Keeping an ISD from going into Hyperspace.

[SPOOFE]

Is it Imperator-class Star Destroyer or Imperial-class? If we take newer overrides older approach, then it's Imperial. If we take rationalize approach- Imperator is the correct naval designation, and Imperial class is just the easier to say Rebel slang.

I'm familiar with that dilemma, and I personally agree with the rationalization approach, as I don't find it to be too much of a stretch on the imagination. Unfortunately, this means that a lot of rationalizations will be very subjective, so they'd have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

[Connor MacLeod]

I would say that George sets the standard by which everyone else is expected to follow, at least loosely. As for "special dispensation", well, I ask you, what about all the EU stories based around Greedo and Han, written prior to the SE ANH? Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina comes to mind. Now that Canon events have changed, other writers may use that change in events to tell a different story. Both stories, however, when they were first written, were based on what was Canon at the time, were they not? New EU has more Canon information on which to base itself, and thus, should it not be considered more of an "accurate" depiction of the Extended Universe than older EU? Thus, should not more weight, or priority be lent to these newer creations?

The old story would be overriden as per "canon overriding official." - just as the old boba Fett origins story was overriden by AOTC. Its not overriden by a "newer" official source.

Anyhow, you can't equate "new official overriding older" just because they do so in canon. The reason for why newer overriding official is because Lucas qualifies as "higher canon" being the creator - he has the RIGHT to change it. Such a comparison does not exist for EU, which is essentially equal - IE there is no EU version of Lucas. The only things which override it are higher canon, as per stated policy.

If we WERE to conclude there were an EU version of Lucas, it would be LFL - which means for "new official to override old official" you would have to have knowledge of such a policy being in place. Without which, any attempt to use "newer official overriding older" would be completely invalid. Hence, its STILL invalid.

How is rationalizing it as a lie functionally any different from dismissing it as a fact?

SPOOFE addressed this nicely. Basically it comes to "removing evidence from continuity" (IE dismissal) or "explaining it so that it maintains internal consistency with the rest of the universe." (rationalization.) IE its still THERE, and it could have some measure of truth, but its not neccesarily what it may seem to be at first glance. This is hardly unprecedented, either. Its been known that internal inconsistencies HAVE been rationalized with official explanations: one example is the backstory of Boba Fett regarding the TBH story and the Ep2 "known" version - the new Essential Characters guide provided an explanation to rationalize the inconsistency between the two, even though one could dismiss it on the basis of canon overriding official. Likewise, there was an incident where MAce Windu is known to have two completely different lightsabers in TPM as I recall (there was a discrepancy in this regard) that formed the basis for an entire comic book

By and large dismissing something admits that its flawed, and that casts doubt on it as a source as a whole. You can't "pick and choose" what to accept and dismiss WITHOUT any sort of authorization to do so (like we do with canon overriding official, or newer canon overriding older.) Lacking such, we take it "as is" and find a way to make it fit.

I can also point out that "rationalizing it as a lie" is the aboslutely low end LAST option, and should be avoided at all costs. In no way does your example REQUIRE us to assume they are lying (for example, we know that energy redirection powers exist, but does this also preclude Vader's glove from being strong enough to even partially deflect it? If you consider the nature involved in reflecting bolts, Vader may very well have had to absorb part of the blast before redirecting it, and he only redirected MOST of the bolt. Perhaps his knowledge or skill with such an ability is limited.. nothing says that because he CAN do it he is an expert
at it.) Its not neccesary for the two to be mutually exclusive.

As Obi-Wan put it to Luke: "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view" regarding Anakin's Death and the truth he was Vader. In a literal sense its inconsistent (Anakin is Vader, Vader is still alive, and did not literally die), but in a figurative sense, its still true. Functionally you could dismiss Obi-Wan's prior statement as fact, but its not neccesary, since that is only ONE interpretation.

TDIC? Must be brain-dead, 'cause that's not registering.

The DIE is Cast: the bombardment of the Founder's homeworld. It tupically used "dialogue overriding visuals" to justify discrepancies. Yet its been determined in the instance that visuals need not override the dialogue, depending on interpretation.

Still, while rationalizing is well and good, in some cases it's just not really possible. For dealing with things like creative liscense, fine. "Jan Ors felt the cold wind biting into her like a rabid Jawa," vs. "Jan Ors shrugged off the bone-chilling winds around her," can be rationalized. However, whenever you have to write something off as direct misinformation or a lie, you're rather missing the point, I think. Rationalization can only go so far before it becomes an excuse instead of an explaination.

Analysis REQUIRES rationalization. There is a reason behind everything. IT simply requires greater interpretation (and as the Cerasi quote indicates, the further you get from canon, the greater interpretation comes into play.) I have yet to run across an irreconcilable fact, because a VAST majority of instances involve a fair degree of ambiguity (one problem prior to the ICS in SW materials WAS that specific incidents were vague details wise.) Even if you ARE dismissing something, it still requires a rationalization for why (and hence IS a rationalization.) I daresay its not I who is missing the point, but you. (the point being that while we don't neccesarily HAVE to accept something as absolute, we need sufficient corroboration to justify not doing so, and the justification has to be internally consistent. This applies to the novels, games, even canon. Without consistency there is no point in analysis.)

On a side note: By and large, I find that 99% of the so called "inconsistencies" people cite are usually because they refuse to acknowledge that any other possibility can exist than the one they embrace. I've encountered Anti-SW fanatics who cited events in novels such as "Darksaber", "the Bacta War" or others as proof of "inconsistencies" to dismiss capabilities such as firepower, range, defenses, etc. They even hide behind "canon" to dismiss official (the ICS "lightspeed" notion is usually dismissed because of the fact the visible bolts move slow - yet the theory accounts for this.), yet in all cases I've investigated they were never as irreconcilable as the person claimed. Usually its becaues they are debators who can't be bothered to do any real analysis, and only seek a convenient excuse to ignore something.

[Connor MacLeod]

But I didn't challenge the notion of the games as an official source. In my next post, I explicitly stated that they were indeed official. When I made that post, I wasn't arguing with you; and as I said I'm not sure as to whether new overrides old.

You also said:

Perfect example- the X-Wing games. So inaccurate that anyone who uses them as a source is off their nut.

This by definition challenges the point I was making to Yoshi and the others - you are essentially arguing (and went on to argue) that the games should be considered a "lower" source of EU by the virtue of their assumed inaccuracy.

You further assumed that it was justified to further subdivide between the "story" and the "technical" aspects (even if we ignore gameplay issues, which whiel permissible as per the evidence SPOOFE found, we don't neccesarily HAVE to) - which by definition is picking and choosing among evidence (unless to my knowledge LFL has decreed that the technical aspects.)

And finally, you assumed that its completely impossible to rationalize aspects of siad games, and that they MUST be ignored (even though we can ignore problems incurred by certain aspects of gameplay.) Yet when challenged to PROVE that this is apart of official policy (established by GL for canon, or LFL for EU, you used Red Herrings and other misdirections (citing canon contradictions rather than EU contradictions, when the whole canon issue was NOT even relevant to the status of the games) and never once cited a source (Even though SPOOFE demonstrated it was RIDICULOUSLY EASY to do so.)

The fact remains that BY KNOWN POLICY the EU is in and of itself inherently equal among all sources (that is, NO SPECIFIC DISTINCTIONS ARE MADE BETWEEN SOURCES BY LFL. Inferred inconsistencies do not constitute "policy".) Any apparent inconsistnecies therefore must be dealt with via rationalization and *only* rationalization. You cannot dismiss them (or part of them) because you only think of them as technically inaccurate. I know this is not a bizarre concept (since SPOOFE was able to grasp it, and he was able to fufill the challenge for proof I made.) so I cannot imagine why this continually eludes you.

Your arguments are little different from the rabid Trekkies I used to deal with on Spacebattles. They used to pull the exact same stunts: trying to "dismiss" certain examples (IE BDZ, the ICS, the concept of strong shields, etc.) by citing "other" examples - canon, official, or otherwise. IF we were to subscribe to the logic you inferred, we'd be dismissing the "lightspeed propogation" of blaster weapons from the ICS, even though we need not do so (since it "violates" canon.) Its a bizarre logic, unless someone is seeking a convenient excuse to ignore something.

[Vympel]

To borrow from IG-88E

Oy vey!

I've clarified my position. STOP it already ... the only thing I disagree with you is how far we rationalize something.

The fact remains that BY KNOWN POLICY the EU is in and of itself inherently equal among all sources (that is, NO SPECIFIC DISTINCTIONS ARE MADE BETWEEN SOURCES BY LFL. Inferred inconsistencies do not constitute "policy".) Any apparent inconsistnecies therefore must be dealt with via rationalization and *only* rationalization. You cannot dismiss them (or part of them) because you only think of them as technically inaccurate. I know this is not a bizarre concept (since SPOOFE was able to grasp it, and he was able to fufill the challenge for proof I made.) so I cannot imagine why this continually eludes you.

How many times do I have to say it before you realize it?

If EU contradicts with canon, and cannot be rationalized, it should not be used as a source. The technical depictions of say, an ISD in X-Wing games, is a perfect example. It contradicts CANON. I DID challenge your bizarre and nonsensical rationalizations of said example. As I said, I will not bend over backwards to invent some far-fetched nonsense about mini-star destroyers with different armament when within the game themselves they are stated to be 1,600m (this is canon, not official) long and Imperial/Imperial II class. Is your pilot character suffering from drug-enduced delusions when looking at an ISD in these games? Now quit it, I frigging agree with you. Are you actually telling me we can learn anything about an ISD in the X-Wing games?!

[Vympel]

Actually why am I bothering? You can't tell if someone agrees with your position if they tell you straight out.

1: All EU sources, among themsleves, viewed in isolation, are indeed equal, and should be rationalized.

2: When two EU sources disagree, and one contradicts canon, it is, of course, the one that does not contradict canon that is superior.

The end.

[SPOOFE]

2: When two EU sources disagree, and one contradicts canon, it is, of course, the one that does not contradict canon that is superior.

I disagree with that. Obviously, the aspects of the EU source that contradict canon are the inferior ones, but the entire source isn't suspect because of this.

Case in point: The origin of the Death Star. Kevin J. Anderson set out that it was invented and designed at the Maw Installation... however, we now know that this isn't the case, and that a Death Star design was, indeed, planned prior to the Clone Wars. Do we simply throw out KJA's story? I would say no... instead, we only conclude that the Death Star design was refined, tested, and finalized at the Maw Installation, and a prototype built.

We have a similar problem - and similar solution - with Boba Fett's origin story.

[Vympel]

2: When two EU sources disagree, and one contradicts canon, it is, of course, the one that does not contradict canon that is superior.

I disagree with that. Obviously, the aspects of the EU source that contradict canon are the inferior ones, but the entire source isn't suspect because of this.

Case in point: The origin of the Death Star. Kevin J. Anderson set out that it was invented and designed at the Maw Installation... however, we now know that this isn't the case, and that a Death Star design was, indeed, planned prior to the Clone Wars. Do we simply throw out KJA's story? I would say no... instead, we only conclude that the Death Star design was refined, tested, and finalized at the Maw Installation, and a prototype built.

We have a similar problem - and similar solution - with Boba Fett's origin story.

Yeah like I said in previous posts, not the ENTIRE source, but that particular aspect of that source. Case by case analysis.