Why do fanboys put the EU ahead of the films?

[Coiler]

I've been wondering: What is it with rabid SW fans and their love for the EU, to the point where they consider it above the movies in terms of evidence and a description of the "true" SW galaxy?

It doesn't seem-right, and not just because it violates Lucasfilm's canon policy. After all, the movies are the big media extravaganzas, and the EU simply secondary tie-in literature. Do you see people waiting in line for weeks to buy an EU novel?

Could it be that since there's more content in the EU than in the films, the fans simply adopt an attitude of more=better?

[Darth Raptor]

More like they're oblivious to any conflict in the first place.

[Karmic Knight]

I do think it is because the EU provides more examples, as some phenomena that has maybe one representation in the films, may have three or four different representations in the literature, ones that may run counter to the original phenomena, causing more people to see it more often in the literature and apply more trust to the EU as a source.

[Covenant]

It depends on what fans you're talking about. Some people though are real quick to flaunt their 'deeper understanding' of a theme by pointing to more and more obscure sources. In a sense, since the books or comics are less obvious from a mass-market perspective, they may consider those to be more of a 'secret revealed truth' than the movies that everyone has seen. It's a way to seperate yourself from the sheep, and the only way to do all the idiot name-dropping of characters, places, and events. It's the lure of gnosis, and it's as old as time.

Plus, comics and books are often apt to more info-dump schenanigans, which makes them a more convenient source of facts than doing the power caluclations and research yourself, as is obvious from some things like the Traviss books.

[Coiler]

It depends on what fans you're talking about. Some people though are real quick to flaunt their 'deeper understanding' of a theme by pointing to more and more obscure sources. In a sense, since the books or comics are less obvious from a mass-market perspective, they may consider those to be more of a 'secret revealed truth' than the movies that everyone has seen. It's a way to seperate yourself from the sheep, and the only way to do all the idiot name-dropping of characters, places, and events. It's the lure of gnosis, and it's as old as time.

That's an interesting theory. It's actually the first time I've heard it in regards to the EU, but it makes sense.

Plus, comics and books are often apt to more info-dump schenanigans, which makes them a more convenient source of facts than doing the power caluclations and research yourself, as is obvious from some things like the Traviss books.

Exactly. Why bother deriving a vague lower limit through careful scaling and calculating, when you can just look at a book and get an exact number?

[Connor MacLeod]

I really dislike how you phrased the question, because its fairly leading. I dont know any fans who have EVER put the EU before the movies, so if there are any they must be farily unusual as represented in the overall fandom (as are True Rationalists, I suppose)

Now, what I do know is that there are quite a few in the fandom who like to put the EU on roughly the same level as the movies, even though (in theory) the movies are still superior. What it really comes down to is that "certain poitn of view" stuff - ideologies, or perhaps even near-religious "disputing" (hell the use of the word "canon" itself is a dangerous idea in and of tiself.) I think it goes without saying that you can't really "categorize" the fandom except maybe in teh broadest sense - hell even in the "Rationalist" camp you'll find all manner of variations in the fans (I mymself for example agree with Curtis on many things, but I would NOT call myself a "Saxtonite". Hell I even rather dislike the term "Rationalist".) and I imagine the so called "minimalist" camp is also rather varied. You can have as many variations as ways people choose to look at STar Wars: Some may look at it as a casual fan, some may look at it from a thematic/literary analysis perspective, some may look at it from a "gamer" perspective. Some may look at it like a historian, or a religious adherent (or fanatic). Some may look at it as a scientist or something other similarily "logical. I'm sure there might be even some who look at sociology or psychology or philsopher, or whatever.

More specifically and more pertinent to this thread, I'm guessing you are talking about the "all inclusive" types of fans, who want to include evey scrap and bit of the EU they can possibliy get away with. This isnt neccesarily a bad thing. Publius is, IMHO, quite the "inclusive" analyst, yet he's no fanboy. The problem comes from lack of discrimination, and that's something most fans lack or don't care about (even among "intelligent" warsies, you'll find that.)

A person can only speculate WHY someone would be so all-inclusive. One possible reason (And this is one I myself long adhered to) is that it was the "fair" way - you couldn't throw anything out because it would be arbitrary and you might end up tainting everything by tainting just one thing. That, hwoever, is a bit of a slippery slope - Mike's gone on at length before for MANY reasons why a source may be disregarded (bias being a big reason.) and it is alot less arbitrary than some might think. Tossing somethiung out is a perfectly valid approach, so long as you do it "within the rules" as it is.

Another reason of course is the attitude of LFL itself, and to an extent folk like Leland Chee. LFL in recent years has been VERY inclusive of materials, and so have alot of the authors behind it (people like Dan Wallace.) I imagine some fans either get an idea from this or take it further than that to be more "dedicated" to preserving canon/continuity. It may also be because the approach to canon has been modified and expanded upon over time by various people - Steve Sansweet, Chee, ,various comments from Lucas, ,etc. and the various interpretations (some more sound than others, ,of course) tends to muddy the waters even further.

Another possible reason is what you might call the "acheological" dimension, and Covenant touched on this - some fans take some pride in revealing or retelling esoteric bits of data or knowledge (people like that exist IRL too, after all.) and those are sorts of people who enjoy digging in (or owning) rare but potentialyl valuable sources that they can quote or reference to awe or amaze people. I myself have been guilty of this on a few occasions (I doubt many people on this board own a copy of the Star Wars TEchnical Journal, or Anakin Skywalker: the Story of Darth Vader, or the pocket books for the X-wing or TIE Fighter, for example. )

Still yet another one, and probably a very big one in my mind, is the "religious" approach. Alot of people tend to take what is said/stated/written into Star wars as gospel truth - they tend not to question. Especially if it comes from Lucas. A prime example of this is the naming of Admiral Motti (which in my mind is one of the more absurd examples of how the fandom approaches canon, but oh well.) To a lesser extent this can also apply to the "historian" mindset, I think. The approaches with places like the CUSWE tend to be an example of this, I think, but even the "official" guides like the Chronologies can be subject to this.

Another (and the last that comes to my mind) possibility is the "nostalgia" factor for some materials. Some of the "inclusive" material tends to be very old stuff, stuff that comes from the very "early" days of SW fandom when there wasn't as much of a marketing/licensing empire as there is now - back then you didnt have much - comics, West End Games, a few novels, The Ewok movies, the Droids/Ewok TV shows, and so on. Alot of fans can probably remember back to those times (I know I can) and possess a certain residual excitement/love of that early stuff. Having it inclueded or referenced would be positive for them. Nostalgia may not seem all that "strong" a reason, but one must remember how the "original trilogy" itself is sometimes viewed through rose colored glasses, especially in comparisons to the EU or even the prequel moveis themselves. You can find a fair number of people (esp the canon purists) who will bitch about how the prequels "just weren't as good as the originals" - hell you can find that on here - and alot of that can be tied to what they feel/believe as inspired BY the original trilogy. Its kinda what defines "Star Wars" for them. Its not really that hard to believe that fans could also be "influenced" by "Pre-EU" stuff too, no matter how silly.

[Oskuro]

I'm not well versed on the EU or its fandom, but from the few things I've read, it has a certain fanfic feel to it, in the sense that many authors seem to concentrate on parts of the canon they like, and expand upon them, sometimes bordering mary-sueism (and sometimes jumping right into it).

I'm not critizicing that approach, by the way, I just feel that to many readers, the same happens, they like certain parts more than others, and if there's EU material expanding on that wich they like, they cling to it.

For example, I always liked the Imperial Guards (the guys in red), even though they essentially do nothing in the movies, and read a couple comics concerning one of them, wich expanded on their background, and when re-watching the movies I felt compelled to try and include that information into the experience, sometimes thinking stuff like "if the guards had stayed this and this would have gone on in the final duel with Palpatine".

It feels like a lot of people fixate so much on stuff they like, they sometimes have to override the basic canon to make their pet concepts fit, and, of course, due to the very large fanbase, there's bound to be a volume of very vocal extremists like the ones I believe the OP is referring to.

[Darth Hoth]

I've been wondering: What is it with rabid SW fans and their love for the EU, to the point where they consider it above the movies in terms of evidence and a description of the "true" SW galaxy?

It doesn't seem-right, and not just because it violates Lucasfilm's canon policy. After all, the movies are the big media extravaganzas, and the EU simply secondary tie-in literature. Do you see people waiting in line for weeks to buy an EU novel?

Could it be that since there's more content in the EU than in the films, the fans simply adopt an attitude of more=better?

I have yet to encounter any fan who claims to stand above the LFL canon policy, with the exception of movie purists (the very opposite of the "fanboys" you describe). What I have seen a lot of is differing interpretations of the canon. Say, there are the Saxtonites who adhere to suspension of disbelief and measure movie props to make in-universe judgments of size, and then there are the minimalists (McEwok being the most prominent) who tend to trust written sources (effectively, WEG) instead, pointing to the numerous inconsistencies, special effects gaffes and "LOOKZ KEWL" moments in the films, dismissing the notion that special effects and props can be taken at face value as accurate representations of in-universe phenomena. Both do, however, acknowledge the overall supremacy of the filmic canon; it is in their methodology that they differ.

The group I would say you are referring to would be the "hyperinclusionists", an approach I used to share, which goes out of its way to accomodate everything, down to the silliest detail. There can be various reasons for this - nostalgia for old sources, a desire for as complete and nuanced a universe as possible, or simply "fanboy" gut feeling and a wish to validate whatever franchise crap you buy. Another reason, which was pointed out earlier, might be the easiness/laziness of such an approach, in that all the work is done for you - you need not use reason, maths or anything, just take everything at face value. Even here, however, these fans rarely choose to directly contradict the films; rather, they tend to invent convoluted "explanations" for why things appear not to mesh.

Lastly, a powerful motivator can be the fan's own judgment. For example, there appears to be a fairly wide agreement around here that certain details of the prequels were lame, stupid, illogical, unreasonable, thematically unsound &c.; Lucas's retconned version of the Jedi in particular is often called into dispute, I believe. Here, where the EU produces a more nuanced and/or sensible picture of events, institutions &c., many will find it natural to go by that, even if such requires some effort to be justified and harmonised with the films.

[Darth Hoth]

More specifically and more pertinent to this thread, I'm guessing you are talking about the "all inclusive" types of fans, who want to include evey scrap and bit of the EU they can possibliy get away with. This isnt neccesarily a bad thing. Publius is, IMHO, quite the "inclusive" analyst, yet he's no fanboy. The problem comes from lack of discrimination, and that's something most fans lack or don't care about (even among "intelligent" warsies, you'll find that.)

I would say the problem is that they have no coherent approach to their interpretation of the canon. Publius, while generally not discriminating against particular sources (does he not include the old Ewoks shows prominently, even?), attempts to unify and harmonise the various pieces into a coherent whole; the "hyperinclusive" fanboys are so caught up with the pieces that they do not care about the whole. I guess you could call this myopia a lack of discrimination, but that is not all of it; they really are not interested in seeing a coherent galaxy, for the most part. Hell, when I still bothered to make edits at Wookiee I saw "encyclopaedists" who freely admitted to including silly stuff (like, separate articles on "Force Push" and "Force Pull") purely on the basis of "hyperinclusionist fanwankery" as if that was a good thing and an end in and of itself. Needless to say, these people are easy victims for Traviss and similar stupidities.

Another issue here would be literalism. People take the most stupid things by the spirit and letter simply because they are in print; this would be akin to the "holy gospel" approach you mentioned, though in my experience it is simply laziness and unwillingness to extrapolate or make reasoned judgments, rather than any pseudo-religious fervour (except in the Lucas cases; there, I agree). On the other hand, they are sometimes paradoxically eager to make gratuitous extrapolations from very dubious statements. If Daala said she was discriminated against, the entire Empire was sexist. If Han Solo joked about a superweapon called the "Nostril of Palpatine", it must be out there somewhere. One case might simply be simplistic thinking; the other I find myself at a loss to explain, and I hesitate to call it anything but sheer dishonesty.

[Bluewolf]

It could be due to some fans slowly building an idea of what Star Wars should be, just as Star Trek fans have. Over time the movies no longer are in thier vision of Star Wars and all that is, is a handful of EU books and reference guides and the only thing that will fit into this vision is more EU books.

[Coiler]

You're right, I should have given a better example of what I meant. So I'll give that example now.

I was reading an old thread by Mike on SW.com where he used film evidence from ANH to prove that TIEs were shielded and that X-wings were not noticeably more durable.

The fans there kept trying every excuse possible to discount Wongs findings and hold to the EU version of TIEs being much more fragile than X-wings, rather than saying "The EU was wrong on this".

They didn't seem like inclusionists, they just seemed like people who truly thought that the books were just as valid, if not more so, than the movies.

[Anguirus]

^ I think that's sort of an extreme example. Unshielded TIEs are ubiquitous in the EU. Every single solitary sequence that has TIEs that aren't just flying around in the background will mention hat they're unshielded at some point. Trying to convince someone that a flash of light is a shield interaction in a 30 year old movie in the presence of all that explicit evidence is going to be an uphill battle.

[Ghost Rider]

^ I think that's sort of an extreme example. Unshielded TIEs are ubiquitous in the EU. Every single solitary sequence that has TIEs that aren't just flying around in the background will mention hat they're unshielded at some point. Trying to convince someone that a flash of light is a shield interaction in a 30 year old movie in the presence of all that explicit evidence is going to be an uphill battle.

Except that is a point, Coiler is trying to make.

While I agree with Connor, the title is baiting, the point he is trying to make is simple. Why is it, that when something appears in the film and conflicts with established EU, the FILM gets thrown away? Why do certain fanboys feel this inherent need to make the EU higher then the film? The films are the highest point and ultimately Lucas' vision. The EU is, in the saga's eyes, fanfiction to expand upon said universe, not the other way around.

[evillejedi]

Even WEG gave TIEs some shielding. (2D of hull always comes from particle shielding) In fact I can't specifically recall a ship in WEG stats that had an explicit statement saying that at least 2D of the hull was not due to shielding or having a rating less than 2D.

[Darth Hoth]

You're right, I should have given a better example of what I meant. So I'll give that example now.

I was reading an old thread by Mike on SW.com where he used film evidence from ANH to prove that TIEs were shielded and that X-wings were not noticeably more durable.

The fans there kept trying every excuse possible to discount Wongs findings and hold to the EU version of TIEs being much more fragile than X-wings, rather than saying "The EU was wrong on this".

They didn't seem like inclusionists, they just seemed like people who truly thought that the books were just as valid, if not more so, than the movies.

That thread gave me a headache, damn you! Really, it did. Physically.

However, it does provide interesting examples of the various archetypes of inclusionist that were discussed. In case others want to avoid my headache, I shall list them.

First, there are those who attempt to harmonise the evidence, the "inclusionists". Their position on the issue of whether TIEs have shields is that if the film shows them with them, that speaks for those particular units, but not all of them, which works with the EU (were we have seen "shield-upgraded" TIEs); this position can be summarised in this post:

I DON'T think ALL TIEs have shields, only elite squadrons, like Vader's in ANH.

Then there are the literalists, who do not trust special effects but want written evidence. To them, the Saxton method is flawed, in that it attempts to rationalise what is clearly a frivolous play with models and props. Here is one (note also the traces of Lucas-worship in it):

Has it ever been said that the TIEs we see in the movies have shields? Or are all of the assumptions being put forward here (for and against ALL TIEs being equipped with shields) being based on what had been seen the screen but not what might have been said by either GL or anybody from Lucas Films? Something similar to what GL said when his original intentions was for all the Stormtroopers to be clones?

Because if the case is that all were using in the debate are shots from OT, they are not conclusive enough to overrule any of the arguments raised.

The most infamous are probably the "EU-supremacists" that one rarely hears of, who outright think the EU above and beyond the films (and themselves above LFL on the canon policy). This one is a particularly stupid, but therefore also very clear, example:

The Movies don't give you any conclusive proof either way. If you want conclusive proof you have to go to the EU to see if its adds anything, if you don't like what its says then hard luck. Just because you disagree doesn't make it wrong. [. . .]

Another example, very clearly displaying the laziness inherent in this approach:

No i don't [need to present my reasoning], i don't need to be creative and make up stuff to fit in with what i have seen, that is the job of the EU.

(There are plenty of more stupid things this one does; at one point, he is more prepared to accept that SW humans have completely alien physiologies and can breathe vacuum rather than accepting that TIEs work well in atmospheres, because evidently some book says they do not. . . )

Finally, we have the happy-go-lucky gamer who does not really care either way but is happy just playing his videogames and recounts anecdotes and game mechanics with little regard for films or canon:

I reguarly play X-Wing alliance in multiplayer, i prefer to play as a TIE Interceptor, i have found that it is pretty easy to kill an x-wing and once the sheild are down they take roughly the same amount of hits a tie interceptor takes (roughly 6?), the only let down is when attacking capital ships which is suicidal in a TIE Fighter (unless its an Advanced or Defender), the anti-starfighter lasers cut through you like butter. I'd say that in a dogfight that the X-Wing and the TIE are level pegging, at a distance the X-Wing has the advantage (being able to fire missiles or torps at range) and that in an Anti-capital ship role the X-Wing wins handsdown, the sheilds absorbing the energy long enough for you to make a straefing run before you pull out and run for space.

Did I miss anyone?

[TK-984]

^ I think that's sort of an extreme example. Unshielded TIEs are ubiquitous in the EU. Every single solitary sequence that has TIEs that aren't just flying around in the background will mention hat they're unshielded at some point. Trying to convince someone that a flash of light is a shield interaction in a 30 year old movie in the presence of all that explicit evidence is going to be an uphill battle.

Except that is a point, Coiler is trying to make.

While I agree with Connor, the title is baiting, the point he is trying to make is simple. Why is it, that when something appears in the film and conflicts with established EU, the FILM gets thrown away? Why do certain fanboys feel this inherent need to make the EU higher then the film? The films are the highest point and ultimately Lucas' vision. The EU is, in the saga's eyes, fanfiction to expand upon said universe, not the other way around.

Except in the case of a "flash of light is a shield interaction" isn't necessarily the highest point of Lucas' vision. It was some SFX artist who either thought it would look cool or else did it for reasons of practicality. It isn't like Lucas one day while directing ANH thought "lulz, Tie Fighter's definately have shields."

I think a larger gaff in fan thought process is the idea that EVERYTHING in the movies is a direct result of George Lucas, and thus MUST be adhered to at all cost. The real miracle of the *OT* Star Wars franchise (for me at least) is the fact that from the very start it was about the diluting of the Lucas' "vision" due to the very fact of its collaborative nature. Back in '77 models were made out of practicality and speed, Lucas didn't have the time to micromanage -- so what you get is a far more nuanced and multifaceted product. I would argue the same today goes for the EU, on a *whole* it really is a complex beast, and just the mere fact that you've taken the time to read these novels and build a coherent timeline of the Star Wars universe is definitely an achievement of imagination.

[Ghost Rider]

^ I think that's sort of an extreme example. Unshielded TIEs are ubiquitous in the EU. Every single solitary sequence that has TIEs that aren't just flying around in the background will mention hat they're unshielded at some point. Trying to convince someone that a flash of light is a shield interaction in a 30 year old movie in the presence of all that explicit evidence is going to be an uphill battle.

Except that is a point, Coiler is trying to make.

While I agree with Connor, the title is baiting, the point he is trying to make is simple. Why is it, that when something appears in the film and conflicts with established EU, the FILM gets thrown away? Why do certain fanboys feel this inherent need to make the EU higher then the film? The films are the highest point and ultimately Lucas' vision. The EU is, in the saga's eyes, fanfiction to expand upon said universe, not the other way around.

Except in the case of a "flash of light is a shield interaction" isn't necessarily the highest point of Lucas' vision. It was some SFX artist who either thought it would look cool or else did it for reasons of practicality. It isn't like Lucas one day while directing ANH thought "lulz, Tie Fighter's definately have shields."

I think a larger gaff in fan thought process is the idea that EVERYTHING in the movies is a direct result of George Lucas, and thus MUST be adhered to at all cost. The real miracle of the *OT* Star Wars franchise (for me at least) is the fact that from the very start it was about the diluting of the Lucas' "vision" due to the very fact of its collaborative nature. Back in '77 models were made out of practicality and speed, Lucas didn't have the time to micromanage -- so what you get is a far more nuanced and multifaceted product. I would argue the same today goes for the EU, on a *whole* it really is a complex beast, and just the mere fact that you've taken the time to read these novels and build a coherent timeline of the Star Wars universe is definitely an achievement of imagination.

Again, when one is looking at film for evidence, one doesn't presume it's a gaffe. If we did, Alderaan itself is a gaffe that Lucas decide to expand upon amongst many others. When one goes, then how do you say explain otherwise, one present in universe explainations, not some out of universe jabbering. Otherwise, there is no analysis except our own personal navel gazing.

[Anguirus]

^ Your reasoning is perfectly valid, but it's a depth of analysis that simply doesn't occur to the average fan.

Average fan watches the movies, reads a book that says TIEs don't have shields, and sees no contradiction because, let's face it, there is no terribly obvious evidence in the films that TIEs are shielded (whereas deflectors are mentioned in dialogue for both X- and Y-wings). Because he sees no contradiction, he does not necessarily have a pro-EU or anti-movie agenda. That was the only point I was trying to make.

[Coiler]

Desperately Seeking Mara is the perfect example of the type of fan I was talking about in the OP.

Another is some person I remember getting quoted in what I think was the stickied "Three million clones" discussion thread. I can't remember where or who, but he said something like "It's invalid, it goes against the EU" in regards to the RoTS novel and its statement of clone regiments going to every world in the Republic.

[Anguirus]

I can't remember where or who, but he said something like "It's invalid, it goes against the EU" in regards to the RoTS novel and its statement of clone regiments going to every world in the Republic.

See, that's a much better example of your idea than the TIE thing. Traviss and her enablers piss on Lucas' intent and higher canon and the fans love them for it. It's just plain twisted.

(Though despite Traviss' stupidity and lack of talent, I have to say that none of this would have happened if the "200,000 units" line had not been written into AotC AND that some small-minded SOB had decided that a unit was an individual clone. I suppose it's possible that this can actually be traced to R.A. Salvatore, which makes me sad cause I actually really like his D&D books.)

[PainRack]

I can't remember where or who, but he said something like "It's invalid, it goes against the EU" in regards to the RoTS novel and its statement of clone regiments going to every world in the Republic.

See, that's a much better example of your idea than the TIE thing. Traviss and her enablers piss on Lucas' intent and higher canon and the fans love them for it. It's just plain twisted.

(Though despite Traviss' stupidity and lack of talent, I have to say that none of this would have happened if the "200,000 units" line had not been written into AotC AND that some small-minded SOB had decided that a unit was an individual clone. I suppose it's possible that this can actually be traced to R.A. Salvatore, which makes me sad cause I actually really like his D&D books.)

Another example would be the Executor class Star Dreadnought debate. Every single aspect of her, from the length, name and classification has been met with steady opposition from fans from all types. The problem is, there IS a point to some of their opposition. The Dreadnought is a reclassification from early EU sources and its one the movies are vague on. The novelisation doesn't explictly mention that they're dreadnoughts and let's face it, ship classification in the movies and novelisation was never something congruent. The Imperial Cruiser is afterall the Imperial Star Destroyer, which later became the Imperial class Star Destroyer and was also called the battleship in the novelisation. Ditto, the massive Star Destroyer also outmassed the other Imperial ships, and was called the Super Star Destroyer in the movies.

Perhaps the problem may also be how numbers frame our understanding, and that people find it easier to go from the numbers to interprete the story rather then use the story to get the numbers.

[Pelranius]

Skywalker-Jedi fanboys/groupies/wankers/worshippers and New Republic partisans come to mind. They're the ones who are looking for the fairy tale endings. They're also the sole reason why I pretty much stopped going to TFN boards. They also tend to be either severely disturbed teenagers, moronic college student activists or diehard Bush dead enders, judging from their commentary on world affairs.

[Darth Wong]

There's also the "read technical figures from a handy reference book" crowd, which is actually quite dominant. They were most obstinate when dealing with the issue of the size of the Executor, and their motivation is simple: laziness. No mental effort whatsoever is required to crack open a "guide" book and copy-paste the information from it onto your personal website, which is what most SW website authors have done.

[lstyer]

There's also the "read technical figures from a handy reference book" crowd, which is actually quite dominant.

Along those same lines, books often provide more specific information than you get watching a movie.

You might see a ship on screen in a movie and you think "that's really long," while in a book you read something like "Han saw a kilometer long ship ahead of him." If one hasn't really thought about exactly how long the ship was, it's probably human nature to just accept the number you're given. Particularly for people who aren't scientifically-minded or experienced. I know I can't look at a movie frame and really tell how big stuff is and make calculations based on that, but I also don't see much point in arguing with people who say they can unless what they're saying makes no sense to me at all. And even then, it's often more a matter of questioning-to-understand than arguing.

On the other hand, at least in the case of Star Wars, you can basically trust what you see on screen, but I don't think I recall ever reading a Star Wars novel that was written in third-person omniscient point-of-view, and any information presented from first person or even third-person limited point of view is, to some degree suspect.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The laziness option goes a long way. Wookieeites have a terrible habit of deciding a given ship if smaller than another MUST be shorter as well. The Mandator is supposedly not as tough as Executor? We we'll list it as canonical that its shorter. I suppose a certain concept like volume escapes them. Oh well.