit into the greater whole -- I just go "Okay, this goes in a different category than that" and enjoy the story for what it is.
If it helps, just think of the stuff that fits the canon as history and the other stuff as historical fiction, or even alternate-history fiction. You can read and enjoy historical fiction even if you know that real history didn't happen that way, because you understand that merely proposing an alternative path things could've taken doesn't threaten or destroy the actual fabric of history. So it should be just as possible to enjoy a tie-in novel or comic that isn't consistent with canon or other tie-ins.
Even when each work is, in theory, a smaller piece of a larger work?
Of course, the world building that is Star Wars or Trek is quite a different beast from a single-author universe like Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. Contradictions are inevitable, so one has to adapt to them to enjoy the story. I just also understand why for some it's irritating when there are contradictions. It's a breaking of the fourth wall.
Yeah, when I used to read Star Wars novels I ended up building my own personal continuity, excluding what I didn't like, the major example being the New Jedi Order series, which just got too depressing and dark to really be Star Wars anymore. There is darkness in Star Wars, but there is a point where it just got too tonally off for me. But then, this was also around the point where I lost interest in the books altogether.
Even if the work is a piece of a larger saga. I take each story told and judge it on its own value as a story and the enjoyment I get from it. How it is supposed to fit into a ever changing "canon" or "franchise" isn't a concern I give much consideration.
A wise policy to have, and leads to less complaining on the internet and delusions that a person who's only involvement in a franchise is buying what it sells can run it better than the people who made it.
Fett humiliated again. HA! Whatta loser.
Ventress never gets laid, just kills any man who hits on her.
That robot 40-Love or whatever it was called. No IG-88...thank goodness...it enough for 3 of the ESB guys to be chums for decades.
What kind of moral was: "Who we are doesn't change, who we think we are does" ?
So...that means Ventress is a psycho murder bitch, she may think she is compassionate. She is WRONG. She is only kidding herself.
Or was she really a decent sort who was buried under what she thought she was...a hate-filled, not-quite-sith assassin.
Man, dis shit makes you think, dawg.
Ventress never gets laid, just kills any man who hits on her.
That robot 40-Love or whatever it was called. No IG-88...thank goodness...it enough for 3 of the ESB guys to be chums for decades.
What kind of moral was: "Who we are doesn't change, who we think we are does" ?
So...that means Ventress is a psycho murder bitch, she may think she is compassionate. She is WRONG. She is only kidding herself.
Or was she really a decent sort who was buried under what she thought she was...a hate-filled, not-quite-sith assassin.
Man, dis shit makes you think, dawg.
Yevetha
Commodore
Fett humiliated again. HA! Whatta loser.
Ventress never gets laid, just kills any man who hits on her.
She is into BDSM:
Were they suggesting she groined that lech with her saber? Cruel....
Nah, ninjas all channel the force for their abilities.
Nah, ninjas all channel the force for their abilities.
Similar threads
