Hey Khan, if you can't already tell, this board has some rules regarding what constitutes canon in debates. The lists you've seen represent what is considered canon both here and in at least one other popular debate site, namely www.spacebattles.com.

What should also be apparent is that Darkstar has fought/is fighting for his interpretation of what is and is not canon. Finally, it should be glaringly obvious that his is an opinion not held in high esteem and that in general, the man himself is regarded as a pain, to put it nicely.

It would be a good idea to check out both sides of the issue, though, as a debater's character shouldn't in any way be attacked in order to defeat his argument. But, even with an objective view of the situation, Darkstar's canon policy is an extreme position to hold, and is lacking in solid evidence to back it up.

From what I recall, in previous threads where he posted on this issue, his argument hinges on a quote from GL regarding the EU occupying an alternate universe. The first problem with the argument is that the quote was not originally presented in context. Even so, when I first read it, I interpreted it as an answer to some question like "How does the EU factor into your work when adding to the Star Wars saga?". GL's answer shows he doesn't let it factor in when creating his own stories. This is quite reasonable, as it would lengthen the already time consuming process of creating the new films. It also explains how canon can sometimes contradict what we see in the EU.

Darkstar's position, however, is that GL considers the entirety of the EU as an alternate universe, that with GL being the "god" of the SW universe his position overrides the stated policy of LFL and thus any evidence derived from EU sources is null and void. He went on to interpret quotes from LFL officials other than GL so that they lined up with his view of what GL said. He even went so far as to establish a seperate definition of "Continuity" (with a capital "C") to differentiate between what goes on in the EU from what we see in the canon films. While this theory does explain how canon can contradict what is in the EU, it has some major problems as I see it.

For instance, how is it that major events in both universes' timelines occur, or are remembered to occur, exactly as they did in the films? Surely at least one decision made by the parties involved could have gone differently (eg. Endor shield bunker commander decides not to pursue the fleeing rebels) thus changing the outcome of the events. The odds that two seperate universes would exactly overlap on these events when there are multitudes of things that could have gone differently in EU's "alternate universe" in the years between each film are vanishingly small, I'd wager.

Another issue, as I see it, isn't so much one of logic but rather character. I can't see GL telling all the authors that have written stories for the EU that their work has no bearing whatsoever on the SW universe. He has said quite the opposite, actually, on at least one occasion (I believe in the intro to the story of Anakin Skywalker). In that instance, he actually said he was happy to have others add to the saga. I think it would be quite out of character for him to effectively negate the efforts of the EU authors by relegating them to a seperate universe that has no substantial ties to that of the films.

Ultimately, perhaps inevitably, the debate turned into much sniping from both sides. There certainly wasn't enough evidence for Darkstar's position to sway a majority of the opinion his way, in either the SW or the ST camp. The issues I bring up are just off the top of my head. I don't think they necessarily "poison the well", but I didn't see those issues brought up in the original debate. Consider them food for thought.

It's your decision about whether you would like to debate the SW vs ST issue here, considering the rules. There is nothing to stop you from attempting to change the canon policy, but you would need to avoid the same mistakes that Darkstar made in his attempt.

---

I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, when he said, "I drank what?" -- Chris Knight, Real Genius

What with the troll invasion, this is the third one in as many days.

Well I guess I will pop over to sb.com and read up on the new theory that Impulse = Ftl, that should give trek a boost since an impulse strafe would then be ftl .

Hey if DarkStar is going to keep using the GL quote, I'm gonna start using the GR quote about TOS. That makes all Trek non canon, and therefore unusable.

---

Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

(Gasp!)

What a delightfully unusual viewpoint for this group. Well said.



Actually, no.

The Lucas quote is the final nail in the coffin, but the argument was already in play before the quote came out.

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... Wars+canon



Not presented in context? I suppose I could have reposted the entire interview, but I don't see how that would affect what he says, since at no other point in the interview does he make reference to the issue.



You just made up your own context.



As you can discover by following the provided link, there was no revision of previous quotes to fall in line with GL's Cinescape quote from July 2002. A re-examination of the common Warsie re-interpretations of canon policy statements was already underway, and the Continuity fact had already been discovered.

'Continuity' is not simply an evil Trekkie attempt to revise the definitions and thus win some game. It is clear from what already existed that the term 'continuity' as used did not refer to a generic form of continuity, but something very specific. I looked at how it was used to determine what was meant by the term by those who were using it.



Perhaps, but sci-fi is replete with examples of such occurrences. After all, once you start dabbling in the infinite possibilities of parallel universes, then by default you can have a large number which are very close in certain details.



Truth be told, I was astonished that he said what he did in Cinescape. Whether you think it is his character or simply shrewd business, acknowledging that the EU isn't the real story of Star Wars and placing it in a parallel universe could adversely affect sales and marketing. That is especially true in a situation such as this, where some people had simply assumed they were part of the real canon stories.

George Lucas thinks you're a huge nerd. It's been well established.

You get no respect from the man. What was the quote, something like "people who live in their parent's basement".

So he doesn't seem to care what universe it's in. As long as he gets to play around with neat CG toys, he's cool. As far as the history, as long as he recoups cost, and gets MORE CG toys, he's happy.

I reiterate. If you let GL dictate what's canon from what you can get sifting through his table scraps, that's fine. I can imagine him one day finding out about all this, and releasing a press release saying "nothing is canon" and then going back to Industrial Light and Magic giggling madly. This man hates fans, but doesn't bring it up much, as he tries to ignore it.

The polar oppisite of Shatner. See Free Enterprise. He loves to make fun of fans, but deep down, he enjoys it.

Moving on.

The Ringworld Builders were presented as creatures of rock hard science. No psionics. No metaphysics. No magic. But they made scrith, which is, well, impossible to make, as far as we know. As well as making the Ringworld itself. Impossible, as far as we know.

So therefore, I wouldn't mess with the Ringworld Builders. Reality seems to be a inconvience to them. If they simply used the sun beam around a Ringworld to fire a chunk of Scrith at your homeworld, you would be screwed. As, as has been stated, Scrith doesn't conform to the real world, and so what real world answer do you have.

Coming at the RWB with Captain Marvel, as you say, is all well and good. "God can take you" is always a fun argument, as it's unbeatable. I hope you have enjoyed yourself. It's like a punch to the face, followed by a kick to the nose. Your grandma has little choice but to come around to your point of view.

So I'm sure that some published author somewhere out there has come up with something that is that crazy. The Lensmen, for sure.

Not exactly GOOD fiction, but hey. If it were GOOD fiction, it would be celebrated by more people than us, who simply enjoy pretending we're smarter or better informed than our neighbor.

---

Remember the Ringworld Builders, then ASK yourself if you want to use unqualified and unmodified terms from the source material. Then don't complain when I laugh about how the Ringworld Builders will kill you all.

Hmm my Troll'ometer is spiking, SirNitram alreadyput an end to your "Ringworld builders RoXXor" maddness so why drag it up again here, if we dont take what Paramount/Lucas say is canon their would be anarchy with people claiing only episodes/books that showed high level calcs are canon for their side but that only low end calcs are canon on the other side.

I can just see it now TOS with its uber antimatter and 65 Million Km range phasers but with the fleet as shown in DS9 Vs the Imps from Rogue squadron with cap ship ranges of >10 km.

Niven cares about science, and so his books have a decent yardstick in them to measure power. TA Fanfic does not.

Frank Richards kills everyone. He just does. No argument. It's that wonky.

Nobody wants Frank Richards showing up. So where do you draw the line? Well documented hard science fiction? Would be a start. SW and ST are both there, well, almost. Niven is the best I've ever seen. The man ENJOYS writing technical treatises on the ships in his books. Fun stuff!

I mean, honestly. Why bother with some random undocumented uber-powerful race?

If you start that game, you always end up in the Marvel Universe. You have to draw the line somewhere. Niven falls well behind MY line, as he bothers to include hard science in his books. Who else can claim the same?

*cough*

Scrith has already been mentioned as Niven's brand of wonkiness. My favorite Sci-Fi is Lexx, simply because this brand of argument has no place there. It's calm and serene.

---

Remember the Ringworld Builders, then ASK yourself if you want to use unqualified and unmodified terms from the source material. Then don't complain when I laugh about how the Ringworld Builders will kill you all.

As far as canon goes, of course what Lucas says is canon. Same with what airs on ST. I mean, I'm not saying it's NOT.

I'm saying, what happens when he says something you're NOT willing to believe?

Something about, oh, I don't know, virgin birth. Do you ignore it? Just choke it down? How much can you choke down before you croak?

Niven has never seemed like that to me.

GL has proven time and time again he enjoys "fun stuff". Like showing off the Death Star in Ep2, although everybody ELSE who enjoys Star Trek thought it was designed in the MAW.

Midichlorians. Jar Jar Binks. MAKING FART JOKES in Ep1. Ewoks.

You have to accept a certain amount of universe abuse, but SW has had more than it's fair share. COME ON, the Eclipse?

Does it bother you that the writers are making superlasers smaller and smaller? I mean, does it seem a little off to you, that? Do you simply accept it and move on?

I wouldn't accept a hand phaser in ST:X blowing up a planet. Canon or not, it's stupid. Not going to choose to believe it.

And honestly, I'm not going to accept the Ep2 bugs designing the Death Star. It's stupid, and retconning. I prefer the story of the Maw. Much more interesting.

That's my problem with canon, at least in terms of SW. It relies on GL, and only GL, and he has proven time and time again he doesn't care.

---

Remember the Ringworld Builders, then ASK yourself if you want to use unqualified and unmodified terms from the source material. Then don't complain when I laugh about how the Ringworld Builders will kill you all.

I can see what you are saying about accepting insane stuff but we just have to.

Your views are however shared since some people will not accept that Federation weapons got orders of magnitude lower after TOS and I would agree that it is stupid to think that so we just have to attempt to do the writters job for them and try to make sense of it all.

Some people do throw out things to make it match up with real science though (just take a look t realism entries in wongs database), he doesnt like a statemetn of Data's because it violates conservation of energy so he concludes data is an idiot (which isnt the call I would make).

The entire area is a little vague but thats just the way it is.

Lets review shall we?

Nivenverse = Level 5 civilization
Scale goes upt to Level 12.

So many people can wipe out the Ringbuilders without it taking more then a second it isn't fucking funny.

---

Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

So, basically, you admit the Ringworld Builders, while powerful, are useless at magic.

One Netherese Archwizard, five minutes.

Two if he's got Karsus' Avatar which just makes this pathetically lopsided in his favour.

---

Legal immigration: No, you're not allowed!
Remember: If you're here on a work visa, pointing out you do not get minimum wage can get you deported!

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

Ah, so I see. I misremembered that debate.



Actually, all that would have been necessary was for whoever posted the quote to include at least the question GL was presumably asked. If the question was the one I thought up, for example, it would have been enormously helpful in establishing GL's meaning.



Given that the quote was posted by itself and I didn't have any way of immediately bringing up the entire interview, I thought up what was for me a question that best explains GL's answer. However, I didn't presume my interpretation was the only possible one, just one that made sense to me. In a way, yes, that is making up my own context, but I didn't have much choice at the time.



I wasn't suggesting you revised the quotes, only interpreted them to jibe with how you interpreted GL's quote. In light of the fact you didn't have that GL quote from the get-go, clearly I was wrong.

I take issue with your referring to your "Continuity" argument as "fact". Reading over the debate, I don't think too many people caught on to your initial attempt to distinguish between "Continuity" and "continuity". Their agreeing with you on later posts where you threw in "Continuity" doesn't amount to it being accepted fact. It reminded me strongly of Gothmog's debate with Mike. He tried to setup definitions for terms that would, if accepted, prove his theory. Your definition of "Continuity", once accepted, would prove your theory on LFL's canon policy. Unfortunately, none of the proof you offered could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the various officials you quoted were using the term you defined.



I don't think there's anything inherently evil about trying to change an accepted policy. It isn't clear however that there is a seperate "Continuity" for the Canon that exists apart from the EU. If it were clear there wouldn't be any other valid interpretation of the quotes and the LFL officials would more than likely at some point try to make the distinction on their own.



I'll have to take your word on the other sci-fi examples until someone else objects. The point is moot, however, since the probability of one universe in an infinite series of universes overlapping another universe in that series such that for a 30-odd year period they match in every detail is 1. Thus, the EU could exist in such a pseudo-parallel universe.

The issue is whether you've proved that the EU exists in that universe. Your interpretations of the GL quote and those of the LFL officials does support that possibility, but there are several problems, to wit:

1) I still have yet to see the presumed question that elicited GL's response, much less the entirety of that interview (perhaps it was posted and I just missed it).

2) I did not see you address the other quote from GL. IIRC, in the opening to The Anakin Skywalker Story, he spoke of his happiness that others are contributing to the Star Wars saga.

3) Current interprations of the quotes do not add the extra term of a seperate "Continuity".

Point 2 is important because while it's still not an explicit statement of how the EU is related to the films' universe, GL is pretty much saying that the EU is a part of the "SW saga". SWS has been used interchangably with "SW universe". GL's subsequent Cinescape quote will only have bearing on this point if we can see either the entire interview or at least the question that I believe exists. Personally, I'd prefer the entire interview.

Point 3 is important because there is no source to explicitly support a seperate definition of continuity. Thus, your "Continuity" term is an extraneous unknown and thus makes your theory logically inferior to the current one.



And yet, in your astonishment, you didn't consider that the possibility that he was merely talking about how he goes about creating his stories is more in line with his character than telling all the people who have worked hard to add to the story that they actually have no place in the Star Wars universe?

The first possibility preserves the understood scope of the Star Wars saga, doesn't harm GL's reputation or his finances and, most importantly, doesn't alienate all the authors who wish to add to the SWU or the fans who genuinely love the EU and consider it an integral part of the SWU.

The second possibility, that GL has done a 180 and is now a childish diva type who refuses to let others add to his "vision" of the SWU, would almost certainly adversely affect his bottom line. That is not by any stretch of the imagination a practice of "shrewd business".

---

I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, when he said, "I drank what?" -- Chris Knight, Real Genius

Level 12?

---

Superior Moderator - BotM - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

Nope, not even Enterprise.

See, TNG met with Cochran in FC, and Cochran was in the premier of Enterprise giving a speech on video as the ship was launched so...


There is no such thing as Star Trek!

---

Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

Godlike beings. Like the Culture.

---

Legal immigration: No, you're not allowed!
Remember: If you're here on a work visa, pointing out you do not get minimum wage can get you deported!

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

SHIT! wrong thread, oops.

Level 12 is God beings, IE the Q continium, and Comedic universes like HHGTTG

---

Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

We are not given the question, though it presumably had something to do with the paragraph before Lucas speaks.



There was no re-interpretation on my part, either. I didn't go back and revise or re-interpret anything, since I had already discovered the clear meanings that Warsies re-interpretations often missed. When the Lucas quote was revealed, it fit in perfectly with my analysis.



You mistake the term "fact" (or, to engage in capitalization again, "Fact") for "accepted fact". A Fact does not require acceptance or acknowledgement by anyone to be a Fact.



I refute the implied dishonesty you suggest above. There was no rhetorical trickery in progress . . . I simply noticed that the "continuity" that officials, writers, et cetera kept referring to seemed to mean something different, <I>based on how they were using it</I>, than some over-arching, generalized meaning of the term. Look here:

"In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely
with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of
the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial
projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be
crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none
of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became
one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes."
(From Star Wars Insider, posted by Graeme Dice)

Sounds like internal consistency of the EU to me.

Strangely, this same Rostoni is one of those who has made one of the most peculiar statements on canon:

Sue Rostoni (Gamer #6 - Oct/Nov. 2001):
"Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon."

Interestingly, she has declared all things but Infinities canon . . . but, notably, they are canon <I>to the Licensing editors</I>. Hence my declaration that this is one of those times, as per Cerasi, that someone has mixed up the terms involved. In other words, she has simply taken the Continuity dictate that she helped to create, but used the wrong term to describe it. "Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays" is the canon.

Also, pay special attention to the part where she says "... insofar as that history does not conflict with, or <I>undermine the meaning of</I>, Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. The contradiction rule (something must <I>precisely</I> contradict) . . . a "logical extrapolation by us" . . . that Warsies use to determine what does and does not conflict between canon and EU does not have merit in the light of this.



I didn't define the term. It was defined for me.



What? I think you've misunderstood. There's no Continuity for the Canon. The canon has continuity, but Continuity refers strictly to the EU.

Here, wait . . . let's get our terms straight, just to make sure we're on the same page.

Canon Policy - the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents explaining what is and is not the Canon
Canon - the declared contents of the Canon Policy
Continuity - the term used to refer to the Expanded Universe internal consistency, as opposed to a more general sense like "EU maintaining continuity with Canon" or "Star Trek novels have continuity with Star Trek canon"
Quasi-Canon - Official (Except for Wong, who maintains a separation)
Official - those ideas which are not Canon, but are nevertheless supposed to be accepted truths of the official history according to standard doctrine

Hopefully that will make things more clear.



They have.



"Mirror, Mirror"[TOS], "Parallels"[TNG], and the alternate universe saga in DS9 come to mind.



Even better, they need not match in <I>every</I> detail . . . just the largest ones, like "The Death Star was destroyed by the Rebels", and anything more specific given in the EU that matches the Canon.



The entirety of the interview is neither relevant nor required. As I have said, after Watchdog of SpaceBattles posted the quote, I personally hit a bookstore and read the interview for myself. There is nothing more on the issue than what is said here:

From Cinescape Magazine, July 2002:

"And while rumors persist that an outline for a third trilogy exists (a joke Lucas made in passing to Rolling Stone, which then printed it as a fact), the director insists that the only continuation to the saga will be in the form of licensed properties.

"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe.""



You're actually thinking of "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" by Alan Dean Foster, and Lucas's comments in the preface of the 1994 re-publication:

From the introduction to "Splinter of the Mind's Eye", 1994.

"After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story - however many films it took to tell - was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga."

My story... one of thousands... about the characters who inhabit its
galaxy... not stories I was destined to tell... other writers, inspired by
the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided... new stories to the Saga.

There is only one real sticking point with the 1994 quote, and that is the
term "Saga". The rest, however, fits nicely in the idea that the EU has
no canonicity. For example, writing stories inspired by the glimpse of his
galaxy doesn't mean that the "thousands that could be told about the
characters" are occurring in his universe. After all, "my story" has
"characters who inhabit its galaxy"... but he never says the tales are also
stories in his galaxy, but instead are merely "inspired by the glimpse of a
galaxy that Star Wars provided".

Still, the sticking point is "Saga". However, the capitalized term "Saga" does not appear elsewhere in the canon policy. Indeed, the only appearance of the word in relevant texts would appear to be the StarWars.com intro to the EU section, where this quote appears: "Since the start, the Star Wars saga has been expanded through novels, comics, and games." This is the very list of things Lucas recently said belonged to another world, a "parallel universe".

(That was a stock response . . . however, I just noticed that Rostoni's quote above also makes use of the term "saga" to refer to Lucas's films and screenplays, a use consistent with the use of the term in the StarWars.com EU intro section (minus the stated expansions). So, again, the things which have "expanded" upon the saga were just identified as being in a parallel universe.)



It is not an extra term, but the connotation. It is a delineation of the term's meaning, separate from a simplistic dictionary denotation, based on the way it is used by those who use it. Whether current Warsie interpretations of the quotes acknowledge the connotation or not is irrelevant.



Not so. The SW "saga" is the Canon, or at least the films and screenplays, as per the quotes provided.



You have all the relevant words. If you doubt this, you are at liberty to go hunting for the magazine.



The above statement is itself illogical. It is not an extra term, and to deny that one should read the quotes to determine what they mean makes no sense. The alternative is to read the quotes with a dictionary in hand, and mangle every word and sentence to fit within the dictionary's bounds. Dictionary-filtration is hardly called for, when those who are quoted make their meaning plain.



I am unfamiliar with George Lucas's character, and so are you. Basing your claims off of your <I>perception</I> of his character renders them irrelevant, especially when that basis is used in an attempt to overturn the clear meaning of the words spoken.

The first possibility preserves the understood scope of the Star Wars saga, doesn't harm GL's reputation or his finances and, most importantly, doesn't alienate all the authors who wish to add to the SWU or the fans who genuinely love the EU and consider it an integral part of the SWU.

The second possibility, that GL has done a 180 and is now a childish diva type who refuses to let others add to his "vision" of the SWU, would almost certainly adversely affect his bottom line. That is not by any stretch of the imagination a practice of "shrewd business".[/quote]

Eeek, sorry. I've been doing HTML too much lately, and also missed part of the message. Let's try this again:



I don't think he has performed a 180 . . . there was plenty before this to support the idea that the EU had no canonicity whatsoever. Whether or not it could add to his "vision" is irrelevant . . . he has made it clear that what he himself creates is the Star Wars Universe, with the exception of the novelisations and radio dramas. All else is parallel, part of another world.

By the way....shall I assume from the fact that DarkStar's existence is being acknowledged that the 'Final Solution' is no longer in effect?

You don't listen, do you, Darkstar? I have already refuted your notion time and again. It looks like I'll have to do it again.

In the Lucas quote that you mention, he says this: "...they do intrude in between the movies." "They" refers to the EU stories, of course.

This is clear expression by Mr. Lucas that the EU does count as an official part of his story, in between the blank spaces that he left in his stories... between the movies.

In other words, the EU stands as a part of the SW universe as long as it doesn't override the canon movies.

Of course, I know that you'll just ignore this, despite your erroneous claim that you wish to engage in rational debate.

---

The Great and Malignant

"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I dont get to involved in the parallel universe."

His world is a select period of time in his universe. The other world of the EU is, as he says, a parallel universe. The parallel universe does not intrude on his time period in his universe, though they do intrude in between the movies.

That means they have intruded on a time period set by Lucas as his, and maintained as his in both universes. However, a time period intrusion in one universe does not mean that the universes have suddenly joined.



The requirements of rational debate do not include the acceptance of any silly fairy tale, unsupported by the evidence, that is posited by the opposition as fact.

The meaning behind those quotes had to be interpreted by you, though, since they don't explicity say "The continuity of the EU is a seperate entity from that seen in the canon films." You can argue all you like for this interpretation, but you can't possibly say that it is the only possible interpretation, much less that it's absolutely correct.



The "Fact" is based on a faulty assumption that your interpretation of the quotes is absolutely correct and the only valid one. This is not a reasonable assumption.



Sorry, should have added the qualifier that in your case it probably was an honest oversight.



I can agree with that, but this does not explicitly state that they're calling EU continuity a totally seperate thing from the stories that GL writes. Considering the fact they're in charge of monitoring additions to the SW story, it wouldn't make sense for them to talk about making sure there are no contradictions in work that they had no creative control over (ie. the films). They have to be talking about the EU because that's the only thing they have any business talking about.



She didn't even use the word "continuity" in her quote. If there really is such a creation as "EU Continuity", then it would be pretty unusual for the person who created it and fervently maintained it for many years to mix it up so many times in one quote.



If you're speaking of strict historical contradictions between the canon films and EU I do admit they can be a bit tricky to resolve, but her quote doesn't invalidate all debate over such contradictions.

As to technical contradictions (eg. firepower, shield strength, etc.), her quote has no relevance to those types of debates and thus does not negate their merit.



The problem is that all but the term "Continuity" have actually been outlined by officials. Furthermore, all of them, with the possible exception of QC, have been described in explicit detail. Clearly, when something as important as whether material is to be considered a part of SW, officials come out and explain it in detail for us.



Let's look at GL's statement now in light of the preceding paragraph you kindly provided.

GL is obviously referring to entities that contribute to the SW universe. He's using "world" to refer to these entities. There is the world of GL, which produces the films, and a licensing world (ie. Lucas Licensing) which produces books, games, etc.

"They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time..." A restatement of LL's policy that no one can write their own version of "The Empire Strikes Back", for example, and expect it to get officially sanctioned by LL. This is a policy we're all familiar with, along with the exception that writers can (and do) write stories that "intrude" in between films.

Finally, we have "I don't get too involved in the parallel universe." This doesn't make sense in your theory that the EU = "parallel universe". Not "too involved" implies some involvement, and we never see "George Lucas" in any of the stories in the EU, unless I missed something.

Essentially, all GL is doing is telling which world (entity) is going to continue producing SW based stories after Ep 3 is released. Not him, but LL. So, the upshot of it all is that no, there will not be any Ep. 7, 8, or 9.



Again, thank you for providing the proper source material.



The quote also works towards the opposite of your position, with or without a capital "S" for saga. Given that GL said there were thousands of stories to be told, it's easy for him to refer to his own contribution as merely a glimpse. In the end, he simply expresses his awe at all the "gifted authors" who were/are inspired to help expand the view, (read: add to his galaxy).



Seeing as how "Saga" is not defined by any official, unlike Canon, Official, etc., it's not going to help or hurt your argument. I suggest we drop any discussion lest these posts become even longer.



It's a comparative unknown, though, because we already have a definition of continuity that fits into the theory that the EU is part of SW. For your theory to work, you have to introduce "Continuity", which has no definition other than the one you outlined (ie. internal consistency for EU stories). Your definition can't be proved to be one that LL uses, thus it's an unknown and should be left out of any theory attempting to explain where EU fits into the SW galaxy.



If you're including GL's quote, then it's also "Saga", which means he explicitly has said that the EU stories are adding to (becoming part of) Canon. Again, given that nothing official that I know of has been said about what the term saga means, it's pointless to discuss.



You're trying to define a new term "Continuity" as the internal consistency of stories which comprise the EU. There is nothing to support the idea that the officials you quoted were using it as such, it's an unknown and thus shouldn't be included in any theory regarding the EU's place in the SW galaxy.



Do you think that it is necessary to be friends with him to know something of him? In general, I don't need to meet people in person to know something about them, other sources can be just as reliable.

GL has been variously interviewed and profiled many, many times. The information comes from sources very close to the man, if not the man himself. They consistently paint the picture of someone who has great passion for his story but at the same time isn't so selfish as to deny those who share his love for his creation any part in contributing to it.

---

I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, when he said, "I drank what?" -- Chris Knight, Real Genius

Hmm now we shall see the test

Shall Dark-Star Lay another layer on his Wall of Ignorance? Or shall he acutal respond?

Haven't got a reference by any chance?

---

Superior Moderator - BotM - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

However, the simple fact of the matter is that George admits that the EU intrudes into his universe wherever the movies are not. This jibes completely with all other Lucasfilm explanations on canonicity. Your interpretation of his words demands that we ignore all previous evidence and take Lucas's words completely independently of any context, whereas my interpretation puts his words in context with A: his previous statements on the matter, and B: his company's stance on the issue.

So, are you claiming that Mr. Lucas has suddenly decided to completely reverse his prior-stated stance on the issue of EU canonicity? Is that your claim?

---

The Great and Malignant