KeVinK wrote: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.
With Star Trek, it's pretty clear that TPTB are responsible for most of the major changes in the franchise because they bring in so many different writers and directors that they really are the only constant. I think that Star Wars contrasts with this because Lucas has rarely played a visible role in the EU--his name never appears on the cover of the books and comics like the Star Trek PTB were accredited after each episode. I'm unsure of how this relates to other universes, since I tend to follow series like Babylon 5 in which one man was clearly responsible for all major decisions in the series.
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, in that case, that fans simply didn't know Lucas had been involved in it. That would support the original hypothesis.
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.
While I would generally agree with your original hypothesis, this description does not explain what happened during this incident. The writer in question was given instructions by TPTB that no numbers could be established (according to her co-author), but then appeared to ignore that guideline and fixed a number. When fans complained, she berated them across the internet and defended her number. She went on to issue death threats against people who disagreed with her. Many fans were not pleased by her actions, and while she herself has been the subject of most of the criticism, I think that she was subjected to this because of her actions after her work was published as opposed to the published materials. As evidence, I would submit that Michael Kube-McDowell committed an equally egregious mistake when he argued that Coruscant was not, in fact, a city planet but instead only had one continent that was urbanized with the rest being unsettled oceans. That was clearly his mistake, because TPTB in SW later went on to show Coruscant in the films and there were no visible oceans, but K-Mac was not heavily criticized by fans, who went on to simply ignore that passage and focus on the rest of his work.
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?
Star Wars fans, generally, are unaware of the level of involvement that Lucas has with the EU. I, myself, admit to being completely unaware of his influence over it--at times he exercises line-item veto powers over new texts that are written, and at other times he appears to approve of rough story-sketches that are then given to writers. I do not know whether his involvement changes depending o the project, or if it is consistent and the only inconsistency is in impression, but the result is that the writers are generally held accountable for what they sign their names to.
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 it's because LFL and Lucas have both been rather vague as to what their involvement in the writing process is, and so the authors become the visible manifestations of the materials. Lucas was
roundly criticized by many fans following TPM, and I would interpret that criticism as being because of his very visible role in the making of that film.
In general, I would say that SW fans are very forgiving of retcons compared to (say) ST fans, but because the series has been retconned so many times they also advocate for such measures when something does not appear to fit with continuity.
Hope that my opinions help, although you appear to have received good information from others.
