A Debate

[SirNitram]

Lets review shall we?

Nivenverse = Level 5 civilization
Scale goes upt to Level 12.

So many people can wipe out the Ringbuilders without it taking more then a second it isn't fucking funny.

Level 12?

Godlike beings. Like the Culture.

[Ender]

SHIT! wrong thread, oops.

Level 12 is God beings, IE the Q continium, and Comedic universes like HHGTTG

[DarkStar]

Actually, no.

The Lucas quote is the final nail in the coffin, but the argument was already in play before the quote came out.

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... Wars+canon

Ah, so I see. I misremembered that debate.

Not presented in context? I suppose I could have reposted the entire interview, but I don't see how that would affect what he says, since at no other point in the interview does he make reference to the issue.

Actually, all that would have been necessary was for whoever posted the quote to include at least the question GL was presumably asked. If the question was the one I thought up, for example, it would have been enormously helpful in establishing GL's meaning.

We are not given the question, though it presumably had something to do with the paragraph before Lucas speaks.

As you can discover by following the provided link, there was no revision of previous quotes to fall in line with GL's Cinescape quote from July 2002. A re-examination of the common Warsie re-interpretations of canon policy statements was already underway, and the Continuity fact had already been discovered.

I wasn't suggesting you revised the quotes, only interpreted them to jibe with how you interpreted GL's quote.

There was no re-interpretation on my part, either. I didn't go back and revise or re-interpret anything, since I had already discovered the clear meanings that Warsies re-interpretations often missed. When the Lucas quote was revealed, it fit in perfectly with my analysis.

I take issue with your referring to your "Continuity" argument as "fact". Reading over the debate, I don't think too many people caught on to your initial attempt to distinguish between "Continuity" and "continuity". Their agreeing with you on later posts where you threw in "Continuity" doesn't amount to it being accepted fact.

You mistake the term "fact" (or, to engage in capitalization again, "Fact") for "accepted fact". A Fact does not require acceptance or acknowledgement by anyone to be a Fact.

It reminded me strongly of Gothmog's debate with Mike. He tried to setup definitions for terms that would, if accepted, prove his theory. Your definition of "Continuity", once accepted, would prove your theory on LFL's canon policy.

I refute the implied dishonesty you suggest above. There was no rhetorical trickery in progress . . . I simply noticed that the "continuity" that officials, writers, et cetera kept referring to seemed to mean something different, <I>based on how they were using it</I>, than some over-arching, generalized meaning of the term. Look here:

"In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely
with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of
the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial
projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be
crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none
of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became
one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes."
(From Star Wars Insider, posted by Graeme Dice)

Sounds like internal consistency of the EU to me.

Strangely, this same Rostoni is one of those who has made one of the most peculiar statements on canon:

Sue Rostoni (Gamer #6 - Oct/Nov. 2001):
"Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon."

Interestingly, she has declared all things but Infinities canon . . . but, notably, they are canon <I>to the Licensing editors</I>. Hence my declaration that this is one of those times, as per Cerasi, that someone has mixed up the terms involved. In other words, she has simply taken the Continuity dictate that she helped to create, but used the wrong term to describe it. "Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays" is the canon.

Also, pay special attention to the part where she says "... insofar as that history does not conflict with, or <I>undermine the meaning of</I>, Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. The contradiction rule (something must <I>precisely</I> contradict) . . . a "logical extrapolation by us" . . . that Warsies use to determine what does and does not conflict between canon and EU does not have merit in the light of this.

Unfortunately, none of the proof you offered could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the various officials you quoted were using the term you defined.

I didn't define the term. It was defined for me.

'Continuity' is not simply an evil Trekkie attempt to revise the definitions and thus win some game. It is clear from what already existed that the term 'continuity' as used did not refer to a generic form of continuity, but something very specific. I looked at how it was used to determine what was meant by the term by those who were using it.

I don't think there's anything inherently evil about trying to change an accepted policy. It isn't clear however that there is a seperate "Continuity" for the Canon that exists apart from the EU.

What? I think you've misunderstood. There's no Continuity for the Canon. The canon has continuity, but Continuity refers strictly to the EU.

Here, wait . . . let's get our terms straight, just to make sure we're on the same page.

Canon Policy - the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents explaining what is and is not the Canon
Canon - the declared contents of the Canon Policy
Continuity - the term used to refer to the Expanded Universe internal consistency, as opposed to a more general sense like "EU maintaining continuity with Canon" or "Star Trek novels have continuity with Star Trek canon"
Quasi-Canon - Official (Except for Wong, who maintains a separation)
Official - those ideas which are not Canon, but are nevertheless supposed to be accepted truths of the official history according to standard doctrine

Hopefully that will make things more clear.

If it were clear there wouldn't be any other valid interpretation of the quotes and the LFL officials would more than likely at some point try to make the distinction on their own.

They have.

Perhaps, but sci-fi is replete with examples of such occurrences. After all, once you start dabbling in the infinite possibilities of parallel universes, then by default you can have a large number which are very close in certain details.

I'll have to take your word on the other sci-fi examples until someone else objects.

"Mirror, Mirror"[TOS], "Parallels"[TNG], and the alternate universe saga in DS9 come to mind.

The point is moot, however, since the probability of one universe in an infinite series of universes overlapping another universe in that series such that for a 30-odd year period they match in every detail is 1. Thus, the EU could exist in such a pseudo-parallel universe.

Even better, they need not match in <I>every</I> detail . . . just the largest ones, like "The Death Star was destroyed by the Rebels", and anything more specific given in the EU that matches the Canon.

The issue is whether you've proved that the EU exists in that universe. Your interpretations of the GL quote and those of the LFL officials does support that possibility, but there are several problems, to wit:

1) I still have yet to see the presumed question that elicited GL's response, much less the entirety of that interview (perhaps it was posted and I just missed it).

The entirety of the interview is neither relevant nor required. As I have said, after Watchdog of SpaceBattles posted the quote, I personally hit a bookstore and read the interview for myself. There is nothing more on the issue than what is said here:

From Cinescape Magazine, July 2002:

"And while rumors persist that an outline for a third trilogy exists (a joke Lucas made in passing to Rolling Stone, which then printed it as a fact), the director insists that the only continuation to the saga will be in the form of licensed properties.

"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe.""

2) I did not see you address the other quote from GL. IIRC, in the opening to The Anakin Skywalker Story, he spoke of his happiness that others are contributing to the Star Wars saga.

You're actually thinking of "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" by Alan Dean Foster, and Lucas's comments in the preface of the 1994 re-publication:

From the introduction to "Splinter of the Mind's Eye", 1994.

"After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story - however many films it took to tell - was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga."

My story... one of thousands... about the characters who inhabit its
galaxy... not stories I was destined to tell... other writers, inspired by
the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided... new stories to the Saga.

There is only one real sticking point with the 1994 quote, and that is the
term "Saga". The rest, however, fits nicely in the idea that the EU has
no canonicity. For example, writing stories inspired by the glimpse of his
galaxy doesn't mean that the "thousands that could be told about the
characters" are occurring in his universe. After all, "my story" has
"characters who inhabit its galaxy"... but he never says the tales are also
stories in his galaxy, but instead are merely "inspired by the glimpse of a
galaxy that Star Wars provided".

Still, the sticking point is "Saga". However, the capitalized term "Saga" does not appear elsewhere in the canon policy. Indeed, the only appearance of the word in relevant texts would appear to be the StarWars.com intro to the EU section, where this quote appears: "Since the start, the Star Wars saga has been expanded through novels, comics, and games." This is the very list of things Lucas recently said belonged to another world, a "parallel universe".

(That was a stock response . . . however, I just noticed that Rostoni's quote above also makes use of the term "saga" to refer to Lucas's films and screenplays, a use consistent with the use of the term in the StarWars.com EU intro section (minus the stated expansions). So, again, the things which have "expanded" upon the saga were just identified as being in a parallel universe.)

3) Current interprations of the quotes do not add the extra term of a seperate "Continuity".

It is not an extra term, but the connotation. It is a delineation of the term's meaning, separate from a simplistic dictionary denotation, based on the way it is used by those who use it. Whether current Warsie interpretations of the quotes acknowledge the connotation or not is irrelevant.

Point 2 is important because while it's still not an explicit statement of how the EU is related to the films' universe, GL is pretty much saying that the EU is a part of the "SW saga". SWS has been used interchangably with "SW universe".

Not so. The SW "saga" is the Canon, or at least the films and screenplays, as per the quotes provided.

GL's subsequent Cinescape quote will only have bearing on this point if we can see either the entire interview or at least the question that I believe exists. Personally, I'd prefer the entire interview.

You have all the relevant words. If you doubt this, you are at liberty to go hunting for the magazine.

Point 3 is important because there is no source to explicitly support a seperate definition of continuity. Thus, your "Continuity" term is an extraneous unknown and thus makes your theory logically inferior to the current one.

The above statement is itself illogical. It is not an extra term, and to deny that one should read the quotes to determine what they mean makes no sense. The alternative is to read the quotes with a dictionary in hand, and mangle every word and sentence to fit within the dictionary's bounds. Dictionary-filtration is hardly called for, when those who are quoted make their meaning plain.

Truth be told, I was astonished that he said what he did in Cinescape. Whether you think it is his character or simply shrewd business, acknowledging that the EU isn't the real story of Star Wars and placing it in a parallel universe could adversely affect sales and marketing. That is especially true in a situation such as this, where some people had simply assumed they were part of the real canon stories.

And yet, in your astonishment, you didn't consider that the possibility that he was merely talking about how he goes about creating his stories is more in line with his character than telling all the people who have worked hard to add to the story that they actually have no place in the Star Wars universe?

I am unfamiliar with George Lucas's character, and so are you. Basing your claims off of your <I>perception</I> of his character renders them irrelevant, especially when that basis is used in an attempt to overturn the clear meaning of the words spoken.

The first possibility preserves the understood scope of the Star Wars saga, doesn't harm GL's reputation or his finances and, most importantly, doesn't alienate all the authors who wish to add to the SWU or the fans who genuinely love the EU and consider it an integral part of the SWU.

The second possibility, that GL has done a 180 and is now a childish diva type who refuses to let others add to his "vision" of the SWU, would almost certainly adversely affect his bottom line. That is not by any stretch of the imagination a practice of "shrewd business".[/quote]

[DarkStar]

Eeek, sorry. I've been doing HTML too much lately, and also missed part of the message. Let's try this again:

Actually, all that would have been necessary was for whoever posted the quote to include at least the question GL was presumably asked. If the question was the one I thought up, for example, it would have been enormously helpful in establishing GL's meaning.

We are not given the question, though it presumably had something to do with the paragraph before Lucas speaks.

As you can discover by following the provided link, there was no revision of previous quotes to fall in line with GL's Cinescape quote from July 2002. A re-examination of the common Warsie re-interpretations of canon policy statements was already underway, and the Continuity fact had already been discovered.

I wasn't suggesting you revised the quotes, only interpreted them to jibe with how you interpreted GL's quote.

There was no re-interpretation on my part, either. I didn't go back and revise or re-interpret anything, since I had already discovered the clear meanings that Warsies re-interpretations often missed. When the Lucas quote was revealed, it fit in perfectly with my analysis.

I take issue with your referring to your "Continuity" argument as "fact". Reading over the debate, I don't think too many people caught on to your initial attempt to distinguish between "Continuity" and "continuity". Their agreeing with you on later posts where you threw in "Continuity" doesn't amount to it being accepted fact.

You mistake the term "fact" (or, to engage in capitalization again, "Fact") for "accepted fact". A Fact does not require acceptance or acknowledgement by anyone to be a Fact.

It reminded me strongly of Gothmog's debate with Mike. He tried to setup definitions for terms that would, if accepted, prove his theory. Your definition of "Continuity", once accepted, would prove your theory on LFL's canon policy.

I refute the implied dishonesty you suggest above. There was no rhetorical trickery in progress . . . I simply noticed that the "continuity" that officials, writers, et cetera kept referring to seemed to mean something different, based on how they were using it, than some over-arching, generalized meaning of the term. Look here:

"In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely
with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of
the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial
projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be
crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none
of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became
one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes."
(From Star Wars Insider, posted by Graeme Dice)

Sounds like internal consistency of the EU to me.

Strangely, this same Rostoni is one of those who has made one of the most peculiar statements on canon:

Sue Rostoni (Gamer #6 - Oct/Nov. 2001):
"Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon."

Interestingly, she has declared all things but Infinities canon . . . but, notably, they are canon to the Licensing editors. Hence my declaration that this is one of those times, as per Cerasi, that someone has mixed up the terms involved. In other words, she has simply taken the Continuity dictate that she helped to create, but used the wrong term to describe it. "Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays" is the canon.

Also, pay special attention to the part where she says "... insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of, Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. The contradiction rule (something must precisely contradict) . . . a "logical extrapolation by us" . . . that Warsies use to determine what does and does not conflict between canon and EU does not have merit in the light of this.

Unfortunately, none of the proof you offered could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the various officials you quoted were using the term you defined.

I didn't define the term. It was defined for me.

'Continuity' is not simply an evil Trekkie attempt to revise the definitions and thus win some game. It is clear from what already existed that the term 'continuity' as used did not refer to a generic form of continuity, but something very specific. I looked at how it was used to determine what was meant by the term by those who were using it.

I don't think there's anything inherently evil about trying to change an accepted policy. It isn't clear however that there is a seperate "Continuity" for the Canon that exists apart from the EU.

What? I think you've misunderstood. There's no Continuity for the Canon. The canon has continuity, but Continuity refers strictly to the EU.

Here, wait . . . let's get our terms straight, just to make sure we're on the same page.

Canon Policy - the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents explaining what is and is not the Canon
Canon - the declared contents of the Canon Policy
Continuity - the term used to refer to the Expanded Universe internal consistency, as opposed to a more general sense like "EU maintaining continuity with Canon" or "Star Trek novels have continuity with Star Trek canon"
Quasi-Canon - Official (Except for Wong, who maintains a separation)
Official - those ideas which are not Canon, but are nevertheless supposed to be accepted truths of the official history according to standard doctrine
(Edit:
Canonicity - Some level of official factualness)

Hopefully that will make things more clear.

If it were clear there wouldn't be any other valid interpretation of the quotes and the LFL officials would more than likely at some point try to make the distinction on their own.

They have.

Perhaps, but sci-fi is replete with examples of such occurrences. After all, once you start dabbling in the infinite possibilities of parallel universes, then by default you can have a large number which are very close in certain details.

I'll have to take your word on the other sci-fi examples until someone else objects.

"Mirror, Mirror"[TOS], "Parallels"[TNG], and the alternate universe saga in DS9 come to mind.

The point is moot, however, since the probability of one universe in an infinite series of universes overlapping another universe in that series such that for a 30-odd year period they match in every detail is 1. Thus, the EU could exist in such a pseudo-parallel universe.

Even better, they need not match in every detail . . . just the largest ones, like "The Death Star was destroyed by the Rebels", and anything more specific given in the EU that matches the Canon.

The issue is whether you've proved that the EU exists in that universe. Your interpretations of the GL quote and those of the LFL officials does support that possibility, but there are several problems, to wit:

1) I still have yet to see the presumed question that elicited GL's response, much less the entirety of that interview (perhaps it was posted and I just missed it).

The entirety of the interview is neither relevant nor required. As I have said, after Watchdog of SpaceBattles posted the quote, I personally hit a bookstore and read the interview for myself. There is nothing more on the issue than what is said here:

From Cinescape Magazine, July 2002:

"And while rumors persist that an outline for a third trilogy exists (a joke Lucas made in passing to Rolling Stone, which then printed it as a fact), the director insists that the only continuation to the saga will be in the form of licensed properties.

"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe.""

2) I did not see you address the other quote from GL. IIRC, in the opening to The Anakin Skywalker Story, he spoke of his happiness that others are contributing to the Star Wars saga.

You're actually thinking of "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" by Alan Dean Foster, and Lucas's comments in the preface of the 1994 re-publication:

From the introduction to "Splinter of the Mind's Eye", 1994.

"After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story - however many films it took to tell - was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga."

My story... one of thousands... about the characters who inhabit its
galaxy... not stories I was destined to tell... other writers, inspired by
the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided... new stories to the Saga.

There is only one real sticking point with the 1994 quote, and that is the
term "Saga". The rest, however, fits nicely in the idea that the EU has
no canonicity. For example, writing stories inspired by the glimpse of his
galaxy doesn't mean that the "thousands that could be told about the
characters" are occurring in his universe. After all, "my story" has
"characters who inhabit its galaxy"... but he never says the tales are also
stories in his galaxy, but instead are merely "inspired by the glimpse of a
galaxy that Star Wars provided".

Still, the sticking point is "Saga". However, the capitalized term "Saga" does not appear elsewhere in the canon policy. Indeed, the only appearance of the word in relevant texts would appear to be the StarWars.com intro to the EU section, where this quote appears: "Since the start, the Star Wars saga has been expanded through novels, comics, and games." This is the very list of things Lucas recently said belonged to another world, a "parallel universe".

(That was a stock response . . . however, I just noticed that Rostoni's quote above also makes use of the term "saga" to refer to Lucas's films and screenplays, a use consistent with the use of the term in the StarWars.com EU intro section (minus the stated expansions). So, again, the things which have "expanded" upon the saga were just identified as being in a parallel universe.)

3) Current interprations of the quotes do not add the extra term of a seperate "Continuity".

It is not an extra term, but the connotation. It is a delineation of the term's meaning, separate from a simplistic dictionary denotation, based on the way it is used by those who use it. Whether current Warsie interpretations of the quotes acknowledge the connotation or not is irrelevant.

Point 2 is important because while it's still not an explicit statement of how the EU is related to the films' universe, GL is pretty much saying that the EU is a part of the "SW saga". SWS has been used interchangably with "SW universe".

Not so. The SW "saga" is the Canon, or at least the films and screenplays, as per the quotes provided.

GL's subsequent Cinescape quote will only have bearing on this point if we can see either the entire interview or at least the question that I believe exists. Personally, I'd prefer the entire interview.

You have all the relevant words. If you doubt this, you are at liberty to go hunting for the magazine.

Point 3 is important because there is no source to explicitly support a seperate definition of continuity. Thus, your "Continuity" term is an extraneous unknown and thus makes your theory logically inferior to the current one.

The above statement is itself illogical. It is not an extra term, and to deny that one should read the quotes to determine what they mean makes no sense. The alternative is to read the quotes with a dictionary in hand, and mangle every word and sentence to fit within the dictionary's bounds. Dictionary-filtration is hardly called for, when those who are quoted make their meaning plain.

Truth be told, I was astonished that he said what he did in Cinescape. Whether you think it is his character or simply shrewd business, acknowledging that the EU isn't the real story of Star Wars and placing it in a parallel universe could adversely affect sales and marketing. That is especially true in a situation such as this, where some people had simply assumed they were part of the real canon stories.

And yet, in your astonishment, you didn't consider that the possibility that he was merely talking about how he goes about creating his stories is more in line with his character than telling all the people who have worked hard to add to the story that they actually have no place in the Star Wars universe?

I am unfamiliar with George Lucas's character, and so are you. Basing your claims off of your perception of his character renders them irrelevant, especially when that basis is used in an attempt to overturn the clear meaning of the words spoken.

The first possibility preserves the understood scope of the Star Wars saga, doesn't harm GL's reputation or his finances and, most importantly, doesn't alienate all the authors who wish to add to the SWU or the fans who genuinely love the EU and consider it an integral part of the SWU.

Um . . . the simple fact that he has never considered the EU as a constraint on his movie-making already renders the EU authors and fans somewhat alienated, wouldn't you say?

The second possibility, that GL has done a 180 and is now a childish diva type who refuses to let others add to his "vision" of the SWU, would almost certainly adversely affect his bottom line. That is not by any stretch of the imagination a practice of "shrewd business".

I don't think he has performed a 180 . . . there was plenty before this to support the idea that the EU had no canonicity whatsoever. Whether or not it could add to his "vision" is irrelevant . . . he has made it clear that what he himself creates is the Star Wars Universe, with the exception of the novelisations and radio dramas. All else is parallel, part of another world.

[Ryoga]

By the way....shall I assume from the fact that DarkStar's existence is being acknowledged that the 'Final Solution' is no longer in effect?

[SPOOFE]

The Lucas quote is the final nail in the coffin,

You don't listen, do you, Darkstar? I have already refuted your notion time and again. It looks like I'll have to do it again.

In the Lucas quote that you mention, he says this: "...they do intrude in between the movies." "They" refers to the EU stories, of course.

This is clear expression by Mr. Lucas that the EU does count as an official part of his story, in between the blank spaces that he left in his stories... between the movies.

In other words, the EU stands as a part of the SW universe as long as it doesn't override the canon movies.

Of course, I know that you'll just ignore this, despite your erroneous claim that you wish to engage in rational debate.

[DarkStar]

The Lucas quote is the final nail in the coffin,

You don't listen, do you, Darkstar? I have already refuted your notion time and again. It looks like I'll have to do it again.

In the Lucas quote that you mention, he says this: "...they do intrude in between the movies." "They" refers to the EU stories, of course.

This is clear expression by Mr. Lucas that the EU does count as an official part of his story, in between the blank spaces that he left in his stories... between the movies.

In other words, the EU stands as a part of the SW universe as long as it doesn't override the canon movies.

"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I dont get to involved in the parallel universe."

His world is a select period of time in his universe. The other world of the EU is, as he says, a parallel universe. The parallel universe does not intrude on his time period in his universe, though they do intrude in between the movies.

That means they have intruded on a time period set by Lucas as his, and maintained as his in both universes. However, a time period intrusion in one universe does not mean that the universes have suddenly joined.

Of course, I know that you'll just ignore this, despite your erroneous claim that you wish to engage in rational debate.

The requirements of rational debate do not include the acceptance of any silly fairy tale, unsupported by the evidence, that is posited by the opposition as fact.

[Cromag]

There was no re-interpretation on my part, either. I didn't go back and revise or re-interpret anything, since I had already discovered the clear meanings that Warsies re-interpretations often missed. When the Lucas quote was revealed, it fit in perfectly with my analysis.

The meaning behind those quotes had to be interpreted by you, though, since they don't explicity say "The continuity of the EU is a seperate entity from that seen in the canon films." You can argue all you like for this interpretation, but you can't possibly say that it is the only possible interpretation, much less that it's absolutely correct.

You mistake the term "fact" (or, to engage in capitalization again, "Fact") for "accepted fact". A Fact does not require acceptance or acknowledgement by anyone to be a Fact.

The "Fact" is based on a faulty assumption that your interpretation of the quotes is absolutely correct and the only valid one. This is not a reasonable assumption.

I refute the implied dishonesty you suggest above. There was no rhetorical trickery in progress . . .

Sorry, should have added the qualifier that in your case it probably was an honest oversight.

I simply noticed that the "continuity" that officials, writers, et cetera kept referring to seemed to mean something different, <I>based on how they were using it</I>, than some over-arching, generalized meaning of the term. Look here:

"In the early days of the publishing department, Wilson worked closely with her administrative assistant, Sue Rostoni (now managing editor of the department as well as editor of all adult fiction) on the editorial projects. The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes."
(From Star Wars Insider, posted by Graeme Dice)

Sounds like internal consistency of the EU to me.

I can agree with that, but this does not explicitly state that they're calling EU continuity a totally seperate thing from the stories that GL writes. Considering the fact they're in charge of monitoring additions to the SW story, it wouldn't make sense for them to talk about making sure there are no contradictions in work that they had no creative control over (ie. the films). They have to be talking about the EU because that's the only thing they have any business talking about.

Sue Rostoni (Gamer #6 - Oct/Nov. 2001):
<For the sake of brevity, quote has been snipped>

Interestingly, she has declared all things but Infinities canon . . . but, notably, they are canon <I>to the Licensing editors</I>. Hence my declaration that this is one of those times, as per Cerasi, that someone has mixed up the terms involved. In other words, she has simply taken the Continuity dictate that she helped to create, but used the wrong term to describe it. "Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays" is the canon.

She didn't even use the word "continuity" in her quote. If there really is such a creation as "EU Continuity", then it would be pretty unusual for the person who created it and fervently maintained it for many years to mix it up so many times in one quote.

Also, pay special attention to the part where she says "... insofar as that history does not conflict with, or <I>undermine the meaning of</I>, Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. The contradiction rule (something must <I>precisely</I> contradict) . . . a "logical extrapolation by us" . . . that Warsies use to determine what does and does not conflict between canon and EU does not have merit in the light of this.

If you're speaking of strict historical contradictions between the canon films and EU I do admit they can be a bit tricky to resolve, but her quote doesn't invalidate all debate over such contradictions.

As to technical contradictions (eg. firepower, shield strength, etc.), her quote has no relevance to those types of debates and thus does not negate their merit.

Here, wait . . . let's get our terms straight, just to make sure we're on the same page.

Canon Policy - the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents explaining what is and is not the Canon
Canon - the declared contents of the Canon Policy
Continuity - the term used to refer to the Expanded Universe internal consistency, as opposed to a more general sense like "EU maintaining continuity with Canon" or "Star Trek novels have continuity with Star Trek canon"
Quasi-Canon - Official (Except for Wong, who maintains a separation)
Official - those ideas which are not Canon, but are nevertheless supposed to be accepted truths of the official history according to standard doctrine

Hopefully that will make things more clear.

The problem is that all but the term "Continuity" have actually been outlined by officials. Furthermore, all of them, with the possible exception of QC, have been described in explicit detail. Clearly, when something as important as whether material is to be considered a part of SW, officials come out and explain it in detail for us.

From Cinescape Magazine, July 2002:

"And while rumors persist that an outline for a third trilogy exists (a joke Lucas made in passing to Rolling Stone, which then printed it as a fact), the director insists that the only continuation to the saga will be in the form of licensed properties.

"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe."

Let's look at GL's statement now in light of the preceding paragraph you kindly provided.

GL is obviously referring to entities that contribute to the SW universe. He's using "world" to refer to these entities. There is the world of GL, which produces the films, and a licensing world (ie. Lucas Licensing) which produces books, games, etc.

"They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time..." A restatement of LL's policy that no one can write their own version of "The Empire Strikes Back", for example, and expect it to get officially sanctioned by LL. This is a policy we're all familiar with, along with the exception that writers can (and do) write stories that "intrude" in between films.

Finally, we have "I don't get too involved in the parallel universe." This doesn't make sense in your theory that the EU = "parallel universe". Not "too involved" implies some involvement, and we never see "George Lucas" in any of the stories in the EU, unless I missed something.

Essentially, all GL is doing is telling which world (entity) is going to continue producing SW based stories after Ep 3 is released. Not him, but LL. So, the upshot of it all is that no, there will not be any Ep. 7, 8, or 9.

From the introduction to "Splinter of the Mind's Eye", 1994.

"After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story - however many films it took to tell - was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga."

Again, thank you for providing the proper source material.

There is only one real sticking point with the 1994 quote, and that is the term "Saga". The rest, however, fits nicely in the idea that the EU has no canonicity. For example, writing stories inspired by the glimpse of his galaxy doesn't mean that the "thousands that could be told about the characters" are occurring in his universe. After all, "my story" has "characters who inhabit its galaxy"... but he never says the tales are also stories in his galaxy, but instead are merely "inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided".

The quote also works towards the opposite of your position, with or without a capital "S" for saga. Given that GL said there were thousands of stories to be told, it's easy for him to refer to his own contribution as merely a glimpse. In the end, he simply expresses his awe at all the "gifted authors" who were/are inspired to help expand the view, (read: add to his galaxy).

Still, the sticking point is "Saga". However, the capitalized term "Saga" does not appear elsewhere in the canon policy. Indeed, the only appearance of the word in relevant texts would appear to be the StarWars.com intro to the EU section, where this quote appears: "Since the start, the Star Wars saga has been expanded through novels, comics, and games." This is the very list of things Lucas recently said belonged to another world, a "parallel universe".

Seeing as how "Saga" is not defined by any official, unlike Canon, Official, etc., it's not going to help or hurt your argument. I suggest we drop any discussion lest these posts become even longer.

It is not an extra term, but the connotation. It is a delineation of the term's meaning, separate from a simplistic dictionary denotation, based on the way it is used by those who use it. Whether current Warsie interpretations of the quotes acknowledge the connotation or not is irrelevant.

It's a comparative unknown, though, because we already have a definition of continuity that fits into the theory that the EU is part of SW. For your theory to work, you have to introduce "Continuity", which has no definition other than the one you outlined (ie. internal consistency for EU stories). Your definition can't be proved to be one that LL uses, thus it's an unknown and should be left out of any theory attempting to explain where EU fits into the SW galaxy.

Not so. The SW "saga" is the Canon, or at least the films and screenplays, as per the quotes provided.

If you're including GL's quote, then it's also "Saga", which means he explicitly has said that the EU stories are adding to (becoming part of) Canon. Again, given that nothing official that I know of has been said about what the term saga means, it's pointless to discuss.

The above statement is itself illogical. It is not an extra term, and to deny that one should read the quotes to determine what they mean makes no sense. The alternative is to read the quotes with a dictionary in hand, and mangle every word and sentence to fit within the dictionary's bounds. Dictionary-filtration is hardly called for, when those who are quoted make their meaning plain.

You're trying to define a new term "Continuity" as the internal consistency of stories which comprise the EU. There is nothing to support the idea that the officials you quoted were using it as such, it's an unknown and thus shouldn't be included in any theory regarding the EU's place in the SW galaxy.

I am unfamiliar with George Lucas's character, and so are you. Basing your claims off of your <I>perception</I> of his character renders them irrelevant, especially when that basis is used in an attempt to overturn the clear meaning of the words spoken.

Do you think that it is necessary to be friends with him to know something of him? In general, I don't need to meet people in person to know something about them, other sources can be just as reliable.

GL has been variously interviewed and profiled many, many times. The information comes from sources very close to the man, if not the man himself. They consistently paint the picture of someone who has great passion for his story but at the same time isn't so selfish as to deny those who share his love for his creation any part in contributing to it.

[Mr Bean]

Hmm now we shall see the test

Shall Dark-Star Lay another layer on his Wall of Ignorance? Or shall he acutal respond?

[NecronLord]

SHIT! wrong thread, oops.

Level 12 is God beings, IE the Q continium, and Comedic universes like HHGTTG

Haven't got a reference by any chance?

[SPOOFE]

However, a time period intrusion in one universe does not mean that the universes have suddenly joined.

However, the simple fact of the matter is that George admits that the EU intrudes into his universe wherever the movies are not. This jibes completely with all other Lucasfilm explanations on canonicity. Your interpretation of his words demands that we ignore all previous evidence and take Lucas's words completely independently of any context, whereas my interpretation puts his words in context with A: his previous statements on the matter, and B: his company's stance on the issue.

So, are you claiming that Mr. Lucas has suddenly decided to completely reverse his prior-stated stance on the issue of EU canonicity? Is that your claim?

[His Divine Shadow]

About what is considered canon, I consider the ICS and Visual Dictionary to be canon because of this quote I am unable to get right now.

[His Divine Shadow]

Sue Rostoni, of Lucas Licensing:
==================================
Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas’s Star Wars saga of films and screenplays.
==================================
Taken from Star Wars Gamer #6

Now, both the ICS and Visual Dictionary tie directly in with the movies, the AOTC era IOW.


Khan:
"GL has proven time and time again he enjoys "fun stuff". Like showing off the Death Star in Ep2, although everybody ELSE who enjoys Star Trek thought it was designed in the MAW."

Actually, thats a bit more complicated than it looks, the original concept came from Raith Sienar(ref: Rogue Planet), during this timepoint it was still experimental and in development, it then went on to the Geonosians, then Dooku took it, then it went from there to Palpy, and guess who completed the thing then? Qwi Xux and Bevel Lemelisk in the Maw.
As you can see it all fits in.

[Cromag]

By the way....shall I assume from the fact that DarkStar's existence is being acknowledged that the 'Final Solution' is no longer in effect?

I didn't even know the FS had been put into effect.

I must say, though, thus far in my exchanges with him, he's been quite civil. I'm anxious to see the response to my post, though, and see if the civility continues.

[TheDarkling]

By the way....shall I assume from the fact that DarkStar's existence is being acknowledged that the 'Final Solution' is no longer in effect?

I didn't even know the FS had been put into effect.

I must say, though, thus far in my exchanges with him, he's been quite civil. I'm anxious to see the response to my post, though, and see if the civility continues.

He usually is civil until someone insults him first, he also has reasonable ideas, his flaws lie in the fact that his debating skills could be better and that he doesnt know when to back down and admit defeat.

However debates with him in often devolve into both sides shouting because neither understands the other.
Just take a look at the Proving Baldstar wrong thread, it comes down to a simple choice but both sides continue to argue while I tried to put out it all came down to one choice.

[SPOOFE]

He usually is civil until someone insults him first

I would disagree. I don't consider "passive agressive" or "disdainfully ignoring counter-evidence" to be "civil". People were QUITE civil with him at the beginning, until he proved that he is incapable of accepting counter-evidence or any viewpoint other than his own.

Now, very few people are civil with him, and he complains. But it's his own fault that he has the reputation that he does.

[TheDarkling]

Just look at his very first thread - the one about the DS SL he got alot of insults just for posting the theory.

[SPOOFE]

Except that wasn't the first time he had posted that thread. He already had a reputation before he came here.

Personally, I think he KNEW that he was going to stir up trouble, and that's why he did it.

[DarkStar]

There was no re-interpretation on my part, either. I didn't go back and revise or re-interpret anything, since I had already discovered the clear meanings that Warsies re-interpretations often missed. When the Lucas quote was revealed, it fit in perfectly with my analysis.

The meaning behind those quotes had to be interpreted by you, though, since they don't explicity say "The continuity of the EU is a seperate entity from that seen in the canon films."

Well, hell, if you get right down to it, even explicit sentences must be interpreted. That isn't the point, nor (illuminatingly enough) is it the way I was using the term "re-interpreted".

You can argue all you like for this interpretation, but you can't possibly say that it is the only possible interpretation, much less that it's absolutely correct.

Perhaps not, but it is the most logical view of the quotes. Unlike most people these days, I don't think that everything is subjective. I think there is an objective reality to events, sentences, et cetera, whether we have the ability to divine this reality or not. Warsies and I disagree on what the quotes mean . . . this is an objective fact. The quotes have a particular meaning . . . this, too, is an objective fact. I have selected the use of reason and the quotes themselves to determine the meaning of these quotes, as opposed to whipping out dictionary-filtration and "logical extrapolation by us", as Warsies do. I may have erred somewhere, but I believe any error I may have demonstrated is less than that demonstrated by the use of the common Warsie re-interpretation of the quotes. It is an objective fact that I think this is an objective fact, though it is also an objective fact that some disagree.

You mistake the term "fact" (or, to engage in capitalization again, "Fact") for "accepted fact". A Fact does not require acceptance or acknowledgement by anyone to be a Fact.

The "Fact" is based on a faulty assumption that your interpretation of the quotes is absolutely correct and the only valid one. This is not a reasonable assumption.

But that is not my assumption. It is entirely possible that I have missed subtle nuances, or mangled something inadvertently. However, I do not believe that I have utterly misrepresented the concepts involved, as some have claimed.

(From Star Wars Insider, posted by Graeme Dice)

Sounds like internal consistency of the EU to me.

I can agree with that, but this does not explicitly state that they're calling EU continuity a totally seperate thing from the stories that GL writes.

Nor do I claim such, based on that quote alone.

Considering the fact they're in charge of monitoring additions to the SW story, it wouldn't make sense for them to talk about making sure there are no contradictions in work that they had no creative control over (ie. the films). They have to be talking about the EU because that's the only thing they have any business talking about.

Naturally, they had no control over the Canon. However, there is no mention in the quote about attempting to have them actually figure into Cerasi's "real story of Star Wars" (the Canon). Naturally, they had to stay in line with the Canon . . . if this had not been the case, there would have been riots. Even Trek's not-even-remotely-able-to-dream-about-having-canonicity books and novels have to keep in line with the Canon. That's just business.

(On the other hand, I read a novel or two way back when that might as well have been one page, featuring a picture of someone taking a big smelly dump on a TV showing canon Trek . . . but, that's neither here nor there.)

Sue Rostoni (Gamer #6 - Oct/Nov. 2001):
<For the sake of brevity, quote has been snipped>

Interestingly, she has declared all things but Infinities canon . . . but, notably, they are canon <I>to the Licensing editors</I>. Hence my declaration that this is one of those times, as per Cerasi, that someone has mixed up the terms involved. In other words, she has simply taken the Continuity dictate that she helped to create, but used the wrong term to describe it. "Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays" is the canon.

She didn't even use the word "continuity" in her quote. If there really is such a creation as "EU Continuity", then it would be pretty unusual for the person who created it and fervently maintained it for many years to mix it up so many times in one quote.

Perhaps. However, given that her use of the term "Canon" is also contradictory to every other use of the term, we are forced to either throw out her quote in its entirety, or attempt to make it work in light of the other knowledge. If you choose the latter, as I did, you'll likely end up doing I have done.

As to technical contradictions (eg. firepower, shield strength, etc.), her quote has no relevance to those types of debates and thus does not negate their merit.

Well, that all comes down to what does and doesn't "undermine the meaning" of the Canon history in one's personal view, so we'll leave it there.

Here, wait . . . let's get our terms straight, just to make sure we're on the same page.

Canon Policy - the statements of Lucas or his authorized agents explaining what is and is not the Canon
Canon - the declared contents of the Canon Policy
Continuity - the term used to refer to the Expanded Universe internal consistency, as opposed to a more general sense like "EU maintaining continuity with Canon" or "Star Trek novels have continuity with Star Trek canon"
Quasi-Canon - Official (Except for Wong, who maintains a separation)
Official - those ideas which are not Canon, but are nevertheless supposed to be accepted truths of the official history according to standard doctrine

Hopefully that will make things more clear.

The problem is that all but the term "Continuity" have actually been outlined by officials.

When did someone explain "official"? I know Canon was fairly well explained in the Insider #23 quote and others, and Quasi-Canon was created and explained by Sansweet in the foreward to a book, but I know of no quote which stops to define "official". That was the original point I was making when this whole debate started.

From Cinescape Magazine, July 2002:

"And while rumors persist that an outline for a third trilogy exists (a joke Lucas made in passing to Rolling Stone, which then printed it as a fact), the director insists that the only continuation to the saga will be in the form of licensed properties.

"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe."

Let's look at GL's statement now in light of the preceding paragraph you kindly provided.

GL is obviously referring to entities that contribute to the SW universe. He's using "world" to refer to these entities. There is the world of GL, which produces the films, and a licensing world (ie. Lucas Licensing) which produces books, games, etc.

Wow . . . I'm not even sure I can divine what that means. Are you suggesting that the "parallel universe" of licensing somehow contributes to his universe?

I just can't see that. I mean, it's a fine shot, and definitely the most reasonable alternative idea on the quote that I've heard, but I just don't see how it can successfully co-exist with the idea that "this other world" is a "parallel universe". If it weren't for the term "parallel universe", I could go with the idea, but it strikes me as pretty clear that he considers the EU outside of his Star Wars world/universe.

"They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time..." A restatement of LL's policy that no one can write their own version of "The Empire Strikes Back", for example, and expect it to get officially sanctioned by LL. This is a policy we're all familiar with, along with the exception that writers can (and do) write stories that "intrude" in between films.

Were they to intrude on his period of time, they could, to borrow a phrase, "undermine the meaning" of Lucas's work.

However, we can't really base an argument on this, since we don't know just where the "stay the hell away from the canon" idea came from. We don't know if Lucas said something along those lines to Wilson and Rostoni, or if they decided it on their own, or if it just happened that way since novelisations had already been produced. I figure it is most likely the latter.

The EU has intruded, though, insofar as creating a parallel-universe set-up for the Canon tales, as well as creating an aftermath. I don't see how these intrusions actually make the parallel universe part of the real Star Wars universe, however.

Finally, we have "I don't get too involved in the parallel universe." This doesn't make sense in your theory that the EU = "parallel universe". Not "too involved" implies some involvement, and we never see "George Lucas" in any of the stories in the EU, unless I missed something.

Well, we know from Kevin J. Anderson that, at least on one occasion, background material has been written in the EU on the basis of Lucas's own beliefs on the matter. (http://www.h4h.com/louis/sources.html, about halfway down the page (several paragraphs of red text))

That, however, doesn't require intra-universe factuality. The Sith could develop the same way in both universes . . . Lucas's and the EU's . . . and it means nothing. An author getting ideas from Lucas just doesn't make the case that the universes are one and the same.

Essentially, all GL is doing is telling which world (entity) is going to continue producing SW based stories after Ep 3 is released. Not him, but LL.

"SW-based" being the keyword.

So, the upshot of it all is that no, there will not be any Ep. 7, 8, or 9.

Upshot? I mean, yeah, this prequel business is killed by Jar-Jar, but we really couldn't expect anything worse from Lucas in 7-9, could we? Hell, just think of the killer SFX they would have.

From the introduction to "Splinter of the Mind's Eye", 1994.

"After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story - however many films it took to tell - was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga."

Again, thank you for providing the proper source material.

No problem. It's all available (or linked) here, if you need it: http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWEU.html

There is only one real sticking point with the 1994 quote, and that is the term "Saga". The rest, however, fits nicely in the idea that the EU has no canonicity. For example, writing stories inspired by the glimpse of his galaxy doesn't mean that the "thousands that could be told about the characters" are occurring in his universe. After all, "my story" has "characters who inhabit its galaxy"... but he never says the tales are also stories in his galaxy, but instead are merely "inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided".

The quote also works towards the opposite of your position, with or without a capital "S" for saga. Given that GL said there were thousands of stories to be told, it's easy for him to refer to his own contribution as merely a glimpse. In the end, he simply expresses his awe at all the "gifted authors" who were/are inspired to help expand the view, (read: add to his galaxy).

There are thousands of stories to be told about the characters, but this does not mean that the stories they tell occur in the same galaxy he gave them a glimpse of. I'd say that the clear "parallel universe" concept overrides a contrary interpretation.

(Indeed, I'll expand on that idea below)

It is not an extra term, but the connotation. It is a delineation of the term's meaning, separate from a simplistic dictionary denotation, based on the way it is used by those who use it. Whether current Warsie interpretations of the quotes acknowledge the connotation or not is irrelevant.

It's a comparative unknown, though, because we already have a definition of continuity that fits into the theory that the EU is part of SW.

Would you not agree that we should alter theories to fit evidence/definitions, and not vice versa?

For your theory to work, you have to introduce "Continuity", which has no definition other than the one you outlined (ie. internal consistency for EU stories). Your definition can't be proved to be one that LL uses, thus it's an unknown and should be left out of any theory attempting to explain where EU fits into the SW galaxy.

The same argument works against the very idea of "Official", too. It has no definition other than the one Warsies have outlined, and is indeed contrary to Lucas's "parallel universe" comments, et cetera.

I am unfamiliar with George Lucas's character, and so are you. Basing your claims off of your <I>perception</I> of his character renders them irrelevant, especially when that basis is used in an attempt to overturn the clear meaning of the words spoken.

Do you think that it is necessary to be friends with him to know something of him? In general, I don't need to meet people in person to know something about them, other sources can be just as reliable.

I consider "character" to be a rather specific concept . . . and much as I might like to do the reverse, I do not assume that someone is of good character unless I learn of it myself. As far as I am concerned, Lucas's character is tabula rossa, except for the whole Jar-Jar thing.

GL has been variously interviewed and profiled many, many times. The information comes from sources very close to the man, if not the man himself. They consistently paint the picture of someone who has great passion for his story but at the same time isn't so selfish as to deny those who share his love for his creation any part in contributing to it.

Is that selfless passion, or shrewd business sense, or a mixture of both? Remember, this is the man who has gone from veritable rags to riches. He looks like an okay guy, and could, for all we know, be the coolest guy in the history of civilization. Or, he could be a Satan-worshipping child molester.

However, I'm not going to base an argument on either of those views, because I don't know the man, and neither do you. An argument which revises his words based on a belief of his good character makes me ponder some sort of reverse edition of an ad hominem, actually . . . a "pro hominem", if you will.

But, back to the point I was going to continue, re: clear statements . . .

Well, hmm . . . what I was going to do here was put only clear statements about what is and isn't Canon, the place of the EU, and so on. However, the more I looked at the quotes I was using, the more I realized that almost all of them can be re-interpreted by someone without scruples about such things, or that what I considered to be clear might be considered unclear or requiring interpretation by someone else. Further, clear statements often have additional sentences after them which, presumably, are intended to clarify things, but might actually muddle up the issue . . . I would not wish to post one sentence as a clear statement, and then have someone come back and claim that I had engaged in a misquote by not offering the entire thing. Take, as an example, the quote from Insider #23: "'Gospel,' or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers." Sounds pretty clear, but the same paragraph includes this: "The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology." That can (and has) been taken to mean that the EU works are part of the official history. I disagree, of course, but what is clear to me may not be clear to others.

So, nevermind, then.

[DarkStar]

Personally, I think he KNEW that he was going to stir up trouble, and that's why he did it.

Knowing that one is going to stir up trouble with one's ideas does not mean that is why one posts. You know you're going to illicit a response from me when you attempt to belittle me or my ideas . . . is that why you post the attempts? I assume the answer to that rhetorical question would be 'no'.

[DarkStar]

But it's his own fault that he has the reputation that he does.

I agree, since I made the choice to debate against a significantly larger force of people who disagree with me. What's the old saying? "You lay down with dogs . . . "

[Cromag]

You can argue all you like for this interpretation, but you can't possibly say that it is the only possible interpretation, much less that it's absolutely correct.

Perhaps not, but it is the most logical view of the quotes.

Actually, at least one of the quotes, upon further consideration, could justifiably be dropped for not supporting either side of this debate. I'll explain below.

As to your position that you have found the most logical interpretations of the quotes, I'd say that remains to be seen, neh?

But that is not my assumption. It is entirely possible that I have missed subtle nuances, or mangled something inadvertently. However, I do not believe that I have utterly misrepresented the concepts involved, as some have claimed.

Nor do I believe that I have I accused you of such. It is the subtle nuances where I believe the matter shall be settled. Let's focus on those. As far as any deliberate misrepresentation; innocent until proven guilty, I'd say.

Naturally, they had no control over the Canon. However, there is no mention in the quote about attempting to have them actually figure into Cerasi's "real story of Star Wars" (the Canon). Naturally, they had to stay in line with the Canon . . . if this had not been the case, there would have been riots. <Snip remainder of quote with ST reference>

This is the quote I was referring to above (not yours, but the Rostoni quote you're referring to in this portion of your post), the one that doesn't really support either side of the debate.

The entire quote seems to be strictly about how Wilson and Rostoni, as part of their job for LL, were careful to maintain continuity in the stories being written that comprise the EU. A job that Rostoni continues to this day. No more, no less.

Each side seems to be using this quote as though it were a Lucas affiliated official talking about the place that the EU has in the SW canon; yet the quote makes no mention whatsoever about the films or GL or, for that matter, even "Star Wars". It seems to me that both sides could lay equal claim to it as proof of their view, so it's pointless to debate it.

Re: Sue Rostoni (Gamer #6 - Oct/Nov. 2001):
<For the sake of brevity, quote has been snipped>

She didn't even use the word "continuity" in her quote. If there really is such a creation as "EU Continuity", then it would be pretty unusual for the person who created it and fervently maintained it for many years to mix it up so many times in one quote.

Perhaps. However, given that her use of the term "Canon" is also contradictory to every other use of the term, we are forced to either throw out her quote in its entirety, or attempt to make it work in light of the other knowledge. If you choose the latter, as I did, you'll likely end up doing I have done.

She used "Canon" to talk about the EU books, and only the books. She goes on to say the "Infinities" material is not considered part of the SW history. How can we view this, as you say, in light of the other knowledge?

If we take Cerasi's analogy, that every bit of published SW fiction is a window into the "real" SW universe, with some windows a bit foggier than others and some decidedly abstract (useless?), then Rostoni's "Canon" material (ie. the books w/o Infinities logo) could be viewed as some of the clearer windows. The rest of LL's products would be the abstract, perhaps even useless, windows.

Their being "windows" into the SWU, however, does make them part of the SWU.

When did someone explain "official"? I know Canon was fairly well explained in the Insider #23 quote and others, and Quasi-Canon was created and explained by Sansweet in the foreward to a book, but I know of no quote which stops to define "official". That was the original point I was making when this whole debate started.

Actually, I believe the term "official" was coined so that we wouldn't have to keep referring to "Every piece of published Star Wars fiction, with the exception of anything with the 'Infinities' logo, which are subject to the canon films, screenplays, film novelizations and radio dramas (in that order)."

Wow . . . I'm not even sure I can divine what that means. Are you suggesting that the "parallel universe" of licensing somehow contributes to his universe?

If you mean does GL sometimes get ideas from works produced by LL? Yes, he does. I believe that's how we got "Coruscant".

The bigger point is that these worlds GL spoke of that run in parallel are merely the film producing world of GL and the world of LL which produces works in various mediums.

On a side note, at least I seem to have impressed you with my interpretation.

I just can't see that. I mean, it's a fine shot, and definitely the most reasonable alternative idea on the quote that I've heard, but I just don't see how it can successfully co-exist with the idea that "this other world" is a "parallel universe". If it weren't for the term "parallel universe", I could go with the idea, but it strikes me as pretty clear that he considers the EU outside of his Star Wars world/universe.

If LL only produced stories for the EU, I would agree with your assessment, but they also license products they never intend to become part of SW history (eg. Star Wars Monopoly). LL is a "parallel universe" insofar as it consists of several "worlds" (or entities again, to be consistent) each one handling production of books, games, and comic books. It's not surprising that GL would say he doesn't get too involved in that universe as making the movies is certainly more than enough work for him.

Were they to intrude on his period of time, they could, to borrow a phrase, "undermine the meaning" of Lucas's work.

However, we can't really base an argument on this, since we don't know just where the "stay the hell away from the canon" idea came from. We don't know if Lucas said something along those lines to Wilson and Rostoni, or if they decided it on their own, or if it just happened that way since novelisations had already been produced. I figure it is most likely the latter.

The source of the rule doesn't matter so much. If it's not specifically stated anywhere by GL or some other official, I suppose someone could try to submit their own version of Ep 3 and see what happens. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that whoever submitted it would have their work rejected outright and never asked to submit another story for consideration again (authors are invited to write stories for LL).

The EU has intruded, though, insofar as creating a parallel-universe set-up for the Canon tales, as well as creating an aftermath. I don't see how these intrusions actually make the parallel universe part of the real Star Wars universe, however.

I am not trying to use the intrusions as evidence of EU being a part of SW. All I'm saying is that the Cinescape quote is about who is going to continue to create SW stories after Ep 3.

Well, we know from Kevin J. Anderson that, at least on one occasion, background material has been written in the EU on the basis of Lucas's own beliefs on the matter. (http://www.h4h.com/louis/sources.html, about halfway down the page (several paragraphs of red text))

True, but your theory is that GL is saying "EU = parallel universe". In order for the Cinescape quote to fit your theory "George Lucas" would literally have to be involved in the parallel universe (just not too involved), as a character in one of the EU stories. Either that, or GL's world "which is the movies" somehow told KJA that he needed to present the Sith as aliens dominated by Dark Jedi.

The link you provided shows that GL has "involved himself", for lack of a more elegant term, over at LL by submitting a background for the Sith that authors need to adhere to in their work. This is more in line with my interpretation that parallel universe = LL, the Earth based company that produces books, games, and comic books.

An author getting ideas from Lucas just doesn't make the case that the universes are one and the same.

No, but it does make the premise of a "world", represented by either a man you could literally bump into or a series of films, giving guidelines to a "parallel universe", the EU, a non-sentient being incapable of following guidelines of any kind, seem rather farfetched.

"SW-based" being the keyword.

A term I used and thus meaningless for discussion of official quotes. I am nothing.

There are thousands of stories to be told about the characters, but this does not mean that the stories they tell occur in the same galaxy he gave them a glimpse of. I'd say that the clear "parallel universe" concept overrides a contrary interpretation.

At least in the SotME quote, GL says something about the EU, albeit indirectly, the "thousands of stories" are the EU.

In short, by your theory, "thousands of stories" = EU = parallel universe and thus is not part of SWU. The problem is that you have not proved that EU = parallel universe with the one source of evidence you have (GL's Cinescape quote).

Would you not agree that we should alter theories to fit evidence/definitions, and not vice versa?

Yes, but the evidence for your particular definition of "Continuity" and its use by the quoted officials doesn't justify altering the current theory that what they meant by "continuity" is that which you find in a dictionary.

The same argument works against the very idea of "Official", too. It has no definition other than the one Warsies have outlined, and is indeed contrary to Lucas's "parallel universe" comments, et cetera.

It's definition can be found in Cerasi's quote, it's the blanket term for the rest of the published SW fiction, the windows into the SWU. These works come from LL, the parallel world GL spoke of in Cinescape.

I consider "character" to be a rather specific concept . . . and much as I might like to do the reverse, I do not assume that someone is of good character unless I learn of it myself. As far as I am concerned, Lucas's character is tabula rossa, except for the whole Jar-Jar thing.

You can learn of it for yourself by sources other than personal contact, though, right? I mean, I've never met James Randi, but thanks to the content of his website I know I would definitely like to meet the guy, as opposed to, say, the redneck neighbor described here.

Is that selfless passion, or shrewd business sense, or a mixture of both? Remember, this is the man who has gone from veritable rags to riches. He looks like an okay guy, and could, for all we know, be the coolest guy in the history of civilization. Or, he could be a Satan-worshipping child molester.

However, I'm not going to base an argument on either of those views, because I don't know the man, and neither do you. An argument which revises his words based on a belief of his good character makes me ponder some sort of reverse edition of an ad hominem, actually . . . a "pro hominem", if you will.

People can seem to be one thing and turn out to be totally different whether you meet them in person or get to know them thru other sources. It's safe to say that to this point, GL has shown himself to be a decent guy, even a cool guy, as you put it.

He does not seem the type to tell these hard working authors that their work has no meaning as they cannot be a part of Star Wars history.

[SPOOFE]

Knowing that one is going to stir up trouble with one's ideas does not mean that is why one posts. You know you're going to illicit a response from me when you attempt to belittle me or my ideas . . . is that why you post the attempts? I assume the answer to that rhetorical question would be 'no'.

My guesses about your intentions on this board weren't addressed to you. I'm sorry that you feel like I'm "baiting" you, but the simple fact of the matter is that, to my objective observation, you have a pattern of trying to rile people up without wanting to legitimately debate.

I agree, since I made the choice to debate against a significantly larger force of people who disagree with me. What's the old saying? "You lay down with dogs . . . "

There's also another old saying: "Wise men don't need advice. Fools don't take it."

(Lordy, I feel like Tevye...)

[DarkStar]

But that is not my assumption. It is entirely possible that I have missed subtle nuances, or mangled something inadvertently. However, I do not believe that I have utterly misrepresented the concepts involved, as some have claimed.

Nor do I believe that I have I accused you of such.

No, not you . . . perhaps "others" or "some others" would have made a better fit in the sentence. Sorry.

It is the subtle nuances where I believe the matter shall be settled. Let's focus on those.

Sounds like a plan.

As far as any deliberate misrepresentation; innocent until proven guilty, I'd say.

An impressive display of decency, given the behavior in most of these debates. You get another cool point.

The entire quote seems to be strictly about how Wilson and Rostoni, as part of their job for LL, were careful to maintain continuity in the stories being written that comprise the EU. A job that Rostoni continues to this day. No more, no less.

Each side seems to be using this quote as though it were a Lucas affiliated official talking about the place that the EU has in the SW canon; yet the quote makes no mention whatsoever about the films or GL or, for that matter, even "Star Wars". It seems to me that both sides could lay equal claim to it as proof of their view, so it's pointless to debate it.

It is true that the quote makes no relation between the canon and the EU. However, I find it relevant insofar as it makes specific reference to the continuity decision . . . that they would monitor things and try to ensure that no book contradicted another. While perceptions may differ as to whether this has been achieved, it doesn't deflate the point that such was their intent:

"The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be
crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none
of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became
one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes."

She didn't even use the word "continuity" in her quote. If there really is such a creation as "EU Continuity", then it would be pretty unusual for the person who created it and fervently maintained it for many years to mix it up so many times in one quote.

Perhaps. However, given that her use of the term "Canon" is also contradictory to every other use of the term, we are forced to either throw out her quote in its entirety, or attempt to make it work in light of the other knowledge. If you choose the latter, as I did, you'll likely end up doing I have done.

She used "Canon" to talk about the EU books, and only the books.[/quote]

Egad. (shudders in fear at having to talk about Canon EU (as per Rostoni) in addition to Canon, Official, Quasi-Canon, et cetera. Takes aspirin in the hopes of preventing headache.)

She goes on to say the "Infinities" material is not considered part of the SW history. How can we view this, as you say, in light of the other knowledge?

For ease, I'm putting the quote right here (feel free to snip):

"Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon."

The problem I see with the view that ""Infinities" material is not considered part of the SW history" would be that her definition of what that history is and who makes it is fundamentally flawed, just as much as her use of the term "canon" is. You'll note that her phrase "a continuous Star Wars history" refers to one based on the dictates of Lucas Licensing. It's 'continuousness' is based on the attempt to prevent conflict with, or any undermining of the meaning of, Lucas's films and screenplays, and they have created the "Infinities" logo to blackball particular works from being a part of the EU history. Cerasi also makes reference to this concept, as quoted by Sansweet:

"In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity. Basically, if an event happens in Tales, it may not have necessarily happened in the rest of the expanded universe."

(Notice, once again, how the concepts of "Expanded Universe" and "Continuity" seem linked. He actually does that several times in the article.)

I do not see how the Rostoni quote harms my contention, because Rostoni makes it plain that the EU Continuity/Canon/"official Star Wars history" is subservient to Lucas's films and screenplays. That does not suggest that EU information is as good as Canon when the Canon is silent, as is the common presumption. It also does not require that the EU take place in Lucas's world/universe. We know, as per Lucas, that it doesn't.

If we take Cerasi's analogy, that every bit of published SW fiction is a window into the "real" SW universe, with some windows a bit foggier than others and some decidedly abstract (useless?), then Rostoni's "Canon" material (ie. the books w/o Infinities logo) could be viewed as some of the clearer windows. The rest of LL's products would be the abstract, perhaps even useless, windows.

A strong argument, but there are equally weighty problems associated with inserting those analogues into that analogy.

1. As Cerasi says, each contains a nugget of truth.

1-A. When we peer into the EU's window for insight into the 'real' Star Wars universe, we are ignoring the caveat that "When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and only the films." (Italics Cerasi's)

1-B. We do not know whether what we see through the distortions in the foggy glass is accurate or not. Indeed, we can never be certain, whether the actual Canon reality contradicts what we are told in the EU or not. The safest course is to assume that the 'nuggets of truth' are those elements which are 'liberated' directly from the Canon, as opposed to the new, uncertain EU material.

For example, if an EU work said "Luke sat back and remembered firing the proton torpedoes into the Death Star, pulling his X-Wing clear, then twisting around in the cockpit and taking a gnarly dump on the flight controls," I would consider the "nugget of truth" to be that which could be confirmed in the movie . . . as opposed to the nuggets he was dropping on the console.

2. Rostoni's own comments imply that they are attempting to create a continuous and unified history. This doesn't mean it is the history of Lucas's Canon Star Wars universe, and (whatever your perceptions of the "parallel universe" quote) it is clear that Lucas considers himself at liberty to create discontinuity and disunity at his whim.

3. Though I am uncertain as to whether this is implicit in your view, I wanted to refer to it anyway: I am opposed to the concept which I refer to as "Canonicity Whiplash", whereby the removal of Infinities-marked material from the Continuity is thought to constitute proof that the EU's Continuity is part of the Star Wars Canon (unless contradicted).

4. (A continuation of 1-B, I suppose) Rostoni's quote, mixed with Cerasi's windows, leads to a perilous conclusion. Rostoni says all EU is Canon/official Star Wars fact. Under the Cerasi dictate, however, there must be a spectrum of fogginess involved for the EU, with Infinities (presumably) being so abstract as to be virtually opaque. Therefore, taking the EU wholesale, as per Rostoni, must inevitably lead to historical and factual error.

When did someone explain "official"? I know Canon was fairly well explained in the Insider #23 quote and others, and Quasi-Canon was created and explained by Sansweet in the foreward to a book, but I know of no quote which stops to define "official". That was the original point I was making when this whole debate started.

Actually, I believe the term "official" was coined so that we wouldn't have to keep referring to "Every piece of published Star Wars fiction, with the exception of anything with the 'Infinities' logo, which are subject to the canon films, screenplays, film novelizations and radio dramas (in that order)."

Bingo. The problem, though, is that the common insertion of this "official" category into the SW Canon Policy doesn't work. There is no clear basis for it. It is, as per Dalton, "logical interpolation by us".

Wow . . . I'm not even sure I can divine what that means. Are you suggesting that the "parallel universe" of licensing somehow contributes to his universe?

If you mean does GL sometimes get ideas from works produced by LL? Yes, he does. I believe that's how we got "Coruscant".

Actually, I meant it in the broader context:

The bigger point is that these worlds GL spoke of that run in parallel are merely the film producing world of GL and the world of LL which produces works in various mediums.

Again, the peril involves not only the different worlds, but a parallel universe.

I just can't see that. I mean, it's a fine shot, and definitely the most reasonable alternative idea on the quote that I've heard, but I just don't see how it can successfully co-exist with the idea that "this other world" is a "parallel universe". If it weren't for the term "parallel universe", I could go with the idea, but it strikes me as pretty clear that he considers the EU outside of his Star Wars world/universe.

If LL only produced stories for the EU, I would agree with your assessment, but they also license products they never intend to become part of SW history (eg. Star Wars Monopoly).

Is the Monopoly game labelled with the Infinities tag? If not, we have no evidence that it (or, at least, the information it contains) isn't a part of the SW EU Continuity, in some strange crack-addict fashion.

LL is a "parallel universe" insofar as it consists of several "worlds" (or entities again, to be consistent) each one handling production of books, games, and comic books.

The entities are multiplying.

Overall, though, I just can't go with you on this trip . . . from where I sit, it looks like you're taking the ideas far beyond the region of fit. The EU contains these further worlds you posit . . . they are, indeed, part of the EU world that Lucas identified. It's an all-or-nothing deal.

Were they to intrude on his period of time, they could, to borrow a phrase, "undermine the meaning" of Lucas's work.

However, we can't really base an argument on this, since we don't know just where the "stay the hell away from the canon" idea came from. We don't know if Lucas said something along those lines to Wilson and Rostoni, or if they decided it on their own, or if it just happened that way since novelisations had already been produced. I figure it is most likely the latter.

The source of the rule doesn't matter so much.

Well, actually, I think it does. If, from on high, Lucas said "you wanna do what?" it would mean one thing. If, on the other hand, it was an editorial decision on the part of Wilson and Rostoni, it would mean another. If it is just happenstance, it means very little.

The EU has intruded, though, insofar as creating a parallel-universe set-up for the Canon tales, as well as creating an aftermath. I don't see how these intrusions actually make the parallel universe part of the real Star Wars universe, however.

I am not trying to use the intrusions as evidence of EU being a part of SW.

Ah, sorry. As you may have noticed, there have been numerous variable and mutually-contradictory counterarguments presented, making for a bit of a jumble, at times. The attempt to use intrusions as evidence is, at the moment, being championed by Spoofe. Sorry for my confusion.

All I'm saying is that the Cinescape quote is about who is going to continue to create SW stories after Ep 3.

That's clearly the main thrust, but it is equally clear (based on his between-the-movies comments) that he's addressing the licensing world in general.

Well, we know from Kevin J. Anderson that, at least on one occasion, background material has been written in the EU on the basis of Lucas's own beliefs on the matter. (http://www.h4h.com/louis/sources.html, about halfway down the page (several paragraphs of red text))

True, but your theory is that GL is saying "EU = parallel universe". In order for the Cinescape quote to fit your theory "George Lucas" would literally have to be involved in the parallel universe (just not too involved), as a character in one of the EU stories.

What?

Either that, or GL's world "which is the movies" somehow told KJA that he needed to present the Sith as aliens dominated by Dark Jedi.

What? This comes closer to making sense, but I still don't see where you're headed with this . . . or, for that matter, where you are at the moment.

The link you provided shows that GL has "involved himself", for lack of a more elegant term, over at LL by submitting a background for the Sith that authors need to adhere to in their work.

Well, I didn't see the quote being characterized that way. From what I understand, Lucas was consulted, but I don't get the impression that he wrote a memo saying "oh, by the way, this is how such-and-such should happen."

This is more in line with my interpretation that parallel universe = LL, the Earth based company that produces books, games, and comic books.

So, wait . . . what you're saying is that you don't think Lucas was talking about the content?

An author getting ideas from Lucas just doesn't make the case that the universes are one and the same.

No, but it does make the premise of a "world", represented by either a man you could literally bump into or a series of films, giving guidelines to a "parallel universe", the EU, a non-sentient being incapable of following guidelines of any kind, seem rather farfetched.

Again, we've reached a bit of an impasse. You seem to be requiring that I excise the human component out of the Canon Policy statements and the subjects/topics thereof.

The problem I see with that, though, is that the very same people who constitute the human component are the ones creating the Canon Policy to begin with. While we may speak of the EU as an ever-shifting entity that must adhere to the (currently) ever-changing Canon, it's obvious (I think) that this personification is only meant to represent the human component behind the Canon and EU.

There's Lucas's "world, which is the movies". I don't think he means that he lives within the movies or on the film ("Honey, I shrunk the Director!"), nor do I think he simply means "I'm the guy that makes the movies". If he wasn't referring to content, the entire quote rapidly becomes a jumble of disjointed concepts.

"SW-based" being the keyword.

A term I used and thus meaningless for discussion of official quotes. I am nothing.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, in either case.

There are thousands of stories to be told about the characters, but this does not mean that the stories they tell occur in the same galaxy he gave them a glimpse of. I'd say that the clear "parallel universe" concept overrides a contrary interpretation.

At least in the SotME quote, GL says something about the EU, albeit indirectly, the "thousands of stories" are the EU.

Inspired by a glimpse of a galaxy that the Canon provides. But, mixing this with a dash of Cerasi, an inspiration based on a glimpse might stumble into nuggets of truth of Lucas's galaxy/world/universe, or it might not.

In short, by your theory, "thousands of stories" = EU = parallel universe and thus is not part of SWU. The problem is that you have not proved that EU = parallel universe with the one source of evidence you have (GL's Cinescape quote).

I'm sorry, but I still don't see how I haven't. Your wondrous courtesy has prompted me to return the favor and mentally try to go the extra mile when trying to see where you're leading me with your ideas. But, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the Cinescape quote does not refer to the content of the worlds/universes. There are too many counter-indications, and I cannot ignore them.

Besides which, Lucas's precise definition of the concept ("other world", "parallel universe") reinforces and gives a name to the ideas I already had based on the other Canon Policy quotes we work with.

Would you not agree that we should alter theories to fit evidence/definitions, and not vice versa?

Yes, but the evidence for your particular definition of "Continuity" and its use by the quoted officials doesn't justify altering the current theory that what they meant by "continuity" is that which you find in a dictionary.

I simply could not see how this:

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=continuity
(I presume "An uninterrupted succession or flow; a coherent whole." . . . presumed to refer to the Canon and the Non-Canon together)

... could be mixed with the usage/explanation in the following:

"LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation."

"Yes, Star Wars Gamer is part of continuity, though as game material, there is room for interpretation. Only specific articles marked with the 'Infinities' logo within the magazine should be considered out of continuity."

"Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are referenced in newer material whenever possible.

In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity."
- Cerasi via Sansweet

"West End published two of the game books, Scoundrel's Luck and Jedi's Honor, but I don't think they became part of the recognized EU history. It's pretty difficult to make a game book "official," since there are so many versions of every event."

"What did become a recognized part of the EU is Galaxy Guide 4: Alien Races. I still get a secret thrill when I find one of those aliens in some other author's work, and see where he or she has taken the species."

"It starts with the NJO "bible"--a huge compendium of outlines, glossaries, character descriptions, etc. Then each author writes an outline, which gets reviewed, revised, approved, and added to the next version of the bible--as do any new terms, characters, etc. introduced in recent books.

The NJO bible is, of course, an enormous undertaking--but only a small part of the story. Most of the real work takes place in emails and phone conversations between small groups of people. The brainstorming is great fun. Everyone talks to everyone--Del Rey and Lucasfilm editors to each other, editors to authors, authors to authors, and somehow Shelly Shapiro and Sue Rostoni keep it all straight."
-Troy Denning

"My advice: Forget everything you knew, or thought you knew about the origins of Boba Fett. While none of us have seen a script of Episode II or have an idea of the direction in which George Lucas is taking the character, it's fairly safe to say that he won't be held to any of the back stories that have arisen over the years to try to explain the roots of this strong, mostly silent type."
-Sansweet

"The two of them decided that to maintain quality, it would be
crucial to monitor the storylines of all projects and ensure that none
of their books contradicted one another. This continuity decision became
one of the department's biggest challenges--and greatest successes."
-SW Insider, via Graeme Dice

"These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology."
- SW Insider #23 (italics mine)

"Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon."
-Rostoni

The same argument works against the very idea of "Official", too. It has no definition other than the one Warsies have outlined, and is indeed contrary to Lucas's "parallel universe" comments, et cetera.

It's definition can be found in Cerasi's quote, it's the blanket term for the rest of the published SW fiction, the windows into the SWU.

The term "official" does not appear in Cerasi's quote. "Continuity" does, however.

I consider "character" to be a rather specific concept . . . and much as I might like to do the reverse, I do not assume that someone is of good character unless I learn of it myself. As far as I am concerned, Lucas's character is tabula rossa, except for the whole Jar-Jar thing.

You can learn of it for yourself by sources other than personal contact, though, right? I mean, I've never met James Randi, but thanks to the content of his website I know I would definitely like to meet the guy,

You can get information on a person's character from other sources, but whether it is a true representation of their true character can be a hit-or-miss affair. Again, basing an argument on the character of someone we don't know is tenuous, at best.

He does not seem the type to tell these hard working authors that their work has no meaning as they cannot be a part of Star Wars history.

He's already made it clear that he is willing to disregard their versions of his universe when making new parts of his own. I'd be a bit miffed if I were one of these "hard-working authors". Of course, that whole idea is predicated on the notion that the hard-working authors expected their tales to be part of the "real story of Star Wars" to begin with . . . but we have known for a long time that they aren't.

[Coyote]

Khan Jackal...

As it is painfully obvious, there is quite a canon about that which is canon for Star Wars... but again, if you want, you can include and exclude anything you want if it suits you. The only invioable rule really is-- The Movies are Scripture.

As for the reast of the EU being a 'parallel universe' (in that it copies but is not really related to SW) I don't think GL used that phrase in that context (my assumption, though). I think that in his mind the EU is perfectluy acceptable otherwise he would not have sanctioned the copyrights for his creations. But what GL means is simply that if he should make a movie that contradicts something you saw in an AC Crispin novel, well, Ms. Crispin will just have to be set aside in favor of the official word of the SW creator.

To this I would add-- again, my opinion only-- that the Timothy Zahn trilogy is just as canon as the movies. Why? Because from what I understand, Lucas basically handed Zahn the scripts and said, "this was the movie I was going to make, now write it out as a book" and worked closely with Zahn. So I'd put the Zahn trilogy up against any other EU source as "Bible".

OTOH, here on this board the video games are NOT canon, but for my personal preferences, I'd accept any of the Kyle Katarn settings over that horrid Vonda McIntyre novel. "The Crystal Star". I swear to God that several times I had to stop reading that book to look at the cover to make sure I was reading a Star WARS book and not picked up a Star TREK book by mistake. NONE of the characters acted like themselves, I thought Luke was going to start wearing a red shirt any moment. Kyle Katarn ('Dark Forces', 'Valley of the Jedi' and 'Jedi Outcast' PC games) stays true to the nature and concepts of the series and does not interfere with them with such horrible character contradictions. Of course, these games are made by LucasArts, o they should know, and that puts them light years above Vonda McIntyre any day of the week.

I heard a tale-- I could not confirm one way or the other-- that Lucas insisted that any EU novel must deal with the main characters (Han, Luke, Lea etc) because he did not want a new character created by an outsider to develop a greater fan base and steal the spotlight from the established characters. Exceptions given, of course, for folks like Thrawn, Pellaeon, and Mara Jade because these were originally GL creations articulated by Zahn. By LucasArts introducing all new characters of his own (Kyle Katarn and Jan Ors) they can officially introduce new characters without interrupting canon flow. Note that nothing Kyle or Jan does-- despite repeated interaction with Canon characters-- disrupts the flow of their lives or plot in any way.

But again, this is only my interpretation and others may accept or discard it as they see fit (although I'm sure many will agree on "Crystal Star' being the worst of all the novels... heeheehee)

Later!