A question about writers and readers in Star Wars

[KeVinK]

It's been a long time since I dropped by, but I usually regard you guys as a source of information on all things Star Wars.

I have a question about the relationship between the folks who write stories and novels in the Star Wars universe and the folks who read them. I was advised by a fellow writer that I would be making a mistake in asking this question, but as I told him I'm genuinely interested in the answer and the only way to get that answer is to ask.

As some of you may remember, I am a media tie-in writer. I write for Doctor Who (that's new), Star Trek, MechWarrior: Dark Age, and Classic BattleTech. I have never written for Star Wars and I am not likely to do so in the near future.

Tie-in writing differs from original writing in that we write stories and novels set in a universe belonging to someone else and we write those stories to the owner's specifications. Sort of like the difference between an abstract artist who paints what they want and a portrait artist commissioned to paint a particular subject.

For example, the way I got to write Wolf Hunters for MechWarrior: Dark Age is WizKids Games told me they wanted a story that would cover certain events in the overall story arc of the MWDA universe. After I signed a nondisclosure agreement, they sent me the timeline for the next few years with a paragraph explaining the turning point they wanted the novel to depict. They then asked me for a pitch -- a 3,000 to 5,000 word narrative outline describing how I would handle those elements. This went through a couple of cycles until WizKids was satisfied and I got the go ahead to write the novel. Because this is volume 22 in an ongoing story arc, I got messages throughout the writing process like "#24 is going to hinge on this-and-that series of events. Please work in this, this, and this set-up so it won't be out of the blue." or "There's a mini arc coming up involving this character (bio attached). Please introduce as minor character in your opening chapters then indicate leaving on extended mission."

Classic BattleTech, Star Trek and Doctor Who are different in that after the original pitch is approved, they do not tell you about any changes or inclusions until after the manuscript is completed. I'm told that the Star Wars novel process is similar to the WizKids in that there is hands-on feedback at every step of the writing.

My point being that while a tie-in writer is responsible for how a story is told, the major facts and events of the story originate with the property owner.

I am a member of the International Association of Media Tie-in Writers ( IAMTW ). Our in-house boards usually discuss market trends and possible business opportunities. (This actor is looking for a ghost writer for her autobiography, The editors at X are interested in expanding their writer pool. Things like that.)

We also discuss the fans who read the stories we write because, let's face it, without you guys we don't have jobs. If a writer were pitching to CBT I'd tell them to get the game stats right in the battle scenes, for example or to avoid the brother-against-brother cliche, or there have been a lot of Lyran/Jade Falcon stories recently, try a Free Worlds League/Capellan. conflict because those faction players are feeling left out.

Star Wars fans are generally regarded as unique in many ways.

Trek fans, for example, will complain bitterly because TPTB have made this-and-so change to the continuity (Example: In Star Trek the Romulans had one experimental ship with a cloaking device. In Enterprise -- 150 years earlier in the timeline -- the Romulans have fleets of cloaked ships and routinely use cloaked mines to blockade planets. And don't get folks started on Klingon make-up.) Of course, this is because film Star Trek is in the hands of an ever-changing committee and it's up to hard-working editors like Paula Block and Marco Palmieri to hold the print-fiction side of the universe together.

On the other hand -- and this is leading up to the question -- the legend in the writing industry is that Star Wars fans do not complain about choices George Lucas makes. If they do not like something in the story line, they hold the writer who wrote the story responsible.

The example cited was Chewbaca. Chewbaca was a marvelous character on screen -- but his energy, charm and effectiveness sprang from his physical actions and his unique language which everyone else understood. These attributes did not translate well into the printed page. George Lucas decided that rather than have the character limp along being depicted badly, Chewbaca should die. The way I got the story, no one protested Mr. Lucas' decision, but the writer who actually presented Chewbaca's death became a pariah.

In a similar vein, George Lucas was inspired by the Iraq War -- in which the US led a coalition against Iraq because they believed Iraqi disinformation about their nation's ability to manufacture and deliver WMD -- to introduce the idea that a relatively small army with excellent logistics had convinced its enemies it was much larger than it was. The fact of this disinformation -- one side making strategic and tactical decisions based on numbers wrong by a factor of ten, the other side keeping the myth alive -- opens all sorts of possibilities in terms of story telling. As I understand it, no one is questioning George Lucas' choice in this, but the writer who revealed the disinformation plot was pilloried.

Neither the Chewbaca writer nor the disinformation writer is a member of IAMTW.

My question:

In your experience, is it true that Star Wars readers hold George Lucas harmless for decisions they do not like and instead focus their anger on the writers who carry out his orders?

And, two follow up questions:

If this is not true, do you have any theories on why this misconception exists in the marketplace?

If it is true, why do you think Star Wars fans feel this way about the writers?

Thanks for any and all feedback.

[VT-16]

I have never heard anyone describe George Lucas' take on the Clone Wars as being the one you describe. Most of the extreme disinformation comes from one particular author, who's basically gone out of her way to contradict other SW author's depictions of the war, as well as the one given in the films themselves. She even created a story (a poorly plotted one at that) that only served to reinforce her bizarre positions rather than admitting the first mistake.

Basically, when you have an extremely thin-skinned and arrogant author changing several plotpoints around in order to cover up for one mistake and a small army of loyal fans defending said author at every turn, there's something seriously wrong with both the system that hired her and the way the fandom is cultivated.

[Darth Wong]

<snip background info>Star Wars fans are generally regarded as unique in many ways.

Trek fans, for example, will complain bitterly because TPTB have made this-and-so change to the continuity (Example: In Star Trek the Romulans had one experimental ship with a cloaking device. In Enterprise -- 150 years earlier in the timeline -- the Romulans have fleets of cloaked ships and routinely use cloaked mines to blockade planets. And don't get folks started on Klingon make-up.) Of course, this is because film Star Trek is in the hands of an ever-changing committee and it's up to hard-working editors like Paula Block and Marco Palmieri to hold the print-fiction side of the universe together.

On the other hand -- and this is leading up to the question -- the legend in the writing industry is that Star Wars fans do not complain about choices George Lucas makes. If they do not like something in the story line, they hold the writer who wrote the story responsible.

The example cited was Chewbaca. Chewbaca was a marvelous character on screen -- but his energy, charm and effectiveness sprang from his physical actions and his unique language which everyone else understood. These attributes did not translate well into the printed page. George Lucas decided that rather than have the character limp along being depicted badly, Chewbaca should die. The way I got the story, no one protested Mr. Lucas' decision, but the writer who actually presented Chewbaca's death became a pariah.

I think that a lot of people simply didn't realize that George Lucas made that particular decision. While it's known that there is input from TPTB on major plot developments, a lot of people in the fan world really have no idea how extensive or consistent this input is. A lot of people probably assume that writers are going off on their own unless they have some reason to believe otherwise, and they believe that Mr. Lucas' input and oversight occupies only a very small portion of his time and so cannot be expected to be comprehensive.

In a similar vein, George Lucas was inspired by the Iraq War -- in which the US led a coalition against Iraq because they believed Iraqi disinformation about their nation's ability to manufacture and deliver WMD -- to introduce the idea that a relatively small army with excellent logistics had convinced its enemies it was much larger than it was. The fact of this disinformation -- one side making strategic and tactical decisions based on numbers wrong by a factor of ten, the other side keeping the myth alive -- opens all sorts of possibilities in terms of story telling. As I understand it, no one is questioning George Lucas' choice in this, but the writer who revealed the disinformation plot was pilloried.

Probably because she exaggerated this concept to many orders of magnitude (from tenfold to thousandfold or millionfold) in order to make it fit her numbers. Assuming that was in fact the actual directive.

Neither the Chewbaca writer nor the disinformation writer is a member of IAMTW.

My question:

In your experience, is it true that Star Wars readers hold George Lucas harmless for decisions they do not like and instead focus their anger on the writers who carry out his orders?

I think that's slightly in error, but there's a grain of truth to it. George Lucas is rightfully deemed to be the God Creator of Star Wars, in a way that no particular Star Trek writer could ever be. As such, people may attack his creative decisions (see Jar-Jar Binks) but the fans generally do not question the legitimacy of those decisions. Like it or not, they are genuine Star Wars (although one notable exception is Greedo shooting first; most diehard fans reject that).

However, even though George Lucas may give the OK for his writers to try taking things in a particular direction, it seems rather unlikely that he's micromanaging things to such an extent that the manner in which they execute it is controlled by him. So even if people dislike a decision by George Lucas, they still expect a writer to pull it off as well as could possibly be done, and in a spirit most consistent with the spirit of the movies. And when they feel that this isn't happening, they get pissed off.

And, two follow up questions:

If this is not true, do you have any theories on why this misconception exists in the marketplace?

If it is true, why do you think Star Wars fans feel this way about the writers?

Thanks for any and all feedback.

I think people are failing to distinguish between the execution of an idea and the basic principle of the idea. Take the Chewbacca example; I think a lot of people would have been happier with Chewbacca's literary death if it were done in a manner more to their liking. In other words, it was not just the fact of his death, but the manner of his death. The same goes for other examples.

[VT-16]

I thought even Salvatore said that Lucas never said anything about killing Chewie off, just that he was among the characters that were not on the list of people they couldn't kill off. :P

[Phil Skayhan]

R.A. Salvatore's website

After I agreed to do the book, I was given a general outline of the story arc for the 20+ books of The New Jedi Order, along with a general idea of what they wanted the new threat to the galaxy to look like, and was instructed to take the information and put together an outline for a book that would set up the series. There were a few necessities, such as which characters had to be included (mostly those from the movies), the basics of the alien threat, and, oh yeah, the death of Chewbacca. Who made that last call? It came out of a meeting at Skywalker Ranch, I'm told, between the folks at the book publisher, Del Rey, the folks at Lucasfilm, and a couple of the previous Star WarsÔ authors.

I have no idea how involved George Lucas was in that decision. I doubt that it was his explicit decision to kill a character, but I'm pretty certain he gave his approval for the act and the particular character. Certainly my instructions on the issue were clear, coming from both Del Rey and Lucasfilm.

[Darth Wong]

I also think there's a general perception among the fanbase that when George Lucas is said to be involved in a decision, it's more along the lines of "Hmm, what's that? Yeah, whatever, I guess that's OK. Now where the hell is that DVD mastering guy?" as opposed to "OK writers, this is the way it's going to be."

[Galvatron]

Yeah, it amazes me how some people have this perception that Lucas micromanages every facet of Star Wars.

[Sonnenburg]

My question:

In your experience, is it true that Star Wars readers hold George Lucas harmless for decisions they do not like and instead focus their anger on the writers who carry out his orders?

No, provided that information is available. George has been lambasted for his decisions in the Special Editions and the prequels, I don't think he gets a pass on the other material if it's known he made the call.

And, two follow up questions:

If this is not true, do you have any theories on why this misconception exists in the marketplace?

I think it's because of two important points. One, if it's not known that Lucas is responsible, then blame falls to the visible cause. Two, just because George makes a decision doesn't change the fact that its execution is going to be a key factor in how the public takes it. Chewbacca didn't die a satisfying death for a beloved character, and that's all there is to it. Unless George said that Chewie was going to meet his final end waving his arms while a moon fell on him, then the author holds the blame for failing to execute the concept in a manner the audience could accept.

It's obviously not an easy position to find oneself in. I'd imagine that a media tie-in writer has to balance artistic vision with the strong desire for food and heat. At the same time, as you're obviously aware I'm sure, it's your name on the front cover, and the one that's going to be looked at when the quality of the product is being judged. It's probably comparable to an actor having to deal with a bad script, he/she is doing the best with what they've been handed to work with, knowing that the judgment is going to fall on them because they're visible. Still, when someone likes Karen Traviss has a public paranoid psychotic attack (because I can't imagine any reality where a made-up language composed of the names of your enemies isn't a sign of some kind of imbalance), it doesn't do much to convince detractors that they're wrong, or that you were just doing your job.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

I also have to agree with DW's point about the manner of Chewbacca's death being the point of grievance. I have no problem with killing main characters, nor any problems with GL handing down decisions to kill them, so long as the decision makes sense. To be perfectly honest, I truly prefer stories where there are no character shields. The problem I do have, though, is this: The death should be handled in a manner more consistent with the universe and situation. Death by MoonSquish is not preferable to Death by Laser Bolt, especially when it seems to shine through as a "fanservice" moment. (For lack of a better term)

Honestly, with the number of times Chewie was shot at, it only makes sense that he would be hit eventually. Have him take the bolt for Anakin if he must, but writers need to stop trying to make everything cliched and uber.

As for the army numbers, she first stated that no set numbers were given. Then, when she tried to throw out a patently ludicrious number, she attempted to cover her ass by retracting that claim and saying they were forced upon her by LucasArts. It would also have greatly helped her case had she had not repeatadly lied, accused fans of libel and stalking, and exibited all manner of other unprofessional conduct. The final straw was that stillborn abomination she crafted in an attempt to cover her own rear. I personally don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth, now. Especially about being "assigned" those numbers or that plot.

[KeVinK]

Wow, guys, thanks for the rapid responses.

The only guy I correspond regularly with onliine who has written for Star Wars is Kevin J. Anderson, and as I recall he said everything crosses GL's desk. Though to be honest, I have no idea how closely GL pays attention to every detail as it crosses.

I haven't read any of Karen Travis's SW fiction, but I did read City of Pearl a while back. As I recall, I liked her style, but of course that has nothing to do with how well she handled Star Wars.

Having duly noted that I should avoid Ms Travis's novel(s), are there any novels in particular I should read? Bearing in mind that I have not read any Star Wars fiction. (Which means I have at least a year of hard research ahead of me before I even consider pitching. And, yes, folks, when you do this for a living you ALWAYS consider pitching.)

Where should I begin and what novels do you consider seminal?

Oh, and on a completely unrelated topic: A bit of self-promotion.
I know none of you have read anything I've written, but I have a couple of short stories in the upcoming Total Warfare wich is the new master compilation of all rule sets for Classic BattleTech. A pdf of a first proof of one of my stories has been posted on the FanPro site as a preview. It's short, but I think it's pretty accessible to folks who are not neck deep in the CBT universe. Check it out if you're interested. Trial of Possession

[Sonnenburg]

The Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn is pretty much the best starting point, as it seems to largely grasp the engaging aspects of the series, and introduced some great original characters including Mara Jade.

[consequences]

From a purely personal point of view:

Start with Zahn's Thrawn trilogy. Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, and The Last Command

Move over to the Wraith Squadron books by Aaron Allston, Wraith squadron, Iron fist, and Solo Command. That's X-wing books 5-7.

As far as I'm concerned, you have now read almost half the quality novels in the SW EU. But I'm a little biased.

To get a general idea of what the hell is going on with the NJO, and who these random people that keep cropping up are, it may be helpful to skim KJA's Jedi Academy trilogy, and Stackpole's X-wing books and JAT retcon I Jedi. But I don't recommend this course if you are specifically looking for quality work.

My general guideline: Zahn, Allston, Luceno, and Denning good. Most others mediocre. KJA and Stackpole maybe tolerable for a single reading.

[Noble Ire]

The Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn is pretty much the best starting point, as it seems to largely grasp the engaging aspects of the series, and introduced some great original characters including Mara Jade.

Reading the novelizations of the movies themselves, especially ROTS, might also prove a valuable starting point; they provide a more in-depth view of the universe's basic structure, and generally jive with both the EU and the films.

However, in terms of the EU itself, yes, the Thrawn Triology is an essential starting point. From there, you have plenty of good places to continue, depending on what eras you're especially interested in. The later Thrawn Duology is also a fine piece work, as are several stand-alones, like Luceno's Dark Lord and Stover's Shatterpoint. Despite it's weaknesses, the most expansive arc of the EU, the NJO, is also decent, and sets the stage for all later series; you can get the general gist by reading the hardcovers (I also would recommend Stover's Traitor, but not everyone likes his style).

[Vehrec]

While not actually novels, I feel that the Incredable Cross Sections and Visual books do a lot to expand upon and provide background for the movies. Always good to have on had as a starting point, referance, or just for the visuals. Might help if you want to get ideas about the feel of a planet or a setting.

[Darth Wong]

The KJA books are notable only because someone who is interested in SW literature should probably want to read what are some of the most vilified SW novels ever made, if only to find out what it was about them that enraged so many fans.

[Darth Wong]

To expand, there's a certain mythological feeling you get from the original movie Star Wars, and the books are generally expected to respect that in some way. Some of KJA's stuff committed the cardinal sin of altering our perceptions of the events taking place during the movies, in a manner which many felt cheapened what was happening in the movies themselves.

Despite some personal beefs I have with his choices, Zahn's approach was interesting; his universe was more tactile, de-mythologized, but it took place after the fall of the Empire and its mood was appropriate. It had an aura of lost glory, faded power, and brilliant mortals trying to carry on where demigods had once trodden. That's why the Thrawn character works, despite certain bits of character wankery.

[Anarchist Bunny]

My general guideline: Zahn, Allston, Luceno, and Denning good.

I would like to add Stover and Keyes to that list.

I really enjoyed Traitor and the Eps. III Novelization, I think Stover is one of the few authors to really get the grand scale of the Star Wars Universe, while most of the other good SW writers are still some what minimiallist.

Keyes by far wrote my favorite books in the NJO. Edge of Victory I and II I read in a weekend, Final Prophecy in a few days. I accually read those books at home rather than during spare time at work/school. I don't think anyone portrayed the Vong better than him. Before the Edge of Victory duology I really disliked the Vong as antagonists, Keyes made them accual characters, instead of intergalatic masochistic biotech Klingons.

Is Keyes/Stover going to do any more Star Wars work?

[consequences]

My general guideline: Zahn, Allston, Luceno, and Denning good.

I would like to add Stover and Keyes to that list.

I'll accept that. That's why I blatantly covered my ass with 'most'.

[Darth Wong]

I have to agree with the nomination of Stover. His writing style for the Episode 3 novelization was a bit jarring at first because it was so blatantly over the top, but ultimately, that's what Star Wars is: over the top. That's crucial especially considering the particular period he's writing for, because it's something of an understatement to say that the events of Episode 3 are momentous. And after reading it for a while, you begin to get the vibe. This guy understands Star Wars.

[Elfdart]

There are many reasons I dislike the EU, but the main one has to do with the way most of it isn't true to Lucas' Galaxy Far Far Away. I sometimes wonder if EU writers actually watched the movies. The sense of fun, the sense of camp, the sense of WOW! -all are missing. What I really dislike is the way characters are bastardized. One attribute is selected and harped on endlessly. The characters in Star Wars aren't all that complex to begin with, so when someone reduces them even further it turns them into sitcom characters. Don't get me started on what they did to Han Solo. What Salvatore did to Chewbacca is merciful in comparison.

Who gets the blame? Except for Han Solo in ROTJ, Lucas has remained pretty consistent with his characters and setting over the last 30 years. The same cannot be said about the novels that aren't directly attached to the movies. So it's only logical to assume that the different novelists deserve the credit or blame for how their novels turn out. I doubt Lucas goes over each book with a fine-toothed comb. He has said he doesn't even read them. I suspect that his role as owner of a multi-billion dollar company, producer of the next Indiana Jones movie and creator of an upcoming movie about black fighter pilots in WW2 probably means he doesn't spend more than ten seconds worrying about any given tie-in.

One thing EU writers could have done was to create entirely new characters and settings within the GFFA and had the main characters and settings from the movies made off-limits entirely except maybe as cameos. The Galaxy is a big place, after all.

The Karen Travissty... I'll let the others handle that one, but she's the biggest embarassment to the franchise since the Holiday Special. I hope Lucas does to her works what he did with copies of that horrible TV show and consigns them to George Orwell's "memory hole".

[FTeik]

I would like to add Walter Jon Williams and Sean Stewart. Both have written only one single novel, but WJW was one of the few, who got the scale more or less right and Stewart for his characterisation.

Speaking about characters the GFFA is a character in its own right.

If we go with the OT we have a galaxy, that was united under the OldRepublic for 25 millenia, where the smallest canonical ships of the villains are a mile long, where a moon-sized battlestation can be build within a few months time and in secret, ect., ect. ...

[2000AD]

My question:

In your experience, is it true that Star Wars readers hold George Lucas harmless for decisions they do not like and instead focus their anger on the writers who carry out his orders?

Not from my experience, from what i've seen it's a mixture, some holding GL responsible, some the authors.
I think it's to do with the lack of a clear point of origin for the descision. With the films, if there was something a fan didn't like (eg. Jar JAr, Greedo shooting first) then it was clear GL was the descision maker as he had complete control over them.
With the books it becomes a bit more blurred. GL's name does not appear where the authors name is and it is not clear as to where the descision came from. This leads to some fans criticising GL for the books and some criticising the authors.

And, two follow up questions:

If this is not true, do you have any theories on why this misconception exists in the marketplace?

Kinda answered above.

If it is true, why do you think Star Wars fans feel this way about the writers?
Thanks for any and all feedback.

In spite of what i said above, there are some rare cases where it is almost clear that the descision was made by the author.
For example, the 3,000,000 clone troopers debacle with Karenn Traviss. In just about every mentioning of the Clone Wars they were a massive galactic wide war. Then along comes Traviss who says the clone army numbered just 3 million. For comparison, the People's Liberation Army of China has a combined active (2.25 mil) and reserve (0.8 mil) force of just over 3 million (Wiki). So one army, on one planet, has a comparable size to the supposed Grand Army of the Republic that is meant to be fighting a war over a galaxy. Not many people can grasp the sheer scope of a galaxy, but most people can look at that number and see what's wrong.
Now this would probably have been written off as a mistake, the author not realising just how big a galaxy is, but she then went on to try and defend the numbers no matter what, and that's what's really go some fans pissed, as the extremely low number of troops is in clear violation of just about every other peace of clone wars related infomation that has wars in the scope required for a galactic conflict.

[Vympel]

To expand, there's a certain mythological feeling you get from the original movie Star Wars, and the books are generally expected to respect that in some way. Some of KJA's stuff committed the cardinal sin of altering our perceptions of the events taking place during the movies, in a manner which many felt cheapened what was happening in the movies themselves.

The most egregious example of this is of course his absurd IG-88 story- basically that an IG-88 series droid had somehow managed to replace the main computer of the DS2 with one infected with his own self- or some such nonsense, and that when the Rebels blew up the DS2, they actually saved the galaxy from IG-88.

EDIT: an important thing about the Travissty as far as it relates to creative control is of course the contradictory stories of the people who created it- Traviss and Kaufman. See, originally, Kaufman stated quite firmly (when the controversial piece first came out) that 'LFL had made it very clear that no maximum number' for the Clone Army "could or would be assigned"- that's more or less an accurate quote- a simple, one sentence post. It's on record on TFN. Traviss and her defenders have since "defended" her work by pretending that she actually didn't come up with it. Kaufman went so far as to claim that he was being "taken out of context" when someone brought up that few-months-old post of his- a total falsehood, as anyone can read the post and see.

[KeVinK]

Guys, thanks for all the recommendations.

I now have my initial reading list worked out. (The great thing about doing this for a living is, I can write them all off as business expenses under "research materials.") What with working on my own projects and all, it looks like a good six or seven months of reading.

If I need any more guidance at the end of that time, I'll be back.

See you then.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The most egregious example of this is of course his absurd IG-88 story- basically that an IG-88 series droid had somehow managed to replace the main computer of the DS2 with one infected with his own self- or some such nonsense, and that when the Rebels blew up the DS2, they actually saved the galaxy from IG-88.

EDIT: an important thing about the Travissty as far as it relates to creative control is of course the contradictory stories of the people who created it- Traviss and Kaufman. See, originally, Kaufman stated quite firmly (when the controversial piece first came out) that 'LFL had made it very clear that no maximum number' for the Clone Army "could or would be assigned"- that's more or less an accurate quote- a simple, one sentence post. It's on record on TFN. Traviss and her defenders have since "defended" her work by pretending that she actually didn't come up with it. Kaufman went so far as to claim that he was being "taken out of context" when someone brought up that few-months-old post of his- a total falsehood, as anyone can read the post and see.

When I heard about this IG-88 story, my first reaction was "What???"

Then my next reaction was to smash my head against the wall. Honestly, that is bad script writing and KJA just brought in a silly Star Trek scenario to Star Wars.

Curious enough, perhaps Star by Star (to some extent) and Destiny's way somehow managed to capture the size and scope of Star Wars, and to some extent, the last NJO book.