Canonicity of Karen Traviss' Novels

[Mad]

If it's out of continuity, it IS out of canon for all practical purposes.

Let me ask you: canonically, what was Luke Skywalker's designation during the Battle of Yavin?

If you said, "canonically, he was Red 5," then you are correct. If you said, "canonically, he was Blue 5," then you are correct. Both descriptions are canon.

However, only 1 of those is considered a part of continuity.

The description does not become decanonized just because it is contradicted.

[Batman]

If it's out of continuity, it IS out of canon for all practical purposes.

Let me ask you: canonically, what was Luke Skywalker's designation during the Battle of Yavin?
If you said, "canonically, he was Red 5," then you are correct. If you said, "canonically, he was Blue 5," then you are correct. Both descriptions are canon.
However, only 1 of those is considered a part of continuity.
The description does not become decanonized just because it is contradicted.

Yes it it does when HIGHER canon contradicts it. The novelization says Blue 5. The MOVIE says Red 5. Thus his CANON callsign during that battle was Red 5.

[TC Pilot]

Technically though (since Lucas is credited as the author), the ANH novelization is G-canon.

[Darth Fanboy]

Has anyone made a cohesive timeline including the evetns of both clone wars cartoons, the EU novels, and the Clone Wars comic? All the events of this new show happen with Anakin as a Knight which really limits the time frame that all of these many adventures and battle are taking place in.

[Havok]

Technically though (since Lucas is credited as the author), the ANH novelization is G-canon.

That is nitpicking. The novel doesn't happen if there is no movie that will be released. The movies are the highest canon. Only a direct change to them by Lucas himself can alter that. And no one, including you, is going to take the novels over the movies.

[Havok]

If it's out of continuity, it IS out of canon for all practical purposes.

Let me ask you: canonically, what was Luke Skywalker's designation during the Battle of Yavin?

If you said, "canonically, he was Red 5," then you are correct. If you said, "canonically, he was Blue 5," then you are correct. Both descriptions are canon.

However, only 1 of those is considered a part of continuity.

The description does not become decanonized just because it is contradicted.

That is exactly what the canon rule states. The movies are the absolute highest canon. They are above all else, even other sources by GL, UNLESS, he goes and directly changes the movies to match those sources.
He can have notes notarized by the Pope and the President of France from 1975 that say Han Solo is a Yak, and that all other interpretations and representations are wrong, but sorry, Han Solo isn't a fucking Yak.

[Mad]

Yes it it does when HIGHER canon contradicts it. The novelization says Blue 5. The MOVIE says Red 5. Thus his CANON callsign during that battle was Red 5.

The words canon and continuity do not refer to the same thing. Both are canon, only one is considered a part of continuity.

That is exactly what the canon rule states. The movies are the absolute highest canon. They are above all else, even other sources by GL, UNLESS, he goes and directly changes the movies to match those sources.
He can have notes notarized by the Pope and the President of France from 1975 that say Han Solo is a Yak, and that all other interpretations and representations are wrong, but sorry, Han Solo isn't a fucking Yak.

What does that have to do with what I said about the relationship between canon and continuity?

[Jim Raynor]

Semantic nitpicking over "canon" and "continuity" is such a fanboy thing. It's what allowed Darkstar to muddy the versus debates in the minds of the ignorant and bullshit on for years and years. For most intents and purposes they're the same damn thing. What it really gets down to is what officially counts. SW has laid out clear rules about what counts, and how to deal with many contradictions between various sources.

[Mad]

Semantic nitpicking over "canon" and "continuity" is such a fanboy thing. It's what allowed Darkstar to muddy the versus debates in the minds of the ignorant and bullshit on for years and years.

Guilt by association fallacy. A pretty poor one, at that, because it doesn't even represent his views on the matter! Darkstar couldn't even accept the difference between canon and continuity when he was told what they were (and confirmed officially by people qualified to do so!).

For most intents and purposes they're the same damn thing. What it really gets down to is what officially counts. SW has laid out clear rules about what counts, and how to deal with many contradictions between various sources.

Just because they refer to similar things they actually mean the same thing. Canon refers to what counts as valid evidence. Continuity is the [hopefully] cohesive timeline and body of facts that results from ignoring contradictions in canon works.

As many contradictions as the novels in question may have (I haven't read any), they are still canon. But the contradicted events just won't be considered a part of continuity. But they are still valid as evidence (if there has been no official declaration, which there usually isn't). If possible, the entire body of valid evidence should be considered before outliers (contradictions) can be removed.

In theory, an event (or fact) can fall in and out of continuity if canon sources continue to disagree on which one actually happened. In practice, we figure out what is considered a part of continuity and don't revisit it for a while. But our understanding may change with new information, and new canon works give support to ideas that weren't considered a part of continuity before. (And this has happened before, and most likely will continue to happen.)

[Havok]

Here is a question. Who gives a fuck if it is canon if it is not in continuity?

Your example of Blue 5 vs. Red 5... You can argue all you want that they are both canon, but Blue 5 has been DIRECTLY contradicted by the movie, so again, who gives a fuck,? It is completely irrelevant to... anything. It doesn't matter. It is ink on paper. It is meaningless. No argument is going to be made or won using the info. It is relegated to trivia.

[Batman]

People like us when they have nothing better to do at the time?
And Blue 5 ISN'T canon. That's the whole point of the layered canon system (however shoddily it might have been implemented over the years).
The novelisation says Blue, the movie says Red, therefore RED is canon while BLUE is not. Same reason Executor class SSDs AREN'T canonically 8 km long, the second DS WASN'T canonically a measly 160 km across and ISDs DON'T canonically have a cruising speed of a mere 40,000c.
Lower tier canon information STOPS being canon when it contradicts Higher tier canon.

[Mad]

Here is a question. Who gives a fuck if it is canon if it is not in continuity?

For starters, when words are used correctly then people can have a conversation and understand each other. When they don't, then people have to start making assumptions about what the other person means.

It really does help to be on the same page when discussing something. So when getting an answer from authors or other people that would know about the official continuity policies, it's nice to know what they are talking about when they use the words canon and continuity. ("Terms like 'canon' and 'continuity' tend to get thrown around casually, which doesn't help at all." - Chris Cerasi.)

Your example of Blue 5 vs. Red 5... You can argue all you want that they are both canon, but Blue 5 has been DIRECTLY contradicted by the movie, so again, who gives a fuck,? It is completely irrelevant to... anything. It doesn't matter. It is ink on paper. It is meaningless. No argument is going to be made or won using the info. It is relegated to trivia.

By choosing a simple and obvious contradiction I was hoping to get the idea across clearly. I'm at a loss as to how it could have flown over your head.

You need something that matters in the debate? How about the size of the Executor? Range and firepower of turbolasers? The definition of a Base Delta Zero operation? Just about any technical discussion involves taking admissible evidence (canon sources) and attempting to find a consensus on what it all means after filtering out contradictions and outliers (accepted continuity).

Let's take the size of the Executor. Some canon sources peg it at 8 km or 12.8 km. Even though these sources are clearly in contradiction with the canon movies, they are still admissible evidence -- they are still canon sources. The movies show the Executor as at least 17.6 km. So 17.6 was the length accepted in continuity. But then another source came along and said that the Executor is 19 km. That does not contradict the films (where a lower limit was the best that could be gleaned), so 19 km became the length in accepted continuity.

But the sources that give the contradictory information do not lose canon status. They are still admissible evidence. Conceivably, another source could come along and rationalize one of the lower numbers as another class of starship. Were that to happen, the words on the pages wouldn't magically gain or lose canon status; they stay just as admissible as they have been. Continuity is what changes. The interpretation of the admissible evidence is what changes.

The reason for this becomes clearer when we look at things that are more controversial and up in the air due to conflicting evidence: both sides present their arguments with their supporting evidence. Then a new book comes out and the cycle continues.

And Blue 5 ISN'T canon. That's the whole point of the layered canon system (however shoddily it might have been implemented over the years).

The point is to develop a consistent continuity from canon sources. Are you telling me that the ANH novelization isn't a canon source? Or that it has parts that are not admissible evidence?

Canon refers to the source, not the status of a snippit within continuity:

Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history.

The novelisation says Blue, the movie says Red, therefore RED is canon while BLUE is not. Same reason Executor class SSDs AREN'T canonically 8 km long, the second DS WASN'T canonically a measly 160 km across and ISDs DON'T canonically have a cruising speed of a mere 40,000c.
Lower tier canon information STOPS being canon when it contradicts Higher tier canon.

You're using the word "canon" as if it means both canon and continuity. It does not.

Let me ask you: which descriptions of turbolaser behavior are canon and which are not?

The way fans have viewed turbolaser behavior has changed a lot over time, but they all use a different subset of the evidence, all of which are admissible evidence, or canon. Depending on which theory one subscribes to, certain quotes may have to be reinterpreted in order to make things fit due to the contradictory nature of the evidence, but at no point does any of it become inadmissible evidence, or non-canon.

Under your insane interpretation, this would be impossible because some evidence would lose canon status and become inadmissible because it apparently contradicts the movies. Or would it magically regain canon status when someone interprets the quote in a way that doesn't contradict the films? When two people have two different views with two mutually-exclusive descriptions that both fit with the films, which quote is considered canon and which one is not?

The answer is that all the evidence is considered canon (at different tiers). You cannot have a proper debate otherwise.

[Havok]

Who said anything about it de-canonizing a source? I'm talking about individual facts. Blue 5 is not in continuity, nor is it canon because it is directly contradicted by a higher source. Therefore it becomes de-canonized. No one said that the Star Wars novelization is not a canon source because Blue 5 is not in continuity.

[Mad]

Who said anything about it de-canonizing a source? I'm talking about individual facts. Blue 5 is not in continuity, nor is it canon because it is directly contradicted by a higher source. Therefore it becomes de-canonized. No one said that the Star Wars novelization is not a canon source because Blue 5 is not in continuity.

How do you determine that something is no longer admissible evidence? Because by labeling something non-canon, you are saying that it is not admissible evidence.

[Batman]

Who said anything about it de-canonizing a source? I'm talking about individual facts. Blue 5 is not in continuity, nor is it canon because it is directly contradicted by a higher source. Therefore it becomes de-canonized. No one said that the Star Wars novelization is not a canon source because Blue 5 is not in continuity.

How do you determine that something is no longer admissible evidence? Because by labeling something non-canon, you are saying that it is not admissible evidence.

That'd be the part where it's shown to be WRONG perhaps?

[Mad]

How do you determine that something is no longer admissible evidence? Because by labeling something non-canon, you are saying that it is not admissible evidence.

That'd be the part where it's shown to be WRONG perhaps?

That's absurd. You're saying that if there is an apparent contradiction then one item becomes inadmissible. But then if somebody figures out a rationalization, then suddenly it magically becomes admissible again. But analyzing inadmissible evidence should give inadmissible results, not admissible results!

Either that, or you're saying "once declared inadmissible due to a contradiction, always inadmissible," which is also absurd.

Or you can just realize that you're butchering the word canon and we can all go home. ("But I want to use the word incorrectly!" isn't really an argument, by the way.)

Look, evidence doesn't become inadmissible, or non-canon, just because there is an apparent contradiction. That rules out the possibility of looking at the evidence in another light and coming up with a rationalization.

[Batman]

How do you determine that something is no longer admissible evidence? Because by labeling something non-canon, you are saying that it is not admissible evidence.

That'd be the part where it's shown to be WRONG perhaps?

That's absurd. You're saying that if there is an apparent contradiction then one item becomes inadmissible. But then if somebody figures out a rationalization, then suddenly it magically becomes admissible again.

The moment there's a rationalization (that actually works) it STOPS being a contradiction..So err-yes?

Look, evidence doesn't become inadmissible, or non-canon, just because there is an apparent contradiction. That rules out the possibility of looking at the evidence in another light and coming up with a rationalization.

Yes it does and no it doesn't. If it is known to NEVER HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED it's not EVIDENCE to begin with.

[Mad]

That's absurd. You're saying that if there is an apparent contradiction then one item becomes inadmissible. But then if somebody figures out a rationalization, then suddenly it magically becomes admissible again.

The moment there's a rationalization (that actually works) it STOPS being a contradiction..So err-yes?

You're saying that inadmissible evidence (non-canon evidence) can be used in a hypothesis. Like I said, absurd.

Prove that your definition is accurate. The reference I cited earlier clearly says that the word canon refers to the admissibility of the source material.

The words canon and continuity, while closely related, are not interchangeable, just as joules and watts are not interchangeable.

[Batman]

Just about ANYTHING can be used in a hypothesis. That's what they're FOR.
And what's so hard to understand about this? The information STOPS being inadmissible when it STOPS contradicting higher canon.
No more contradiction=the information is canon again.

[nightmare]

Just about ANYTHING can be used in a hypothesis. That's what they're FOR.
And what's so hard to understand about this? The information STOPS being inadmissible when it STOPS contradicting higher canon.
No more contradiction=the information is canon again.

It's very easy to understand, it just happens to be wrong. Canon refers to sources, not evidence. The ROTJ novelization is a canon source. Parts of it doesn't fit with the movies, which makes those parts only non-continuity, until later change if any. It doesn't make the ROTJ novel non-canon. This is actually exactly the same kind of argument more than one trekkie has brought up, in the notion that if they can find a single piece of non-continuity in the AOTC:ICS, the whole book is invalid. This is, of course, not the case.

[Batman]

Are we talking to a wall here? Nobody said a thing about decanonizing the source. PARTICULAR BITS OF INFORMATION are no longer canon (and may turn up as canon AGAIN later if and when ways are found to make it work WITHOUT contradicting higher Canon).
And if you CAN'T decanonize bits of information that contradict higher canon, what's the POINT of having a layered canon structure to begin with?

[Havok]

Just about ANYTHING can be used in a hypothesis. That's what they're FOR.
And what's so hard to understand about this? The information STOPS being inadmissible when it STOPS contradicting higher canon.
No more contradiction=the information is canon again.

It's very easy to understand, it just happens to be wrong. Canon refers to sources, not evidence. The ROTJ novelization is a canon source. Parts of it doesn't fit with the movies, which makes those parts only non-continuity, until later change if any. It doesn't make the ROTJ novel non-canon. This is actually exactly the same kind of argument more than one trekkie has brought up, in the notion that if they can find a single piece of non-continuity in the AOTC:ICS, the whole book is invalid. This is, of course, not the case.

Oh for fucks sake. As I already said, no one is saying the SOURCE isn't part of canon, just that the fact itself becomes non-canon because a higher canon directly contradicts i.e. says it is fucking wrong, the fact.

Edit: The cagey detective beat me to it.

Edit2: Should I yell "CURSES! Foiled again!" I feel like I should.

[Mad]

PARTICULAR BITS OF INFORMATION are no longer canon (and may turn up as canon AGAIN later if and when ways are found to make it work WITHOUT contradicting higher Canon).
And if you CAN'T decanonize bits of information that contradict higher canon, what's the POINT of having a layered canon structure to begin with?

Because the tiered canon levels are used to determine what counts within continuity and what is non-continuity. It's simple.

I told you to prove that your definition of canon refers to data, instead of simply being used to refer to the admissibility of the source. I gave you my source (and I have more, if you're interested). Now back up your assertions or concede.

[Darth Yoshi]

For fuck's sake is right. "Canon" only refers to sources, so if a source is canonical then by definition any evidence from that source is canonical, regardless of its adherence to established continuity. There is no such thing as "non-canonical evidence," because that's the same thing as saying "apples taste red," or "this feather weighs soft."

And if you CAN'T decanonize bits of information that contradict higher canon, what's the POINT of having a layered canon structure to begin with?

The point of a layered canon is to determine continuity. A lower-ranked source is just as valid as a higher-ranked one, in that both are "canon," it's just that when assembling the evidence into a coherent continuity the higher source has priority.

Is this overly anal? Perhaps, but no more so that insisting that scientifically holding an anvil above your head isn't work because the definition of "work" is "force by distance."

[Batman]

This is going nowhere fast. Let's end this. I conceed that using the asinine canon rules apparently employed by LFL, information that is shown, by higher canon, to be FLAT OUT WRONG nevertheless remains canon for some reason beyond my comprehension.