Master of Ossus wrote:Actually, could you post your entire correspondence?
Certainly.
I wrote:Greetings, Ms. Traviss, this is Ian Relihan, or Ackbar is Back. We exchanged a brief correspondence a few months ago, in which I apologized for some of my own behavior regarding a debate that was inappropriate.
First off, if this is an inappropriate venue for raising my concerns, then I apologize; I do not wish to clutter your undoubtedly full inbox anymore than it already is. I simply didn't want this to get lost in some winding and heated discussion on a message or reply board somewhere.
In any event, I most say that over the last few months, I've found the whole "Clone Numbers" debate increasingly distressing. When it died down after the first flare-up in the fall, I largely dropped out of the actual debate, although I have observed when it springs up again, as it has in recent weeks. Originally, it was my hope that were the topic to return in earnest, cooler minds would dominate it; plainly, I was mistaken.
I do not recall when or why exactly discourse on the subject became far more heated and personal than it should have been, but I believe it centred around the publication of your Insider short story Odds. Naturally, I could not pass judgement on the tale and its implications until I read it, but now that I have, I can see why some in the debate have been so irked (although it certainly does not excuse the trollish behavior of some of them, or any attacks on your personal integrity).
Quite simply put, Ms. Traviss, I believe you have taken this whole thing too far. Your short story was, quite plainly to someone who has followed the debate as I have, an attempt to reconcile past points of the debate in your favor. Your mention of approximently 3 million clones in total harkens back to the very heart of the controversy, and uses the number I had believed invalidated by yourself and your colleague Mr. Kaufman, in favor of a simple ambiguity on the GAR's size, something I had no problem with. Apparently, I was mistaken. Moreover, while I have no problems with mentions of sabotague to the droid ranks of the CIS, a perfectly prudent and realistic strategy, your reference to the minute size of the total force, 300 or so million, as compared the the quadrillions or quintillions mentioned in other sources, was disheartening. So too were your implications that the Jedi and the Senate were somehow in collusion with Palpatine to massively amp-up the broadcasted size of the enemy army, and that the Clone Wars were simply a series of small, localized conflicts, rather than a massive, endless campaign with many fronts.
I can understand your justification; Palpatine did indeed orchestrate the whole war, and probably worked behind the scenes in the Seperatist council to give his army the advantage. However, in virtually no other source beyond your own is it ever indicated that the war was so contrived and the enemy so handicapped; indeed, numbers references in the ICS books directly preclude your estimations. With Odds, you seem to have attempted to disregard these figures. Nevertheless, almost every other CW EU source, and ROTS on top of them, show massive numbers of clones and droids, fighting in protracted and numerous conflicts all across the galaxy, protrayals even the most adept weilder of the retecon would have a hard to reconciling.
It pains me somewhat to say it, as I did and still do admire your work, and in no way mean to impune your general character, but the short story seems simply a way of showing up the "Talifan", as you call them. Considering some of their behavior, this is a completely justifiable aim, but in your attempt, you've infringed, in my opinion, on the rest of the SW universe, negatively. Though undoubtedly LFL had to approve your short story to have it published at all, you must see that the story goes badly against the grain of the rest of the EU, most especially the work of Mr. Saxton. I recall you mentioning to another debator that all SW EU is approved, and that there are no feuds or exclusionism amonst writers there, news that was quite gratifying. But now you yourself seem to be violating this by publishing material that blantantly defies the work of another author, and perhaps more than one beyond that.
If you are still reading, I thank you for your patience. I realize that I am making a hard accusation, but I would not do unless I honestly believed that the integrity of both your own work, and the EU itself, was in peril. I do not wish for you to stop writing for the universe, far from it; as I've said, I enjoy your work quite a bit. But I am concerned, as a fan, that this feud you've involved yourself too heavily in is adversly effecting the quality of your work. I fully realize that you have been antagonized by many who seemed to view your opinions, so different from theirs, as some sort of personal affront, and as such have harrassed and even insulted you far beyond the point of what is acceptable in such circumstances. Please, do not sink to their level; to use your official work as a method of silencing them is both ineffective, as all people in your position will have their critics, and few things can disuade them, and damaging to the field as a whole.
I ask again, please step back from this whole thing, let the Talifan stew by themselves, and take a hard look at both your own work and the universe in which it resides. If you find, in the end, that you still feel completely justified in your recent work, than I will not attempt to sway you further; indeed, I will endevor to re-assess the situation myself. But if you find that perhaps, somewhere along the line, you let your emotions get the best of you, even for a moment, please think hard about its implications.
Still a Fan-
Ian Relihan
Karen Traviss wrote:Thank you for trying to being polite about this, but you're accusing me of professional misconduct. Disagreeing with me doesn't give you the right to impugn my professional integrity. However passionately you feel about Star Wars, it's only your hobby: it's my livelihood.
I have been told you have shown earlier correspondence between us to a third party who had nothing to do with our conversations. Is this the case? If so, that's the height of bad manners, and I'd ask you to stop doing that.
I realise you feel strongly about this issue, but that doesn't change the basic situation: and I'm sorry, but I'm not entering into yet another lengthy debate.I'm trying to be as patient as I can, but I do find the terms you use wholly inappropriate to say the least.
Let me repeat this. However formally you attempt to put it, you're accusing me of professional misconduct. It's extremely insulting, not only to me but to my colleagues at Lucasfilm, because this implies they have failed to carry out their duties too. I'm obviously going to have to refer it to them and seek advice. I would advise you not to repeat these accusations of "defying the work of another author" to anyone else.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I do not publish anything. I can't. Material I write for LFL is thoroughly checked and approved by them - every word, every number - and nothing can possibly appear in print without their explicit approval. If it appears in print - or any other medium - it's because they want it to be that way. Anyone who thinks that a writer can pursue their own agenda and somehow slip more than a hundred thousand of copies of a publication or book past one of the biggest entertainment organisations in the world, and one with a team of staff dedicated to checking every detail of every product before it's released, is totally ignorant of how the industry operates.
In fact, Odds was additionally checked by an editor who works on the non-novel books - the "non-fiction" side, if I can call it that, the kind of books you claim I have "defied".
And please don't lecture me about my "emotions". I was hired to write fiction for LFL. I have no emotional engagement with a set of numbers. I work with whatever they want me to work with, as professionals do, and that's all there is to it. This was the way we - and it is always a collective decision - decided to address the numbers issue. If you look at the original GAR article carefully, the references to events in Odds are already in there.
Karen Traviss
I wrote:Firstly, the claim that I distributed the contents of any of our previous correspondence to anyone else is patently untrue, and I resent the implication.
At risk of dragging this discussion into a muck of symantics and pointless word fencing, I shall cut straight to the point. Though I still hold misgivings about the timing and content of Odds, from what you are saying, I can only assume such things were concidental, or at least the decision of a group beyond you. If this is the case, than I owe you an apology; I am sorry for implying professional misconduct on your part.
I just seek final clarification on one more matter, even if you feel you've already answered it (which you may have); Are the GAR and CIS numbers used in the short story official, approved and such? I simply ask because the last debate of this nature seemed to leave those numbers ambigious.
Karen Traviss wrote:This is now harrassment. Stop contacting me, and stop making these accusations. I have no idea why you think I should justify myself to you.
<< If this is the case, than I owe you an apology; I am sorry for implying professional misconduct on your part.
Yes, you certainly do owe me an apology. But don't send it, because this is the last conversation we're ever going to have.
I'll bold-font the key facts and repeat what I already told you so you don't miss it this time. For someone who claims to be detail conscious, you don't seem to read words too carefully.
Odds was written and scheduled last year. You make yet more assumptions without bothering to find out anything. Insider material has to be planned into production and completed many months in advance. Check the facts before you embarrass yourself by sending insulting mail to total strangers.
<<I just seek final clarification on one more matter, even if you feel you've already answered it (which you may have); Are the GAR and CIS numbers used in the short story official, approved and such?
Which I "may have"? Haven't you even had the basic courtesy to read my reply?
I have spelled this out to you very clearly. I answered that fully. If you've read it in print, then it has been through the full approval process. Which part of this do you not understand?
Insider goes through exactly the same approval process as the novels, the comics, the figures and every other LFL licensed product. You seem to regard it as some lesser product with lower standards. So you're insulting my colleagues there, too.
<<I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I do not publish anything. I can't. Material I write for LFL is thoroughly checked and approved by them - every word, every number - and nothing can possibly appear in print without their explicit approval. If it appears in print - or any other medium - it's because they want it to be that way. Anyone who thinks that a writer can pursue their own agenda and somehow slip more than a hundred thousand of copies of a publication or book past one of the biggest entertainment organisations in the world, and one with a team of staff dedicated to checking every detail of every product before it's released, is totally ignorant of how the industry operates.In fact, Odds was additionally checked by an editor who works on the non-novel books - the "non-fiction" side, if I can call it that, the kind of books you claim I have "defied". >>
I hope you understand that now.
Stop harrassing me. Stop mailing me. I don't want to hear from you, because you neither read what I send you, nor do you appear to have any concept of how offensive your patronising, ill-informed accusations are. I've blocked your mail. If you attempt to bypass that filter by using alternative addresses, anything you send will be deleted unread.
Karen Traviss
Inflection used in the posts has been preserved.
Oh, and darthbane, feel free to broadcast this to your comrades on TFN and their glorious leader, too (asuming she hasn't retreated altogether from the overwhelming waves eviceration and garroting threats we've filed against her there). Indeed, I am quite curious as to what Traviss thought in my posts constituted "harrasement"; if she were to come down from on high and grace us with her response in person, I would be most appreciative. Of course, I doubt she would sully herself by visting us unclean (if extremely few, evidently; it is rather amusing how we talk back and forth with sockpuppets all day long, isn't it?) masses in our den; see if you can have her send one of her syncophants. There must be a Grima Wormtongue in that lot somewhere.
Yeah, and fuck you too. I can't BELIEVE this idiot actually has the audacity to argue about "objective truths" and deny that criticism of authors is unallowed, when the board has made it VERY clear recently that you can't.
It is no exxageration that Traviss is destroying SW with her writings, because she has escalated the issue far beyond mere numbers and polluted the rest of the saga with her half-assed explanations.
