Star Wars Canon Challenge
Dear EU Completist readers (especially ones from SDN), and movie purists too:
Now that Lucas, Rostoni, and even Chee (see last post) are all on the same bandwagon, stating that there are two separate continuities for Star Wars (a fact demonstrated and an opinion maintained by this author for years), I would like for you to join me in a little experiment:
1. Will you concede that there is more than one continuity, and that your opponents (purists in the case of EU completists and vice versa) are not evil, but were instead just as confused as you?
2. A certain angry segment of EU completists have attacked the dual-canon position with great bluster and vitriol. If you're one of them, will you now concede that it is at least generally correct?
3. Given that there are two continuities, can you explain to me why, in discussing or analyzing 'facts' about Star Wars, one should select the EU version of Star Wars over the Lucas films by default, and not the other way around?
Thanks in advance.
posted by Author @ 02:12
37 Comments:
Just out of curiosity, in regard to #1, how could movie purists possibly deny the existence of two continuities? I mean, I could understand EU completists saying that there was one overall continuity that encompassed everything (if even just because they were ignorant of the facts), but for movie purists to say there was one continuity would mean that they were pretending that the EU didn't exist at all, even within its own separate world, which quite frankly doesn't make any sense.
True, the phrasing could've been better there. The principle is that purists are known to dismiss the EU out of hand, often basing attacks on its many internal contradictions and retcons, but that's not necessarily valid. Even when Lucas is referring to the EU as a separate, parallel universe, he's still giving it the benefit of being a universe. Does that help?
I suppose some people might completely disregard the EU in the same sense that they might disregard fan-fiction, but even fan-fiction has its own continuity in a sense. But yeah, I get what you're saying. It's also interesting to note that even within just the EU, there are more than one continuity at work, since everything given the Infinities label is technically outside of the Film+EU continuity. So what is that, 3 "official" continuities, at least?
"Given that there are two continuities, can you explain to me why, in discussing or analyzing 'facts' about Star Wars, one should select the EU version of Star Wars over the Lucas films by default, and not the other way around?"
Can you explain why one should select the films alone by default, and not the other way around? Seems like a mere excuse for restricting the field of evidence as much as possible to me.
Infinities seems more to be a bunch of one shot stories or mini arcs that don't need much mutual coherence. Ergo no overall continuity.
Lucas' vision is the films. Sansweet says the films are the true story of SW. The EU authors put their own spin on the SW'verse and Lucas may give a few directives, but the EU is still the EU+films 'verse. The point of the debate is to get to the truth and what is the truth is the real vision of SW, which is Lucas' pervue, no matter how many other people work to help create the films. He's still got the final say so on his vision.
It's also interesting to note that even within just the EU, there are more than one continuity at work, since everything given the Infinities label is technically outside of the Film+EU continuity. So what is that, 3 "official" continuities, at least?
Well, that's more of an 'official non-continuity', really, as the other anon noted.
Can you explain why one should select the films alone by default, and not the other way around?
1. I asked you first.
2. The usual default position is to accept the canon policy of the owner/maker, or the franchise owners where there is a disparity between the two. The Flannelled One, Chairman of the Board, has decreed that the EU is a separate and parallel universe, and even Chee has explained that the facts of one are not necessarily the facts of the other.
So again I ask . . . if someone wants to talk about Star Wars facts, why assume this includes EU facts? If you specify that you wish to include them that's all fine and dandy, but you can hardly force the matter or proclaim your way the only valid way.
So again I ask . . . if someone wants to talk about Star Wars facts, why assume this includes EU facts? If you specify that you wish to include them that's all fine and dandy, but you can hardly force the matter or proclaim your way the only valid way.
Well I guess I could take a stab at that. I would say if they have established two official continuities, a film only (or FO) and the same with additional EU material (FEU), then wouldn't it make sense to look for SW Facts in the FO and when the FO is silent on a matter rely on the FEU? As the FEU is official I don't see how you can't include it when something is not directly contradicted by the FO.
It seems like that was the entire goal of the G and C canon policy. I'm not seeing any change here.
What Chee says in one of the follow up questions is that what's in the EU doesn't exist in the films only universe, saying that's why it's called the films only universe.
Only in the films+EU universe does the EU exist.
wouldn't it make sense to look for SW Facts in the FO and when the FO is silent on a matter rely on the FEU?
GStone took care of this very nicely and in keeping with the quotes.
But, even without reference to the quotes, what's the use of a difference between FO and FEU if you go FEU when FO is "silent"? By default, FO is "silent" on everything FEU talks about, including the F part of FEU.
Luceno's Labyrinth of Evil, for instance, is a direct EU lead-in to RotS (along with some animated stuff, but that's another matter). In an FEU context, there's a lot that's different for the F part compared to an FO vision.
Does that make any sense to you? FO is completely nullified if you mix FEU in per the manner you describe. By analogy, I'm reminded of the old Murphy's Law book entry . . . the title of the law escapes me . . . wherein we learn:
"If you pour a spoonful of wine in a barrel full of sewage, you get sewage.
If you pour a spoonful of sewage in a barrel full of wine, you get sewage."
What Chee says in one of the follow up questions is that what's in the EU doesn't exist in the films only universe, saying that's why it's called the films only universe.
Only in the films+EU universe does the EU exist.
No offense GStone, but "duh". ;)
It seems like you are automatically assigning the FO as the higher ranking continuity, and for your interest level and needs that may work for you. However for me... my interest in Star Wars needs to go deeper than what only the films reveal. As a wargamer, computer gamer, and model maker/collector I guess I place more importance on the FEU continuity simply for the wealth of additional information it offers. As technically there can be nothing in the EU that can remain canon if the films override it... [shrug] I'm not sure why you would casually discard the EU material. But I understand there may be those out there that are only interested in the movies.
Does that make any sense to you? FO is completely nullified if you mix FEU in per the manner you describe. By analogy, I'm reminded of the old Murphy's Law book entry . . . the title of the law escapes me . . . wherein we learn:
"If you pour a spoonful of wine in a barrel full of sewage, you get sewage.
If you pour a spoonful of sewage in a barrel full of wine, you get sewage."
G2k,
I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't necessarily agree that it is germane here. The EU is official canon correct? (Classed as C canon material) The G and C canon exist for a pretty simple reason it seems. It's basically a way for GL to have the best of both worlds. He can freely create his 'vision' of Star Wars without regard to existing material he didn't create or oversee, but at the same time he's allowing others to expand his IP to generate revenue. The G and C canon is basically a great mechanism for him to say "I can write anything I want without regard to something someone else as already covered." However if he decides not to, well then we have this C level canon material to use. There is G level canon material in the FEU continuity. That means that the FEU starts with Lucas' ‘vision’ of the Star Wars world... right? So naturally it seems to me if you do not find an answer in G level canon you can go into C level. Since the C level can never override G level I don't see the sewage spoiling wine analogy ringing true here.
I know you probably don't agree, but that's my perspective.
thanks,
kw
The EU is official canon correct?
Inside its own continuity, yes. But really, when you think about it, the Star Wars EU is really no more valid than the Star Trek EU. But are considered a real part of that continuity, but otherwise, it is completely separate from the other continuity, and has no effect on it, whatsoever. Why we would automatically turn to the EU for Star Wars, and not for Star Trek, really makes no sense. Yes, they call the SW EU "canon", but mainly because they keep a public holocron with a hierarchy. Star Trek's official literature would also be considered canon within its own continuity, but that doesn't mean we should use it when the other continuity is silent on something. That would make the point of separate continuities pointless in the first place.
I mean, if you wanted to use the EU, and consider it real Star Wars, that's fine. There's really nothing wrong with that. But to argue that the Star Wars Film+EU continuity is as valid or more so than the Film-only continuity is the same thing as arguing that the Star Trek Live Action+EU continuity is as valid or more so than the Live Action-only continuity. The difference is virtually nonexistent.
Inside its own continuity, yes. But really, when you think about it, the Star Wars EU is really no more valid than the Star Trek EU. But are considered a real part of that continuity, but otherwise, it is completely separate from the other continuity, and has no effect on it, whatsoever.
It sounds like this is quickly coming down to a 'What SW continuity type are you?" debate. I am firmly a FEU if that is the case because limiting myself to movie only canon is silly when there is EU canon to draw from.
The other thing is that the EU is "valid" because it's been declared canon. (C level canon) That maybe within the FEU continuity only as you state, but that continuity is official and valid. If a movie purist rejects the EU stuff because he's decided he's discussing the FO only then fine. But the FO is not the only official continuity as you've expertly outlined above.
The two continuity system here still doesn't resolve canon issues at all if you have two people using different continuities for there side of an argument. And as both contain the film material (G level canon) I'm not sure how or if you can decide one is superior over the other. It's going to come down to a personal belief of which is preferable and that means you might as well be fighting over green or purple.
Why we would automatically turn to the EU for Star Wars, and not for Star Trek, really makes no sense.
I'm not familiar at all with the Star Trek policies on what is or what isn't canon in the Star Trek universe. [I'm too much a SW nerd. ;) ] As they are two different franchises can you really compare one against the other anyway?
Star Trek's official literature would also be considered canon within its own continuity, but that doesn't mean we should use it when the other continuity is silent on something. That would make the point of separate continuities pointless in the first place.
Actually it makes the FO continuity pointless for me as a resource. What do I do if I need an answer that the movie doesn't provide but is available in EU material? I'm not talking about a disparity; I mean the FO has incomplete information because it didn't appear in a movie. If I had to constrain myself to the FO only continuity it would make the FO useless to me in any hobby type endeavor I engage in. As there are two official Star Wars continuities, one of which is fully contained in the other I'm going to choose the more complete one every time. Until LL says the FEU does not contain official canon material, I’ll be treating it as such.
Thanks,
kw
KW,
(Sorry anon if I take your thunder)
1. FO is higher-ranking . . . it's Lucas's. He told Licensing they could go do their thing, but it doesn't affect the movies up until the point where he decides to paint some hottie blue 'cause he saw that in a comic. He does, after all, read the comics . . . just nothing else of the SW brand, per his statements and that of others.
2. If your wargame/modeling research requires more information than the canon provides and you don't care where it comes from as long as it's official in some way, then you can use the EU all day long, absolutely. But that's simply someone else's take on it. I'm reminded of Bob Brown . . . "THINK FOR YOURSELF". Rote copying of someone else's still-not-George-Lucas interpretation is all good, but why not use your own?
Example: For the fanfic I'm writing I need to get a sense of Imperial officer lingo and behavior. We have very little of that in the canon. I plan to peruse the EU for ideas, but I don't feel constrained by it. I could just as easily peruse a US Navy manual or gank the tone and orders off of Battlestar Galactica for all the difference it makes, but hopefully EU authors have written bridge scenes that feel more like canon Star Wars than the Navy or BSG would. If not, then I won't be using it.
Simple, eh?
I guess I just don't understand the origin of your complaint, 'cause if it isn't part of George Lucas's Star Wars then I'm at a loss to understand why we should really care, as you seem to.
Basically, to me, you're making the EU Completist Fallacy . . . i.e. if it's canon in one continuity then it's canon in all. (That's actually the polite formulation of it.)
Your research is EU based, and that's cool if that's what you like. But you can't claim that FO is incomplete because the EU has other stuff in it that the FO doesn't have.
Lucas's universe is complete, and complete unto itself. Just because we haven't seen all we wish we could doesn't change that.
Darkstar,
I must formally point out the abhorent abuse of the English language I've seen you use over the years.
...
The name 'Lucas' doesn't get an apostrophy S, you numbskull. :'P
In proper English, words, especially names, that end in an S in their singular form, which are then, made into the possessive form, get only just the apostrophy added at the end...not an apostrophy and and S, you git.
"It's motherfuckin' Enligshi-fu doo op!!!"
Pffbbbbbbbbbbbtt!!!
No, he's French. The S is silent. It's George Lucas (pronounced "Georges" (Zheorzh, like the hurricane) "Lookah").
What? It's canon. :P
Anyway, yes, you've definitely been drinkin'.
(And yes, I'm kidding about the French thing, adversaries. GStone is correct and I am indeed hebetudinous in that regard. Hebetudinous's friend and Dumbass's comrade Moron said so.)
Example: For the fanfic I'm writing I need to get a sense of Imperial officer lingo and behavior. We have very little of that in the canon. I plan to peruse the EU for ideas, but I don't feel constrained by it. I could just as easily peruse a US Navy manual or gank the tone and orders off of Battlestar Galactica for all the difference it makes, but hopefully EU authors have written bridge scenes that feel more like canon Star Wars than the Navy or BSG would. If not, then I won't be using it.
Simple, eh?
Not really an all encompassing example actually. :) What if you wanted to include something less abstract like the inclusion of Han's children? From the movies there is no material to use, but in the EU there is material regarding Han's children. Are you saying you would consult and consider what the EU says and decide whether or not to honor it?... That ultimately if you want to write a different story of Han's children you can? If what you're saying above means that you can disregard an established EU fact (C level canon) then I still would humbly disagree with you.
I guess this is just an 'agree to disagree' discussion. I understand the stance you are trying to represent, I just can't agree with the disregard for EU material being canon. It exists in an official continuity that LL recognizes and tracks to allow the expansion of Star Wars through commercializing/mechanizing. It's canon. (…with a very big and obvious caveat that George Lucas can override it with any future forays into movies, but until he does that's our Star Wars universe.) It's designated canon from LL's very own policy on what is and is not canon. [shrug]
I guess I'll just go back to the Flat Earth forum. ;)
thanks,
kw
KW,
You mention aiming for things less abstract, but I've got to tell you that your style itself is rather abstract and slippery. You express disagreement, but your only concrete reason given in the last post is your statement that Licensing considers the EU canon, and thus you consider it so even in regards to the Lucas continuity.
However, I must reiterate that your reasoning is what Chee of Licensing explicitly rejected in regards to the Lucas continuity. It's what Rostoni of Licensing also seems to concur with given her statements, and, more to the point, it's what Lucas of Flannel has made obvious in reference to the different universes.
This isn't an "'agree to disagree' discussion" or a "'What SW continuity type are you?' debate". We are not discussing our subjective opinions. There are objective statements . . . objective facts . . . in evidence. You are perfectly at liberty to choose whatever subjective opinion you wish and run with it, but you're taking your subjectivist approach and attempting to squirm around the objective statements by pointing to feeling rather than fact.
You're still subjectively placing the Licensing continuity above the film-only continuity, not just in some esoteric conception of relative importance, but also simply in regards to the nature of your statements. For example, in the final sentence of your first paragraph above you reiterate that EU facts are C-level canon. In the second paragraph you try to drive the point home with the language of "official continuity" and "It's canon" and "our Star Wars universe" and "designated canon".
You ignore the fact that even the Keeper of the Holocron has stated that there is a continuity where such things don't matter, and that it's Lucas's. Rostoni has told you and me and everyone else the exact same thing. And, of course, it goes without saying that so has Lucas.
I agree completely that the EU has a continuity. I agree completely that Licensing, creators of the EU, are in charge of that continuity. I agree completely that Lucas allows them to refer to and include his films as facts in their continuity. I agree completely that Lucas has even seen a handful of things he liked in that EU continuity and paid homage to them in his canon (i.e. he ganked 'em).
But Licensing is not in charge of Lucas's continuity, nor do they claim to be. And it is Lucas's continuity that makes our Star Wars universe. He allows his films to be used in another continuity altogether, but he's explicitly stated that the other continuity is another universe altogether.
If that's the universe you want to draw facts from, then that's your affair. But it's not Star Wars . . . it's a parallel universe of Star Wars. Who knows what Butterfly Effect / Mirror Universe differences there are? We'll never know, unless and until Lucas is imprisoned in a sweatshop and forced to make films and line-edit novelizations thereof covering every moment in time that the EU has covered.
But that's not gonna happen, so if you want to use the EU as a very, very rough guide then it's all good, but unless you're explicitly tied down to the EU universe then I don't see any logic in tying yourself down to EU facts in Lucas's universe.
"THINK FOR YOURSELF."
"THINK FOR YOURSELF."
Belittling me is not necessary. I'm only expressing my opinion, I'm not trying to win or lose a 'war'. I'm not even trying to represent a side.
Your 'Flat Earth' analogy that I read prior to my last post is pretty disturbing peek into your logic and train of thought. I think you've lost sight of something fairly straight forward. I'm not going to continue with this discussion because of that glimpse into your mindset. I would label you a 'fanatic', a 'fanatic' that is unhealthy for your cause. Ultimately I just don't care enough to combat that. I will continue to see the EU as part of the Star Wars universe. For me it’s as simple as that. LL has rules as to what canon facts take precedence over others... I'm just going to go with them on the issue.
Thanks for the discussion.
humbly,
kw
I will continue to see the EU as part of the Star Wars universe. For me it’s as simple as that. LL has rules as to what canon facts take precedence over others... I'm just going to go with them on the issue.
Actually, LL has rules as to what canon facts take precedence in the Film+EU continuity. Never have they stated that the Film+EU continuity takes precedent over the Film-only continuity. In fact, there have been many statements made to the contrary. And I fail to see how G2k's Flat Earth analogy should imply he's a fanatic.
Of course I'm a fanatic. Had I not been a fanatic I'd have simply been called mean eventually. Why? Because I strongly disagree with KW and do so with facts. That's a no-no in KW's world. She knows I wasn't belittling her with the Bob Brown quote . . . that was just an excuse to end the discussion with the fanaticism jab, because I had the gall . . . gall, I say! . . . to not respect KW's feelings, instead hitting harder with facts when KW continued to resist them.
See, hard facts are not an acceptable part of KW's rather obnoxious hippy argumentation style wherein feelings reign and facts are supposed to be fluid. So, any mean ole person who has the audacity to use objective facts is an evil dirty war-mongering Republican hate machine.
I've gotta say, it's been a long time since I saw that method of argumentation employed with such skill. I didn't even recognize it at first, and was briefly confounded by it. That's its power . . . a fact-based opponent will be confused because KW doesn't actually say anything, though it's clear that she keeps disagreeing. Even better is when they anchor their opinion to some real detail and hold it above all the other facts, so folks get confused worse as they try to figure out if KW might actually have a point with more validity than is readily apparent. But fear not, it's a false alarm.
If you "agree to disagree" or admit that it's based on what type of person you are then you're okay. After all, you've respected KW's feelings, which is good. Though, on an objectivity level you've also reinforced KW's opinions, which is not good. It gives the appearance of everyone leaving happy, but the person whose opinion is based on objective fact has just sold out, and most of the time they don't realize it until it's too late.
But if you don't agree to disagree . . . if you keep pressing KW for facts and logic, or (gasp!) if you bombard KW's position with them, then you're just not playing nice and are a bad person . . . pure meanness or obsessive fanaticism are the favorite attacks / escape routes used at that point.
It's vaguely similar to the Bliss Ninny, though that fails to capture the full flavor of the method.
In any case, I'd rather be rude than wrong. KW's opinion is anchored to fact only in regards to Licensing having a continuity. KW's whole position is that we should accept that continuity because, well, it exists.
The fact that they only have a say over the EU's continuity is ignored by KW, along with anything else unhelpful that Licensing personnel and especially head honcho Lucas have stated.
When those facts are brought in KW's reasoning implodes, which is why I'm a dirty fanatic meanie.
KW is entirely able to have her own opinion of her own personal canon . . . what she chooses to accept and what she decides to reject, and why. The problem comes when someone tries to take their subjective personal beliefs and assert that they are valid globally, especially when the objectivity of a fact-based assessment already exists. Invariably the subjective beliefs will fail, and the temper tantrum will begin.
Of course I'm a fanatic. Had I not been a fanatic I'd have simply been called mean eventually. Why? Because I strongly disagree with KW and do so with facts. That's a no-no in KW's world. She knows I wasn't belittling her with the Bob Brown quote . . . that was just an excuse to end the discussion with the fanaticism jab, because I had the gall . . . gall, I say!
Please, try to be coy and cute with someone else. I obviously have thought about this to form my opinion the same as you. You were being rude for no reason.
I never said being a fanatic was bad, I said the kind of fanatic your are is bad for your cause.
See, hard facts are not an acceptable part of KW's rather obnoxious hippy argumentation style wherein feelings reign and facts are supposed to be fluid. So, any mean ole person who has the audacity to use objective facts is an evil dirty war-mongering Republican hate machine.
So far off base to reality I actually laughed a bit.
I've gotta say, it's been a long time since I saw that method of argumentation employed with such skill. I didn't even recognize it at first, and was briefly confounded by it. That's its power . . . a fact-based opponent will be confused because KW doesn't actually say anything, though it's clear that she keeps disagreeing. Even better is when they anchor their opinion to some real detail and hold it above all the other facts, so folks get confused worse as they try to figure out if KW might actually have a point with more validity than is readily apparent. But fear not, it's a false alarm.
I did say something actually. I’m not trying to trick anyone, per your implication, but simply stating my opinion and what it’s based on. That’s all. I assume anyone who is reading has the inclination to make up their own mind. If they don’t agree with me… you know… that’s ok with me.
If you "agree to disagree" or admit that it's based on what type of person you are then you're okay. After all, you've respected KW's feelings, which is good. Though, on an objectivity level you've also reinforced KW's opinions, which is not good. It gives the appearance of everyone leaving happy, but the person whose opinion is based on objective fact has just sold out, and most of the time they don't realize it until it's too late.
But if you don't agree to disagree . . . if you keep pressing KW for facts and logic, or (gasp!) if you bombard KW's position with them, then you're just not playing nice and are a bad person . . . pure meanness or obsessive fanaticism are the favorite attacks / escape routes used at that point.
Sounds like you’re attacking my person instead of my opinion. It appears you are classically resorting to flaming the individual instead of their position.
It's vaguely similar to the Bliss Ninny, though that fails to capture the full flavor of the method.
Really is this necessary or germane to if or if not EU facts are the ‘real’ SW? Are you trying to shift the focus so people don’t think about what I said?
In any case, I'd rather be rude than wrong. KW's opinion is anchored to fact only in regards to Licensing having a continuity. KW's whole position is that we should accept that continuity because, well, it exists.
The fact that they only have a say over the EU's continuity is ignored by KW, along with anything else unhelpful that Licensing personnel and especially head honcho Lucas have stated.
My position is that I accept the continuity because it is ‘official’. It’s that I consider EU facts canon because LL considers them canon. LL maintains and ‘has say’ over the FEU only continuity? Yes, yes they do. Why do you think that maintain this official continuity I wonder? It’s because anyone who steps into the Star Wars universe beyond just the movies can and will buy things that are Star Wars. That means anyone who wants to watch, read, computer game, role-play, board-game something in Star Wars needs to have material in which to do this. This material is officially overseen in an official continuity by LL so George can make a lot of money off his ‘vision’. I’m very happy with this because I like spending money on Star Wars and the many things beyond the movies that are in Star Wars.
When those facts are brought in KW's reasoning implodes, which is why I'm a dirty fanatic meanie.
Get over yourself. This discussion isn’t about you.
KW is entirely able to have her own opinion of her own personal canon . . . what she chooses to accept and what she decides to reject, and why. The problem comes when someone tries to take their subjective personal beliefs and assert that they are valid globally, especially when the objectivity of a fact-based assessment already exists. Invariably the subjective beliefs will fail, and the temper tantrum will begin.
I utilize the canon EU facts to give substance, beyond the movies, to the Star Wars universe. Please give me the ‘fact’ that states that the FEU continuity is not Star Wars.
thanks,
kw
"I utilize the canon EU facts to give substance, beyond the movies, to the Star Wars universe. Please give me the ‘fact’ that states that the FEU continuity is not Star Wars."
Here's one: George Lucas, the man who owns/controls the Star Wars universe, doesn't care or know about what happens in the EU.
I utilize the canon EU facts to give substance, beyond the movies, to the Star Wars universe. Please give me the ‘fact’ that states that the FEU continuity is not Star Wars.
Have you ever stopped and thought about why there exists a separate independent universe/continuity for just the Film story alone?
How can the Film+EU continuity be the real continuity if A. It's a different universe altogether from the one Lucas is involved with and B. If future events in the Film-only universe can end up completely differently than those of the Film+EU universe (case and point: Boba Fett).
You also ignore the statements made by various people (such as Steve Sansweet, Sue Rostoni, Chris Cerasi, Allan Kausch, and Leland Chee), that tell us many things, such as that EU events are irrelevant to the movie universe, that the EU is just one possible future, and that the "real story of Star Wars" is only the Film continuity, while everything outside of that are foggy windows (which is useful somewhat insofar as discussing plot, but for cold-hard facts and technical details this is largely not helpful).
But it basically comes down to this: why would the universe that the owner and creator works in NOT be the real one? Because there is another official one? So what?
Since the facts and logic have been well-covered . . .
Sounds like you’re attacking my person instead of my opinion. It appears you are classically resorting to flaming the individual instead of their position.
Uh-huh.
So I fairly politely dismanted your reasoning in a post, and you retort that you're ending the discussion because I am a person with a "disturbed" thought process (based not on our discussion but something else) and a harmful "fanatic".
(Though of course, the "discussion isn't about" me, though it seems to me that you made it so.)
I then dismantled your rhetorical maneuvers and overall thought process as demonstrated, and now all the sudden I'm a wicked, wicked man resorting to flames and ad hominems. What, if I'd called you a disturbing fanatic it would've been better?
Ludicrous!
But anyway, thanks for yet another example of anti-chronological thinking amongst my opponents. It's added so much to my opinion of your charm.
Point, G2k
In other news:
I don't see what anyone on the wars side is really getting worked up over. You can still debate with the EU, just understand that some people would want a consistent 'documentary' style debate... and the EU contradicts itself far too much for it to be applicable to the situation...
If people accept that both are valid continuities and define which one they are using for the purposes of their debate then there shouldn't be a problem.
Quite correct. The problem comes when movie purists or EU Completists try to claim that their way is the objective way, when it most certainly is not.
Both continuities have validity, as far as that goes. So as long as you don't try to pooh-pooh the validity of the other or try to overrule the fact that both exist, you're okay and can happily choose whatever you like without pissing anyone off.
Of course, if you want to define your analysis as going with what the maker/owner says, then yes you must go with Lucas's continuity, 'cause he's the big cheese.
For the "film is silent, so divert to EU" argument, the rebuttal is quite simple. We have a film-only universe, and a film+EU universe. Where the film-only universe is mysterious to us ("film is silent"), we _cannot_ defer to the EU since that does not exist in it! Otherwise it would become the same as the film+EU universe, and we'd have only one universe -- film+EU. But this is disproven by the quotes and the argument is thus refuted. And like G2K has said, both continuities are valid in their respective universes.
Which of course begs the question of why the Warsies do not like the idea? They can still have their big huge uber guns, however it seems that they want that universe to be the _only_ possibility, and that another universe of Star Wars cannot exist. The correct approach (dual canon) would be at odds with that concept.
It most likely is ego. They've spent so much time arguing against our side, that the idea that we are right gets in their craw. It doesn't matter if they've got a whole verse to play with. It doesn't fit with the paradigm they've been using for years, that there is just one. They argued the EU is good for film info, but this new development refutes that.
It's gotta sting like a motherfucker.
Yep, it probably will sting a lot, but I'm not about to jump back into ASVS and give it a shot -- I've already taken far too much vitriol from them and I am not looking forward to taking any more. If some other brave soul wants to try it out, go ahead, but I don't think they'll get a warm reception.
"Can you explain why one should select the films alone by default, and not the other way around? Seems like a mere excuse for restricting the field of evidence as much as possible to me."
We could choose the films alone, or we can choose the films plus the EU as our debate material, but we cannot choose the EU alone either, at least not if we want to follow any semblance of the company's practices. It depends on which version of Star Wars (pure Lucas or Lucas's stuff plus the EU stuff) we want to debate. The conclusions drawn from EU evidence are still valid in that continuity, and the conclusions drawn from movie evidence are valid in that continuity, too. But that does not mean that a conclusion from one continuity is valid in the other, as it depends on the "evidence landscape" there and how well it corresponds to the theory.
Your statement that this "restricts the field of evidence" is wrong. Rather it tells us what evidence applies where. There are two universes, the films are applicable to both. But in only one is the EU applicable.
In case one wants to know why we should take the films over the EU, it may be for the following reason. RSA seems to have made an interesting case for the idea that the Warsies have managed to actually gain control of the EU, through contacts like Curtis Saxton, author of the ICS books that provide high-yield weapons in the EU Universe, to try and make it beat Star Trek (and a whole heap of other sci-fi universes) in the online VS debates:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/Warsiegroup.html
Thus, sticking to the movie universe is a way to get a more "pure" view of Star Wars -- true Star Wars unclouded by any of that fancruft that is in the EU. Thus the results of investigations in it don't automatically come out in favor of fan X's opinion. It lets uncorruptable Lucasian Star Wars(TM), The Gospels(TM), or Whatever Else You Wish To Call Them(TM!) be the judge.
It's been a while, since they've said anything on the public forums about Chee's stuff. I'm surprised they haven't come out with something more cohesive to put out for the public aside from "it's shit". I was anticipating something much earlier than this. I refuse to believe they are too flabbergasted to come up with something. Certainly the old Sansweet/Cerasi quote should be used.
Some of them are apparently either in very deep denial, or simply didn't read up about it at all, because they're still saying things like "Chee's just talking about the different layers of canon" which makes you think they either refuse to acknowledge or missed the part where Chee talks about multiple continuities.
At first, was thinking it was a way to help keep everyone in line by not letting many others know, but then, I thought that wouldn't be necessary.
Post a Comment
<< Home