Matthew Stover: Good or Bad?

[Darth Fanboy]

Traitor was trippy and I didn't really care for it.

Shatterpoint I hated.

Revenge of the Sith blew me away. It was perfect, everything it needed to be, and everything the other novels should have been. Rich in detail, focused on the characters and perfect in execution. Quite frankly, I can't figure out how anyone didn't like this book. I thought it was better then the film.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the RoTS novel and I keep my copy next to the head. But I think it could have been even better if Stover had decided to focus more on events. Coruscant space battle and Order 66 specifically, and possibly the fighting on Kashyyk if there was room.

[Dakarne]

But I think it could have been even better if Stover had decided to focus more on events.

I think the Novel was made to focus on Emotions and People, rather than Events, I think the Novel did an excellent job of balancing its high detail with the film's fast pacing.

But that's just me.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Revenge of the Sith blew me away. It was perfect, everything it needed to be, and everything the other novels should have been. Rich in detail, focused on the characters and perfect in execution. Quite frankly, I can't figure out how anyone didn't like this book. I thought it was better then the film.

I won't say it was better than the film, rather that the film and novel complement each other this time.

Still, it was just a bit too mucky for my taste. Yes, describing the characters inner thoughts is all well and good, but there is just a bit too much poetry. If he can take out some of the poetry, he can reduce the length of his work by 20% (without sacrificing real detail on his character descriptions), which he can use on describing events like the other, more conventional novelization.

[Ender]

Revenge of the Sith blew me away. It was perfect, everything it needed to be, and everything the other novels should have been. Rich in detail, focused on the characters and perfect in execution. Quite frankly, I can't figure out how anyone didn't like this book. I thought it was better then the film.

I won't say it was better than the film, rather that the film and novel complement each other this time.

Still, it was just a bit too mucky for my taste. Yes, describing the characters inner thoughts is all well and good, but there is just a bit too much poetry. If he can take out some of the poetry, he can reduce the length of his work by 20% (without sacrificing real detail on his character descriptions), which he can use on describing events like the other, more conventional novelization.

See, for me the poetry is what really helped make it. This story is suppossed to be epic and timeless. And the poetry conveyed that perfectly. The fight between Sidious and Yoda - yeah is skipped on the fight details that Salvadore would have thrown in, but it came to the very heart of it. that whole "It was more then the Lord of all Sith buring the Master of all Jedi with his hatred. It was the fundamental conflict of the universe. Light against Dark. Winner take all" conveyed both what was happening, and more importantly, the complete significance of what was going on. Sidious killed and occasionally fought plenty of Jedi. But this was the conflict that mattered, because never again was any Jedi going to get close enough to Sidious without him being able to summon the other Sith, or him summon the rest of his subjects. Only now is he in a position where a Jedi had a chance at beating him because his power isn't fully cemented yet and they can still get access to him. Next time it was going to take Sidious specifically bringing the Jedi to him, not the Jedi hunting him down.